Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/99AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. A = 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, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - June 17, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS-(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. 3.1) Agenda Item 6 - General Plan Consistency Finding (Ward 4) (Ward 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held May 18 and May 20, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 5.1.a) General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson En~_ineerin~ 5.1.b) requesting to delete Condition of Approval No. 7 of General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment IV regarding minimum residential lot sizes on 51.32 acres located on the west side of Renfro Road, south of Johnson Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Deny Roll call vote. Zone Chan~le P99-0087- Porter Robertson En_~ineerinq requesting a zone change from R-1 - 8,500, R-1 - 10,000 and R-1 - 12,000 to R-1 (One Family Dwelling-6,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum) on 51.32 acres located on the west side of Renfro Road, south of Johnson Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Deny Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday -June 17, 1999 Page 3 (Ward 4) 5.2.a) (VVard 4) 5.2.b) (Ward 4) 5.3.a) (Ward 4) 5.3.b) (Ward 4) 5.3.C) General Plan Amendment P99-0200 - Castle and Cooke CA, Inc. to remove the requirement for the first tier of lots be a minimum of 18,000 square feet in size adjacent to and along the south side of Brimhall Road generally between Allen Road and Jewetta Avenue. Minimum lot size would become 6,000 square feet. (Negative ~ration on file) Recommendation: Roll call vote. De_cl~r Deny ~'~ ~~ Zone Chan~le P99-0200 - Castle and Cooke CA, Inc. to remove the requirement for the first tier of lots be a minimum of 18,000 square feet in size adjacent to and along the south side of Brimhall Road generally between Allen Road and Jewetta Avenue. Minimum lot size would become 6,000 square feet. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Deny Roll call vote. General Plan Amendment P99-0203 - SmithTechlU.S.A., Inc. to amend the general plan designation from Low Density Residential to General Commercial on 13.65 acres located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. Kern River Plan Element P99-0203 - SmithTech/U.S.A., Inc. to amend the Kern River Plan Element from 5.35 (Residential-maximum 7.25 units/net acre) to 6.2 (General Commercial) on 13.65 acres located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. Zone Change P99-0203 - SmithTechlU.S.A., Inc. requesting a zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 13.65 acres located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Deny request, approve C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 17, 1999 Page 4 (Ward 3) 5.4.a) (Ward 3) 5.4.b) (Ward 4) 5.5) (Ward 7) 6. General Plan Amendment P99-0234 - John Thomsen to amend Condition No. 34 of GPA 1-94, Segment III to delete the requirement for a landscaped median in Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184) located southwest of the intersection of State Highway 178 and .Kern Canyon Road. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Deny deletion of median, allow deferral or phasing of landscaping subject to financial guarantee. Roll call vote. Zone Change P99-0234 - John Thomsen to request a change in Condition No. 34 of Zone Change No. 5546 to delete the requirement for a landscaped median in Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184) located southwest of the intersection of State Highway 178 and Kern Canyon Road. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Deny deletion of median, allow deferral or phasing of landscaping subject to financial guarantee. Roll call vote. General Plan Amendment P99-0028 - City of Bakersfield is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing a portion of Pacheco Road from a collector (90 foot wide right-of-way) between Gosford Road and Old River Road, and from an Arterial (110 foot wide right-of-way) between Old River Road and Buena Vista Road to a local street along a similar alignment for the two mile long segment located on a portion of Pacheco Road extending from Buena Vista Road easterly to Gosford Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition by the Greenfield Union School District of 20 acres located north of Berkshire Road approximately 700 feet west of Union Avenue. The site will be developed as an elementary school. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday-June 17,1999 Page 5 7. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 10. ADJOURNMENT June 14, 1999 ~ecretary Planning Director Held Thursday June 17, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARTIN ORTIZ, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Commissioner Tkac announced that Agenda Items 5.2.a and 5.2.b. had been withdrawn. He told the audience that if anyone wished to speak on this matter, the public hearing would be opened. No one wished to speak on these items. Steve DeBranch, Vice President of Land Development at Castle & Cooke, spoke about Agenda Items 5.2.a and 5.2.b and why the project was withdrawn from tonight's meeting. Castle & Cooke felt that it was not the right time to proceed with this project:- There was a great deal of confusion and misinformation regarding this issue. Castle & Cooke's intent from the outset is to enhance the value and quality of this area along Brimhall Road. They plan to have meetings with residents in the area and Castle & Cooke will bring this project back before the Commission at a later date. Chairman Tkac read the Notice of Right to Appeal - Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Brady stated that he did not attend the pre-meeting on Monday, June 14, 1999, but had listened to the tape and would be participating in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS-(marked by asterisk -(*) 3.1) Agenda Item 6 - General Plan Consistency Finding A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the Consent Agenda Item. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 3, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 5.1.a) 5.1 .b) General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson Engineering (Ward 4) Combined with 5.1.b below. Zone Change P99-0087- Porter Robertson Enqineerinq (Ward 4) Staff report recommending denial, due to the rural characteristics of the area, was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. William Bailey spoke in opposition of the project. He stated that he is probably the most affected property owner. On the plan he received, there is no designation of any streets. At the present time, there is approximately 2,000 feet of Johnson Road between Pinto and Ryder which is unpaved. The last time he inquired, this was not a dedicated. road. He has a lot of problem with people using the unpaved road which keeps his home and property very dirty. No one else spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that due to the irregular shape of this piece of property, the tiered zoning placed on this property several years ago places an excessive restriction on the property when trying to design it. It was originally laid out by Cuesta Engineering and it created lots that fronted on Johnson Road, Ryder Street and Renfro Road. The original design created 118 lots. Research has indicated that the major demand in Bakersfield is between 7,500 and 8,500 square foot lots. Based on that Mr. Robertson did a layout of this area and they created a density of 150 lots which exceeded what was originally laid out by 32 lots. Because of that they submitted the request to delete Condition Number 7 which originally created the tiered zoning. After the application was submitted, Mr. Robertson contacted individuals who were expressing concern or objections to the proposal. After meeting with the property owners in the area, it was concluded that rather than delete the condition, it Minutes, PC, ThurSday, June 17, 1999 Page 3 would be better to amend the condition to place a maximum density of three ...... dwelling units per gross-acreon the site, The owner.also decided-as a-result of the meeting, that they would construct a block wall with landscaping in accordancewith city standards along Johnson Road,Renfro Road and Ryder. Therefore, no lots would front on any arterial or collector road within the city. That should effectively act as a buffer between the area and the area to the north. As a result of the meeting, he brought correspondence from the people he met with who are now in agreement with the amendment to the Condition. A letter came to the Planning Department the day before the Planning Commission meeting with a petition signed by eight residents. Since Mr. Robertson did not have time to meet with the individuals, he stated that if a decision on the project could not be reached tonight that he would like to request a continuance of two weeks so that he might be able to meet with them. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked Stanley Grady, Planning Director, if they were to approve the three units per acre and block wall, if the Commission had a resolution and findings to make that kind of decision tonight. Mr. Grady responded by saying that it was not available tonight. Commissioner Boyle stated that he would be in agreement of a continuance so the neighbors and all parties could see what is now being propoSed. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Robertson what is different today than in 1991 when the restrictions were put on? If it was an acceptable compromise then, why isn't it acceptable now? Mr. Robertson said that the current property owner feels that the tiered zoning is excessively restrictive in trying to lay out and develop a piece of property due to the irregular shape of this property. Mr. Robertson and the current owner were not involved with the original zoning restrictions. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the zoning that was placed on the property was the result of some kind of deal so that the owner could get residential zoned lots? Mr. Grady said that there was some negotiated resolution to the concerns. of the neighborhood at the time the applicant for the project was looking for the zone change apProval. Commissioner Brady also asked staff if some other change had occurred since the deal was struck? Mr. Grady stated that if the surroUnding properties are not in disagreement with the change, then staff would recommend approval. Mr. William Bailey stated that he was present for most of the meetings when this project Was first proposed in 1991 and there were a great deal of different approaches made on this land. That particular parcel of land had been fallow for several years and had been invaded by endangered species (kangaroo rats and lizards). At the time the proposal was first made, Fish and Game objected to the Negative Declaration. The size of the lots were a compromise to the residents. Commissioner Brady said that he did not have enough information in front of him to make this change. If Mr. Robertson wants to take this back to the neighbors and work out a new compromise, he would support a continuance to allow them to do that. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Kemper stated that she also supported a continuance. She feels the prior- compromise worked at.that time but when-you look at it it is obvious that it will be difficult to design a tract with the three tiers and the narrow bands. Commissioner Kemper feels the three units per acre is a better compromise for the entire area. Commissioner Boyle feels the three Unit per acre is also an acceptable compromise but would like to get the neighbors agreement. If it is not acceptable to the neighborhood, then Commissioner Boyle does not want to undo something the City Council has agreed with. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Robertson what the source of his research was in regards to the desirability of the smaller square footage of lots? Mr. Robertson responded by saying it was market research done by the property' owner within the last year. Commissioner McGinnis then asked Mr. Robertson how many 6,000 square foot lots does he foresee in the project? Mr. Robertson said 10 percent of the 150 lots. Commissioner Sprague commented that the demand for 6,000 and 8,000 square foot lots is high right now and there are not a lot of them. He did support a continuance. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if Johnson Road is a collector? Ms. Shaw said she would expect that Johnson Road is a collector but that she did not know for sure. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Robertson if the existing development on the north side of the road was pretty much developed and if so are they fronting Johnson Road and do they take access from Johnson Road? Mr. Robertson said they can take access off of Johnson Road but they are 2-1/2 acre lots and front on Sunnydale. The majority of lots back on to Johnson Road. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if this application had not been submitted or had been denied and the project was developed per the zoning, would not a concrete masonry wall with a landscaped parkway be required along Johnson Road? Mr. Grady responded by saying it would not be required on Johnson unless the lots were double fronting (meaning the backs of the lots were on the collector and the fronts of the lot faced a local interior street). Under some circumstances, we do allow homes to front on collectors. Commissioner Dhanens told Mr. Robertson that he would not look favorably upon putting a masonry wall subdivision, like in the urbanized part of Bakersfield, into a rural area. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if a two week continuance would be o.k. or would the project have to go on another general plan cycle? Mr. Grady said that this would still be within the parameters of the notice. Commissioner Dhanens said that he would not be opposed to a continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to continue this iter~ to the Planning Commissioner hearing of July 1, 1999. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 5 -5.2~a)- 5.2.b) 5.3.a) $.3.b) 5.3.c) General-Plan Amendment. P99-0200 -.Castle and Cooke CA,-Inc.. (Ward 4) Withdrawn by applicant. Zone Chan.qe P99-0200 - Castle and Cooke CA, Inc. (Ward 4) Withdrawn by applicant. General Plan Amendment P99-0203 - SmithTechlU.S.A., Inc. (Ward 4) Combined with 5.3.c below. Kern River Plan Element P99-0203 - SmithTech/U.S.A., Inc. (Ward 4) Combined with 5.3.cbelow. Zone Change P99-0203 - SmithTech/U.S.A., Inc. (Ward 4) Staff report recommending to approve the General Plan Amendment and Kern River Plan Element but denying the change to C-2 recommending a C-1 zoning instead was given. Stanley Grady answered Commissioner Dhanens' question from the Monday pre-meeting about the potential conflict between the commercial use on the applicant's proposed site and the existing commercial in the area. He also went into detail about Commissioner Sprague's question from Monday regarding the difference between C-1 and C-2 zoning. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Roger Mclntosh of Martin-Mclntosh .Engineering spoke in opposition. Mr. Mclntosh gave a history of projects that Castle & Cooke has submitted over the years to the City of Bakersfield - the Marketplace shopping center, the Fairways project and the Brimhall General Plan Amendment - whereby Castle & Cooke feels they were not treated fairly by city staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Mclntosh stated that approval of this project would not meet general plan policy 19 regarding the separation of at least % mile between commercial designations. Mr. Mclntosh stated that it would also conflict with general plan policy number 22. He feels that the seven commercial designations already in place both north and south of the Kern River Freeway Alignment would serve this area adequately. Rich O'Neil, speaking on behalf of the Kern River Parkway Committee, asking for a denial of the General Plan Amendment, Kern River Plan Element and the Zone Change. They feel that an additional acreage dedication along Stockdale Highway from the river to Buena Vista would be necessary to offset the increased recreational, environmental and parking demands placed on the Kern River Parkway by the proposed 13.65 commercial zone. An additional seven acre setback and dedication would better serve the developer as well as the citizens of this area. Betsy Teeter, Director of Marketing for Castle & Cooke, reiterated Castle & Cooke's position that the Commission should deny the '13.65 commercial zone. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 6 Ms. Teeter said the project before the Commission that night has a drastic and negative impact-.` The area surroundingStockdale Highway between the river and Buena Vista Road is relatively peaceful. Traffic is not a major problem, bikers, equestrians'and~wildlife can be seen enjoying the serenity of the area. Noise levels are minimal. Ms. Teeter asked the Commission to deny the amendments. Ms. Teeter said that approving the applicant's request will create damage to this area that cannot be undone once it is developed. A five minute break was taken at 7:10 p.m. Bob Smith, with SmithTech representing Coleman Homes, stated that he is in agreement with the staff report. He stated that the proposed commercial center is well over % mile from the two other commercial centers. It is across the street from the Regional Center but they do not see it as a conflict as their project is a Neighborhood Center. The Regional Center has a unique opportunity being surrounded by the park site, 1-1/2 acres of commercial office adjacent to it and access to the Kern River Parkway. Recreation opportunities for that site are unique to Bakersfield. It is not a standard commercial corner. Bob Smith, responded to Commissioner Kemper's question on Monday' regarding the greenbelt. The greenbelt does continue as required by the general plan amendment. There is a 25 foot landscape easement. He feels that as far as the visual is concerned the Neighborhood Commercial center opens up the visual with the landscaped parkway as opposed to a block wall. Tony Hogg, Vice President of Coleman Homes, also spoke in favor of the project. He said they had been working very diligently with Stan Ford from the City Parks and Recreation Department. The size of the linear park will be over 10 acres and the bubble park still exists further to west. Mr. Hogg said they put together a focus group of people who were shopping for new homes in Bakersfield. Mr. Hogg said that during the focus group meeting they showed them the commercial site and the entire layout. The focus group agreed unanimously that this was an excellent site for a commercial project. Convenience to the neighborhood was a big factor. Scott Underhill, from ASU.Associates, spoke for the project. He feels that this is good planning. Mr. Underhill talked about the Neighborhood Center vs. a Regional Center. A Neighborhood Center according to the International Council of Shopping Centers, is a center with acreage of approximately 10 acres with a GLA of not exceeding 100,000 square feet. Across the street would be the community size center. It covers a larger trade area. It ranges from 100,000 sq.ft, to 250,000 sq.ft, typically found on 15 acres. The next category is a sub- regional center. It covers from 15 to 25 acres whose GLA is between 250,000 sq.ft, to 500,000 sq.ft. Right in this area there would be the classical pattern, the neighborhood shopping center meant to service the immediate residents of the area, the community site center which covers a larger area and the sub-regional all in close proximity. All catering to different types of users, different clientele. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Parle 7 Commissioner Brady asked staff if they had a response to the comments from · Mr, Mclntosh that.the-traffic study is-inadequate and.we need .a further EIR. Mr. Hernandez spoke to the legal issues brought up by Mr. Mclntosh. He stated that --he wanted the Commission to note that staff's recommendation is less intensive than that which was recommended by the applicant and it would not cause a problem with noticing as the use that was noticed was more intensive than what staff is recommending. He also said that the standard the Commission needs to go by when making this decision is if there is some credible evidence in the record which supports the decision they are going to make. The third issue raised in opposition is the CEQA issue. Mr. Hernandez wanted the Commission to be aware that it is legally appropriate to use a previous EIR as a basis for a subsequent decision and that is what staff has done here. In order to challenge an environmental document that staff has prepared, the evidence that needs to be presented must be substantial evidence and it can't be mere speculation or unsubstantiated opinion. It has to be specific. It has to identify a specific adverse impact to the environment. Mr. Hernandez said that out of the three items that were brought up about the adequacy of the environmental document - traffic, noise and cumulative effects - there were no specific facts provided which would show an adverse impact. Mr. Hernandez also brought up another issue regarding an agreement that was made with the city between the opponent and the city. The argument was that nothing could be done to lower the value basically of the commercial properties which are in the area because of the agreement. The opponent suggests that this general plan amendment and zone change would violate this agreement. But, the city cannot enter into any type of agreement which would limit its police powers to set land use designations and zone changes. Commissioner Brady asked Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, to address the traffic issue in general and whether the cumulative effects of this project were taken into consideration with all the others going on and whether the Kern COG model was run in this case? Commissioner Brady also wanted a response to the issue whether the traffic impact fees were run correctly? Mr. Walker stated that the Kern COG model was used in the analysis of this project by the engineer, however, because of the size of the project it did not give enough information that could really be used to do a level of service analysis. They opted to use it as a guide and instead used the traditional preferred method of calculating out trip distribution. Standard trip generation analysis was done to determine how many trips would be produced by the example given of the proposed center of 108,000 sq.ft. Mr. Walker stated that the traffic study was found entirely accurate. Commissioner Brady asked if the traffic study was performed with the understanding that the collector and another road would bound the property? Mr. Walker said yes that River Oaks Drive is designated as the collector going east/west and an unnamed street will have a local designation going north/south. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Brady asked if there was a requirement for block walls as it is not in contact with any residential. Mr. Grady-said there-would be. some-standard setback requirements, landscaping and screening of loading docks from residential streets. Commissioner Brady said that he Would like to see a PCD so that there would be some control at the Commission level to protect the neighborhoods from where those things are. He wanted to know if the Commission would be getting a map so that the Commission would have some controls. Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Brady asked how the noise impacts are studied with respect to this project to get the Negative Declaration? Mr. Grady said the noise study that was done for the two sections that were changed from ag to urban addressed the major change from having crops to having some other kind of use. The analysis that was done said that they looked at the big picture and what we would be looking at now is the site specific impact because we are talking about a site specific development. That condition in the mitigation measures under noise requires that the commercial use demonstrate the project commercial noise source impacts on nearby residents are below those indicated in the city's hourly noise level performance standards and that the project applicant may need to include project design features such as setback barriers, building location, orientation of acoustical design, etc. and that would be submitted at site plan review. Commissioner Brady mentioned that the point has been raised that there appears to be some sort of inconsistency of the policies dealing with keeping new commercial at least % mile away from existing commercial. Commissioner Brady asked if Planning staff had a comment or would like to address that issue. Mr. Grady said that the projects Mr. Mclntosh referred to are all owned by Castle & Cooke and are in one geographic area and there is different circumstances associated with each one of those projects including the one that they own just south of this particular proposal. The property on Stockdale had a substantial amount of neighborhood opposition to having the commercial moved from an existing location at the intersection of two arterials at Brimhall and Allen down to Alien and Stockdale. There were different circumstances surrounding all the decisions related to that project. The Grand Canal was another proposal that was immediately adjacent to existing commercial that had some frontage issues and some other site location issues but the project that was presented at the time was for a different kind of shopping center that was not going to be competing with the "neighborhood shopping centers" that would eventually be built. Another situation at Wible and Panama the Council made the decision after their discussion about locating a commercial property at the southwest corner of Panama and Wible. This particular project will be serving a different market than the one across the street. Commissioner Brady asked if the Negative Declaration considered any economic issues about whether these two sites would compete or whether it would damage the value of one property or the other. Mr. Grady said that no economic issues were looked at. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hernandez what the Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 9 requirement is with regard to the economic issues when it comes to CEQA. Mr. ........ Hernandez-responded-by saying the only-time theJocal.agency is required to look at social impacts is if there is a direct link to an environmental impact that ...... could also be deemed to affect the social impact. This project has no link between what is termed an economic impact. Mr. Hernandez sees no evidence in the record that links the social impact to an environmental impact. Commissioner Sprague asked if there was an agreement made between Castle & Cooke and the city in the park land issue which eliminated any more commercial zoning in the area? Mr. Hernandez said that he does not have complete knowledge of the agreement that was presented tonight, however, as a legal basis that there is no way the city could enter into an agreement with anyone that would eliminate its ability to set land use designations or zones within the city. It cannot exercise away its power to make land use decisions. Commissioner Sprague agreed with Commissioner Brady about wanting to see a site plan. He would like to review how its going to be laid out on this particular corner. Commissioner Sprague would like to see a PCD zone also. Commissioner Kemper asked what the Commission can do to require a PCD designation so that the proposal can be managed as it goes along? Mr. Grady said that if they were inclined to do that then tonight the Commission would approve the land use change and as a condition of the land use change the applicant would have to bring back a PCD plan so that the zoning would stay as it is until such time as a precise site development plan is prepared. Commissioner Kemper asked if it would be possible to include this commercial piece in the Maintenance District for the park? Ms. Shaw responded by saying because of the passage of proposition 218, you would have to get a willing participant to add it to the maintenance district for support of the park. As far as adding it to the maintenance district, it can be done. It would take additional Council action to expand the boundary of the maintenance district for that park. Commissioner Kemper said that she feels that would be a fair thing to do. She is concerned about the perceived unfairness to some of the other developers in the area. Commissioner Boyle said that he would be willing to consider the change in the general plan designation but only if it included a condition that the applicant would come back in with a zone change for a PCD. Commissioner Boyle also said that he thought the issue of the maintenance district was an excellent idea. It seems to Commissioner Boyle fundamentally unfair for other developers to get some of the advantages of what Castle & Cooke has done without sharing some of the costs. Commissioner Boyle asked how big 13 acres is. Commissioner Dhanens said that Stockdale and Coffee is 19.15 acres. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Underhill said that they are dealing with a 10 acre site. The 13 acres is a -~gross.amount including roadways. The most recent comparison.is the Albertson's site at Rosedale Highway and Allen Road. Commissioner Dhanens spoke at length about commercial centers and whether or not this proposal is necessary. He feels the size of the center is too large and to have all three types of shopping centers in the area is not really a good thing. Commissioner Dhanens said that after listening to the testimony, Commissioner comments, reviewing the material and drawing frem some of his own background, he would not be in support of the project as presented. He would make the finding that he thinks this center does violate the general plan policy of the % mile separation. He does not think a PCD is a good idea either. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant if he could describe to the Commission why they chose this location for the commercial piece as opposed to some other location within the project. Tony Hogg, with Coleman Homes, said that they looked at it both from a traffic issue and from the fact it was on the collector of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista so they could keep the residential, residential, and the only way out of this site to the east is on the collector. The focus group agreed that this site made more sense. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hogg if they would agree to go with a PCD? Mr. Hogg asked staff if the city is just as protected with a site plan review or does the PCD allow the city more protection? Mr. Grady said that the PCD puts the Commission in the review process. The site plan review process on a standard zone change is a hearing conducted in front of the Development Services Director. Mr. Hogg said that in absence of going through the site plan review process that the PCD would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Brady said in that case the Commission would approve the land use change, deny the zone change and as a part of the land use acceptance the Commission would require, when the project is ready for development, Coleman bring the proposal in for a PCD. Mr. Hogg agreed. Commissioner Brady mentioned that there seems to be some unfairness in one developer across the street puffing tons of money into developing and maintaining a parkway and then Coleman comes in across the street and does not have any obligation for any requirement to help fund it. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hogg if they would be willing to agree to help fund the maintenance district. Mr. Hogg said he does not know what that means in dollars but he would like the Commission to consider the fact that they are puffing up front dollars to develop the linear park and help create the amenities early on as each phase of the development is created. Commissioner Brady asked if staff had any estimates of what the maintenance district would cost? Ms. Shaw said no dollar number has been talked about for the total district yet or how it is going to be distributed among the commercial property. Mr. Grady said the dollar amount was $60,000 and how that is distributed over the entire property including the commercial and office commercial is something that would be determined later by the applicant. Mr. Grady went on to say the dollar amount was agreed to be Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 11 provided to the city to offset the maintenance cost. How the developer divides that. up withthe potential property ownersMr. Grady.did not know. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hogg if there is a-figure he would -be willing to commit to an annual maintenance district for the 30 acre park? Mr. Hogg said that a $10,000 annual fee would be acceptable to them. Bob Smith asked how many acres does Castle & Cooke have that are going.to be assessed for the maintenance district? No one knew the answer to the question. Commissioner Kemper suggested that this might be something that they are unable to determine tonight and suggested that it be dealt with when the PCD came back before the Commission. Commissioner Kemper said that the proportions could be looked at at that time. Commissioner Kemper also asked city staff to research the acreage and proportions so that when the PCD came back, the figures would be known. Commissioner Kemper asked Ms. Shaw if the maintenance district included anything besides the 30-acre park? Ms. Shaw said it was just for the 30-acre park. It does not include street scaping. That would be a separate maintenance district. Commissioner Brady said that as long as the applicant was willing to contribute to the maintenance district, he is willing to support the project to the extent that the change is in the land use designation but he will require that a PCD be required so that the project will come back to the Planning Commission for site plan review. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady about a small commercial site on the northwest side of town that came before the Planning Commission about 3 months ago where they wanted to put a small shopping center, post office, etc. in the middle of a project. Staff recommended denial on that project as it did not make for a "livable" community. Commissioner Boyle asked what the difference was between that project to make it not a "livable" community concept versus the project before them tonight which is a "livable" community? Mr. Grady said they had no concept on the other project to know what was going to put out there. This project has green space amenities linking it to the linear park, this has an enhanced landscape amenity along Stockdale Highway and we've seen the residential subdivision and how it was going to interface with the project. The one in the northeast did not meet the minimum acreage standard. Commissioner Sprague requested to staff that when this project comes back for the PCD that we contact the school's legal counsel to show the Commission how the school fees will be changed if part of the project is converted to commercial on the 13 acres. Mr. Hernandez said that the school's legal counsel are the experts on school fees and he is sure that staff could arrange that. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Parle 12 Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if this project is so different than other .... park-way projects on other arterial streets in thecommunity in terms of moving pedestrians? Mr. Grady said it is the same as what is on Gosford. 'Commissioner Dhanens asked if the setback will still be 25 feet as it is on 'other commercial designated areas on arterials? Mr. Grady said that this is an enhanced setback. The standard setback is not 25 feet. Commissioner Dhanens said that he still could not support the project as presented but in respect to the PCD and how its developed if this is the way it is approved, the Commission should really look at the project and make sure it is designed very well. Commissioner Boyle mentioned that the project should be continued so that the proration of the maintenance district could be worked out and give the applicant an opportunity to come back with an idea as to how they plan to make this shopping center and how it makes it a livable community.~ Commissioner Brady'said he didn;t think it made sense to continue the project as they would not be bound to anything that might be presented. Commissioner Brady stated that he would like to work out an amendment to the motion that a'ccomplishes two things - it approves the land use application as requested subject to the'following: 1) That the applicant return with a PCD zone change on the property and 2) Subject to a condition that the applicant agrees to a pro-rata share in the maintenance district for the 30-acre park. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC on 13.65 gross acres as shown on Exhibit "A" subject to conditions and mitigation measures found on Exhibit "D" and subject to the following: 1) That the applicant return with a PCD zone change on the property and 2) Subject to a condition that the applicant agrees to a pro-rata share in the maintenance district for the 30-acre park and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Dhanens ABSENT: None Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested Kern River Plan Element Amendment to change the designation from 5.35 Residential to 6.2 General Commercial on 13.65 acres as shown on Exhibit "B" subject to conditions and mitigation measures found on Exhibit "D" and subject to the following: 1) That the applicant return with a PCD Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 13 $.4.a) 5.4.b) 'zone change on the property and 2) Subject to a condition that the applicant ..... agrees to a pro-rata share in-.the~maintenance district for-the 30-acre park and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Dhanens ABSENT: None Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested zone change from R-1 to C-1 on 13.65 gross acres as shown on Exhibit "C" and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NoEs: None ABSENT: None A 10 minute break was taken at 9 p.m. General Plan Amendment P99-0234 - John Thomsen (Ward 3) Combined with 5.4.b below. Zone Change P99-0234 - John Thomsen (Ward 3) Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report recommending denial, but allow deferral or phasing of landscaping subject to financial guarantee, was given. Mr. Grady mentioned that the Commission should have a memo dated June 17, 1999, that responds to a question whether or not the applicant was aware of the median and did he raise that issue at the time. There is attached some background material which shows that the applicant was aware of the condition at the time and wanted to request relief from it. He was informed, however, that since the condition was applied by recommendation of the Planning Commission when taking action on the general plan amendment and then confirmed by the Council that we could not act on such a request. The applicant was advised that it was necessary to make an application for a concurrent gpa and zone change to the Planning Commission to revise or delete the condition of approval previously applied to the site. Public portion of the hearing was opened. John Thomsen, aPplicant, spoke at this time and said that after speaking with Marian Shaw and Jim Eggert, they have come to the conClusion that he would be liable for % of the median and it Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page14 would be deferred until it was put in subject to paying their part up front. He agreestopay his-%.of-the median but wouldliketo.defer-the payment until it goes in. He mentioned that Mesa Marin had just completed some major work out there and they did not have to pay up front: He would like the same consideration. No one else spoke for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if she had a response to that? Ms. Shaw said that the City's standard requirement for landscape medians is to require either the construction of the landscape median with the development or payment of the landscape median fee which is $30 a linear foot for % of the landscape median. That is what the city would require on this general plan amendment/zone change or any subsequent site plan that came in. Its a standard requirement that has been in place several years. The requirement for inclusion in a maintenance district can only be imposed on a zone change or a land subdivision. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if there was some reason Mesa Marin was treated differently? Ms. Shaw said that it was a site plan, not a zone change or subdivision. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw what the difference would be in having them pay it before it was built or having them post a bond for it? Ms. Shaw said that when a bond is posted there is usually a time limit associated with it that starts with an agreement. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution denying the requested General Plan Amendment based on findings presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit F-l) and recommend the same to City Council and approving the resolution as set forth in Exhibit "B" with the change in the third line from the end to read "subject to an agreement with the City for the payment of appropriate fees and/or bonding satisfactory to the Public Works Department, to ensure future installation and maintenance thereof." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution denying the requested Zone Change based on findings presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit F-2) and recommend the same to City Council and approving the resolution attached as Exhibit "B" with the change in the third line from the end to read "subject to an agreement with the City for the payment of appropriate fees and/or bonding satisfactory to the Public Works Department, to ensure future installation and maintenance thereof." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 15 5.5) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac None Commissioner Sprague General Plan Amendment P99-0028 - City of Bakersfield (Ward 4) Staff report recommending approval was given. Stanley Grady pointed out to the Commissioners that they were given a memo with attached correspondence that was received after the Planning Commission packets were delivered and a memo responding to a Commissioner question from the pre-meeting regarding a letter submitted by Ted James from Kern County Planning asking if we were precluded from deleting the arterial in our jurisdiction even though it is deemed necessary by the County. Mr. Grady said that McAIlister Ranch was adopted by the County on November 15, 1993, and the adopted Circulation plan does not show the further extension of Pacheco Road as an arterial or any other circulation map designation. Instead, two east/west arterials are shown - one- quarter mile and one-half mile south of Pacheco both intersecting with the east project boundary. There were maps attached to the memo showing the intervening streets. It appeared that should Allen Road be improved as an arterial all the way north past White Lane, Ming Avenue and on through Stockdale Highway, an alternate access to similar capacity through arterial routes could be provided. The specific plan circulation map also shows the future alignment of the West Beltway one-half mile west of the boundary of the south Allen Road alignment. It does not appear that there is any direct connection between the McAIlister Ranch Circulation Plan and the deleting of Pacheco Road. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that his concern is vacating existing right-of-way and bottle necking traffic for whoever owns the property west of the railroad all the way to Buena Vista Road. He feels that as that property is being developed in the future it will cause a major traffic problem. Commissioner Brady feels very strongly that Pacheco Road in its present location does not need to be a collector but a collector should be located mid- way between Harris Road and the railroad line. Reducing Pacheco to a two lane road that close to the railroad crossing is not a good idea. Commissioner Brady feels the road should be realigned at least 600 feet away from the railroad crossing. It is too far between collectors. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if Castle & Cooke's application designated Pacheco Road as a modified collector or local collector for the one- half mile bordering their project? Ms. Shaw stated "yes." Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw what the right-of-way is for that particular street. Ms. Shaw stated that a modified collector has a 60 foot right-of-way that is able to accommodate four lanes of traffic but no parking. Commission Dhanens asked Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 16 Ms. Shaw if a traffic study was done for this area and she said "no" that it was felt -by the-Traffic Engineer-onewasn't needed. Commissioner. Dhanens stated that he was in agreement with staff and would support the amendment. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady when McAIlister Ranch will start construction? Mr. Grady stated that he did not know. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if traffic studies would have to be done out there once construction was started or if they were done during the adoption of the specific plan. Mr. Grady said there were traffic studies done as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the specific plan for Mc^llister Ranch. Mr. Grady said that he did not know the county's rules for site specific developments. Whether or not they have the same rules as the city. As certain thresholds are reached, a supplemental traffic analysis would have to be conducted. Commissioner Boyle stated that he saw no need to make Pacheco Road anything more than a local street. Commissioner Boyle sees no reason to create an arterial that goes no where. Commissioner Brady stated that it was not about McAIlister Ranch. It is about all the residents that are going to live between south of the Southern Pacific Railroad line and north of Harris Road. He stated that that is a lot of houses and the people living there have to have a way to get somewhere. He feels they would do it on the easiest east/west corridor that they can find. If its a two lane next to a railroad track, they will do it. Commissioner Brady feels that Pacheco would not be a road you would want them on. You would want them on a bigger street. Making the potential east/west corridor smaller does not solve the problem. Commissioner Brady stated that Pacheco needs to be moved. It needs to be redrawn while there are no houses there before the subdivision maps are submitted. He feels like there will be a problem and turning Pacheco into a local street will make it worse. This would be turning Pacheco into a two lane 55 mile per hour race track. Commissioner Sprague stated that he would like to see Pacheco Road changed from what is proposed before them tonight. Commissioner Dhanens presented a drawing on the overhead showing the map of the site and stating that because of the railroad Pacheco will only be receiving traffic from one direction and only dealing with half the number of trips. Commissioner Brady disagreed saying that assumes that people will be only going south as opposed to only north. The center of town and most of the working locations is to the north and to the east. People are not going to go south to go north. Commissioner Brady said that he sees a major traffic problem by allowing Pacheco to go down to a two lane road. He feels that it should be moved while they have the opportunity. Commissioner Dhanens said that recognizing that shopping and work related activities are to the north of this development, that if someone lived near Harris Road that they would not filter through the residential area to get to a collector. He asked Ms. Shaw if staff considered having it a modified collector with a 60- foot right-of-way, four travel lanes and no parking? Ms. Shaw said that in her opinion there would still be some problems with a modified collector intersecting with an arterial that close to the railroad. That could be handled, however, by Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 17 10. July 1, 1999 moving it an appropriate distance from the railroad. Commissioner Dhanens -~asked.if staff had. given any thought to Commissioner-Brady's idea of making the specific plan line somewhat to the'south. She responded with a "no" that had not been discussed. There being no further comments or questions, Commissioner Dhanens made a motion, seconded by Boyle, to adopt a resolution approving and adopting a mitigated negative declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment with findings as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "D") and recommend the same to City Council. Motion denied by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, McGinnis NOES: Commissioners Brady, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac ABSENT: None GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (VVard 7) See Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady if it were possible to put the property owner's name on the staff reports in the future. Commissioner Sprague also reiterated his request that the APN numbers be placed on the staff report. Mr. Grady said that where possible, it would be done. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided that there would be a pre-meeting on June 28, 1999. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary