Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, December 16, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS 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, 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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- December 16, 1999 Page 2 5. (Wa~ (Ward 3) 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 #5 - Revised Master Wall and Landscape Plan (Martin-Mclntosh) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held November 4, 1999 and November 18, 1999. REVISED MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P99-0400 (Martin- Mclntosh) for the corner monumentation at the corners of Ming Avenue (extended) and Grand Island Avenue (future street). (Categorically exempt) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARING -VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10617 (Martin-Mclntosh) (phased) containing 14 parcels on 642.13 acres for purposes of creating large lots for future residential and commercial subdivision, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and C-2 (Regional Commercial) zones, generally bounded by Buena Vista Road; White Lane (extended); South Allen Road (extended); and Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file). RECOMMENDATION: - Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5929 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) subdivision to create 88 lots on 22 + acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) for single family residential purposes, generally located north of Panorama Drive, west of Thorner Street. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 21, November 18, 1999 and December 2, 1999) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - December 16, 1999 Page 3 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT/FREEWAY (Wards 1,3,6, 7) Public hearing to accept testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the South Beltway Transportation Corridor Alignment/Freeway. The DEIR public hearing will be focused on the objectivity and adequacy of the DEIR in discussing potential impacts upon the environment; ways in which adverse effects might be mitigated; alternatives to the project consistent with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act; and recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). RECOMMENDATION: Roll call vote. Approve and Adopt resolution making findings and recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: (Wards 1,3,6, 7) 9.1) General Plan Amendment File No. P98-0760 - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield has proposed an amendment to Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopting both the South Beltway Transportation Corridor alignment and the specific plan line between Interstate 5 and State Route 58, a distance of approximately 26 miles, transversing central Kern County and the southern portion of the City of Bakersfield. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with mitigation Roll call vote. 9.2.a) (Ward 4) General Plan Amendment P99-0697 - Martin-Mclntosh has proposed to change the land use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 16.36 acres, located at the southwest corner of Calloway Drive and Olive Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 9.2.b) Zone Change P99-0697 - Martin-Mclntosh has requested a change in zoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 16.36 acres located at the southwest corner of Calloway Drive and Olive Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Deny Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday- December 16, 1999 Page 4 (Ward 4) 9.3.a) General Plan Amendment P99-0701 - Clarence Kastner has proposed to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 56.73 acres, located at the northwest corner of Noriega Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 9.3.b) Zone Change P99-070t - Clarence Kastner has requested a change in zoning from A-20A (Agriculture - 20-acre minimum) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 56.73 acres, located at the northwest corner of Noriega Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. (Ward 4) 10. 9.4.a) General Plan Amendment P99-0867 - Porter Robertson has proposed to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 4 acres, located at the southwest corner of Johnson Road and Renfro Road. (General Rule Exemption) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 9.4. b) Zone Change No. P99-0867 - Porter Robertson has proposed a change in zoning from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling 8,000, 10,000 and 12,000 square feet) on approximately 4 acres, located at the southwest corner of Johnson Road and Renfro Road. (General Rule Exemption) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees Agenda, PC, Thursday - December 16~ 1999 Page 5 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING.~ 13. ADJOURNMENT December 13, 1999 Held December t 6, 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 STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner' PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary Commissioner Boyle stated that he did not attend Monday's pre-meeting but he had listened to a tape of the meeting and was prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. PUBLIC STATEMENTS. Harold Robertson requested that Item 9.4 a. & b. General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. P99-0867 be placed on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Tkac stated that they would handle that when the Consent Agenda Items are read. Commissioner Tkac asked those in the audience who had turned in speaker cards if they would like to speak now or during the actual hearing for the agenda item? Mr. Dave Lopez, Deborah Harrison, Tom Baine and Dave Cross all stated they would speak when the hearing for the agenda item came up. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 2 Ken Kind requested that agenda items 8 and 9.1 be reversed in order. He feels that 9.1 should be held before 8 as if the item goes as expected there might not be a need to hear item 8. Mr. Hernandez said that staff requested that the discussion and recommendation on the specific plan line should come after the hearing for the EIR. Commissioner Tkac said that certifying the EIR has nothing to do with the possible alignments of the freeway. Mr. Kind said that he understood it but did not agree with it. Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac and Dhanens stated that they had talked to Mr. Robertson about moving his agenda item to the consent calendar and they told him to put his request in writing to the whole Commission. They stated that they did not indicate to Mr. Robertson whether or not they would vote one way or the other to support the action. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis to move Agenda Item 9.4 a. & b. to the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. 3.1) Agenda Item #5 - Revised Master Wall and Landscape Plan (Martin-Mclntosh) Roger Mclntosh requested that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve the modified Consent Agenda 3.2 which is Item 9.4 a. & b. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Sprague to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held November 4, 1999 and November 18, 1999, with a change in the November 18 minutes which should have reflected that Commissioner Sprague had a conflict of interest on Agenda Item No. 7.2 (Zone Change No. P99-0743). Motion carried. REVISED MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P99-0400 (Martin- Mclntosh) (Ward 4) Mr. Grady said that staff had nothing to add since Monday's pre-meeting but that the applicant had requested to take it off the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he wanted to clarify one item that they noticed at the last minute. He said that the staff report stated that the corner monumentation would be maintained by the city's consolidated maintenance district. Mr. Mclntosh stated that they would prefer it to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 3 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Brady asked staff for comments about Mr. Mclntosh's request. Mr. Grady said that that was acceptable to staff. Staff can agree the staff report has been modified to accommodate Mr. Mclntosh's request. No change in the motion is needed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the Revised Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan P99-0400 with the findings set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10617 (Martin-Mclntosh) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval attached to resolution. Staff said that a memorandum was passed out to the Commission regarding a question by Commissioner Sprague at the Monday pre-meeting indicating that the pipeline easement is 15 feet wide and how staff typically handles it on a parcel map of this size. Staff feels that the staff report is appropriate as written. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Jim Marino spoke reminding the Commission that when the general plan amendment and zone change was approved, Stream Energy filed a letter with the Planning Commission noting they had mineral interest in the area that the EIR identified two of their wells but not the third well and staff told the Planning Commission that it would be dealt with at the tract map stage. Mr. Marino pointed out that the loop road may be pointed at the third well. It may not work the way it is designed. He stated that Stream Energy has been involved from the beginning and he doesn't want the Commission to have problems later that should be solved before development goes too far. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant Castle & Cooke, CA, stated that they had read the staff report and conditions of approval and were requesting a change in Planning Department Condition No. 9 regarding vacation of and abandonment of abandoned oil wells to current DOG standards. Instead of reading "prior to recordation of this parcel map," they are requesting the sentence read: "Prior to further subdivision, the applicant shall provide written confirmation..." Mr. Mclntosh stated that normally they bring the abandoned wells up to standard at the time that the actual work is done, start subdividing and building the lots out. Mr. Mclntosh stated that Stream Energy was involved in the EIR stage for the general plan amendment and that at the time the EIR was certified, there were two wells in the area. Since then Stream Energy drilled a third well and while the well itself is inside the area where they have a right to drill in, the unit itself is actually outside the area. They have been in discussion with Stream Energy during the past year. Stream's concerns will be taken care of at the end of this year at the expiration of the setback requirement. Mr. Mclntosh also pointed out that about two months ago Stream Energy quit claimed Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 4 all their rights to drill within the entire section except for a 30 acre site and also the loop road that runs through that parcel (Chamber Boulevard) that is currently dedicated to the city is not near their well. It does not conflict at all with the well. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they were aware of the concerns of Stream Energy with regards to this project? Mr. Grady stated that Stream Energy made their concerns known at the time of the EIR for the general plan amendment and zone change. Staff has had a conversation with Mr. Marino regarding well number three and what he believes to be the proximity to the collector street being too close. That will have to be determined with more detail when a map is filed. Commissioner Brady asked staff what their recommendation regarding Mr. Mclntosh's proposed changes to Planning Department condition number nine? Mr. Grady said that Mr. Mclntosh's proposal is acceptable. Commissioner Brady asked Jim Marino if his presence there tonight was to keep Stream Energy in the minds of the Commissioners with regards to this project or is there some specific concerns that should be addressed at the parcel map stage? Mr. Marino said yes, he is just here to remind the Commission that Stream Energy has been in the process from the beginning and nothing has been done to recognize or address their issues. It keeps being pushed back. From his perspective the EIR required drilling islands at the zone change or subdivision stage, so that is a mitigation measure to catch the situation early in the process and if it keeps getting deferred, you will have subdivisions all around the 30 acre mineral interest. You will have people possibly within setback areas because the situation is not being addressed early in the process. Mr. Marino said he thinks the EIR mitigation measures should be followed. Locate the wells. Figure out where the drilling islands will be and address setbacks now. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Marino if he would oppose the language suggested by Mr. Mclntosh which indicates that the upgrading of the well abandonment should be done for the subdivision or as it is printed, prior to recordation? Mr. Marino said he has no opposition to that. The concern with Stream is that they have three active wells right now. They are economically viable and they plan to drill more wells. Commissioner Brady said that he believes it is appropriate to handle the concerns set forth by Stream Energy at the subdivision map stage and not at the tentative parcel map stage and he would be supportive of this parcel map. Commissioner Sprague stated that he had a problem with the setback being only 50 feet for the gas pipeline running through the southwest portion of this property. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commission could make it 100 feet adjacent to residential or commercial property? Mr. Grady said that the Commission could evaluate that when there is a project in front of them where that decision needs to be made. Staff could make available to the Commission information that staff used from studies conducted on previous maps where the 50 feet comes from and if the Commission makes a determination that it should be larger, it could be done. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 5 Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels the matter with Stream Energy can be handled at subdivision time. With respect to the gas pipeline, the memo given to the Planning Commission stated that the Environmental Office of the Fire Department developed in part the 50 foot setback requirement. He feels comfortable that that is an applicable requirement but perhaps in the future someone from the Fire Department could come and explain how they arrived at the figure. Commission Dhanens further stated that he supports the project with Mr. Mclntosh's change. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10617 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following change to Planning Department Condition No. 9 in Exhibit "1" the first sentence to read: "Prior to further subdivision the applicant shall provide written confirmation .... " Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5929 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 3) commissioner Boyle declared conflict of interest on Agenda Items 7, 8, 9.1 and 9.2. He excused himself temporarily from the meeting. Staff report given recommending approval. Staff has not received any evidence from the gas company to support keeping the lot lines out of the easement, so, therefore, staff is recommending the new map be approved as proposed. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson said they had received a copy of the memo from the Planning . Department and they are in agreement. Mr. Robertson thanked the Planning Commission and the staff for their patience in the numerous hearings they have had. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that he was glad staff came up with this determination after evaluation and he appreciated the time that was put into this. The subdivision to the south is a like kind and he thinks it should have been approved at the last meeting. Commissioner McGinnis said that in regard to his questions about accessability and that easement by Southern California Edison and their lack of response to the city staff and trying to respond to their interest in that easement, he too would reserve any previous hesitations he had and would support a motion. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 6 Motion was made byCommissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5929 dated November 17, 1999, with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "^" with the deletion of Finding 9 and Planning Department Condition 3. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT/FREEWAY (Wards 1,3,6,7) Staff report recommending certification of the EIR was given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following people spoke in opposition: Ken Kind, representing some landowners in the Hosking Road alignment, asked if they are tak!ng the alignment question before they take the EIR question? The answer was no. The EIR will be first. Mr. Kind spoke against the EIR. He said the EIR focuses on the corridor and not the construction of the freeway. He said when you are reading the EIR, it states over and over again "we'll worry about it later." What are we going to do about the noise going through residential neighborhoods? What are we going to do about a dead no-mans land cut 300 feet wide through a growing neighborhood? The EIR should answer these questions. He stated there is no noise study included in the EIR. Carl Hernandez explained to' the audience that the hearing is to deal with the certification of the EIR and adequacy of the EIR and the study of the significant effects to the environment which any of the alternatives which are shown in the EIR may have. The city must improve the environmental document prior to or concurrently with the approval of the specific plan line which is one of the alternatives set forth in the EIR. CEQA requires that the environmental study be done before a project is approved. In this case, what we are doing, is simply dealing with whether the environmental document and all the environmental studies which have been performed for each one of the alternatives is adequate and meets the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. After that is done, the next item deals with recommending that a specific plan line be adopted. That is when the actual plan line will be set. It is for us to have orderly development in the future. Once the plan line is set, any development in the future will have to take it into account. The specific plan line needs to be adopted after certification of the EIR. Commissioner Tkac stated that it is not easy for any of the Commissioners to pick one specific plan line over another. He then asked anyone else in opposition of the environmental impact report to come forward. Renee Nelson stated that the purpose of the beltway is to move people around the community, not through it. She also asked why this alignment was not ranked in the Kern COG process? Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 7 Ingrid Colson, a property owner on DiGiorgio Road, asked why the freeway was designed to go through a floodplain? What will it do to the landowners next to the corridor? Will it change the lay of the land? Will the flooding be worse on her property? Dave Lopez, a concerned homeowner and parent, does not want to see cars running through his back yard. Arlene Collins stated that she does not want to live near a freeway. A lot of filth and noise comes from a freeway. Ron Hobart, homeowner, said that he is concerned that the flood water issue has not been addressed. He said that the EIR did not say how the water would be dealt with. Marilyn Balfour, property owner, stated that the freeway should stay away from development. It should be placed further out not where people are building subdivisions. Gary Newton, who lives on the northeast corner of Weedpatch Highway, would also like the flood water problem addressed. Roger Mclntosh, representing Delfino LLC, stated that he was asked two days ago to take a look at the EIR and would like to address some issues. What struck him as odd is that after the first set of public hearings when the draft and the final EIR were presented to the public, the consultant was asked to go back and do additional environmental evaluation on the red alignment which was then the preferred alignment. If you look at the additional information, throughout the document it says that this document focuses on the current revised preferred alternative for this project. In Section 1, Section 1.2 the last sentence, says that beginning in 1988, the City of Bakersfield has evaluated a total of six alternatives to the south beltway corridor with the current revised preferred alternative alignment contained in this report as the alternative advanced for further consideration by the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission. Clearly, the intent was and the direction by the Planning Commission was to further study the red alignment. Page 1.2 Section 1.4 talks about the approval of the December 1988 environme.ntal impact report and 1999 supplemental environmental evaluation of the revised preferred alternative. There is a very extensive description about the revised preferred alternative on Page 2-1 that talks about the alignment and interchange locations. The'exhibits Page 3-1 and 3-2 simply shows the revised preferred alignment. It doesn't show any of the other alternative alignments or the current preferred alignment. Mr. Mclntosh said there is an extensive noise analysis on Page 3-26 that talks about the decibel levels and the impact of the contour which is up to 1,450 feet away from the centerline of the roadway. Mr. Mclntosh said that his point is that substantial and significant further evaluation has been provided of the red alignment, however, there have been recent changes in the blue alignment that he needs to point out to the Commission. Within the last year, his firm processed and the Commission approved Vesting Tentative Tract 5933 which is a 20-acre subdivision bisected by the blue alignment and they have already started the Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 8 processing on Vesting Tentative Tract 5971 which is another 40 acres adjacent and immediately west of the other tract. The blue alignment goes through the two subdivisions and as the Commission knows, on Vesting Tentative Maps, the Vesting gives the developer the right to build houses. There is another 60 houses that would be built within the 25 year period as the developer continues on with his development and pulls permits and builds in there. The blue alignment would impact those additional 60 houses. Mr. Mclntosh did not see where that was addressed. He thinks that the residents who live along the blue alignment and the property owners deserve to have. additional environmental evaluation done similar to what was done in the red alignment. Fred Brown, a resident in the area affected by the new Hosking alignment, had some questions for the Commission regarding the EIR. He asked if the Planning Commission was aware of just how many residents were affected by the northern alignment? He also asked if the specific plan line could be built sooner once the Ell:{ was approved? For example, can funding from another project (such as the Kern River Freeway) be transferred to the Southern Beltway project? Bob Maldonado, a resident, stated that if a freeway were built, flooding would be really bad in his area. He also said that instead of going 10 miles east, it would save money by going two miles north to connect into the current 58 freeway. Michael Davidson, a resident near the Hosking alignment, said that he moved here 10 years ago to get away from freeways and now he is unhappy to hear that one may be put in his back yard. David Miller, a resident on the corner of Muller and Fairfax, said that if this freeway goes through, his house will be bulldozed. He gave an alternate route for the freeway that would save a lot of people's homes. No one spoke in favor of the project. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Grady entered a letter into the record from Teri Bjorn of Clifford and Brown summarizing her understanding from the meeting that we would be including in our resolution language that would allow for the oil and related operations to continue into the right-of-way and she asked that we enter it into the record. Commissioner Brady stated that he would like to address some of the issues raised. The first one Mr. Kind raised that in the EIR the noise study is apparently not included. Mr. Brady said it was not included in his either and asked staff why? Mr. Gauthier said that he was not aware that some of them didn't have it. Most of the sets have it but there must have been a set that an error was made in reproduction. Commissioner Brady asked the other Commissioners to check their books to see if they have the information. Some had the information and some did not. Commissioner Brady asked staff about the suggestion by Mr. Kind that the EIR, specifically with regard to noise and the cohesiveness of the neighborhood, suggests that we would handle that in a further study and asked staff to respond to that contention. 'Jeff Zimmerman, consultant with Woodward Clyde, said that a full noise Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 9 study was done on the different alignments. They used federal, state and local criteria when they conducted the study. After looking at all three, they determined that a level of 67 dBA LDN would determine the threshold. If it went over that threshold then, it would be over the three levels of criteria. They used a noise model from CalTrans. Commissioner Brady asked if they looked at an eight lane freeway? Mr. Zimmerman stated that he would have to check but he knows they looked at a 4 to 6 lane freeway. Mr. Zimmerman stated that adding additional lanes to a six lane freeway does not change the noise level very much. He stated they modeled a cross section of a freeway with full traffic at capacity which would produce the highest level of noise. Capacity of noise is looking at the highest speeds that would travel on such a freeway at the densest level. Noise on freeways actually goes down when there is congestion because cars are traveling slower. The maximum noise level is reached when you are at a Level of Service C. This was measured out to 1,400 feet from the freeway on both sides. They identified a number of areas that would be impacted by noise. When they look at the threshold level, that is the criteria at which a significant impact would be determined and at which time the impact would be mitigated. Lower levels than that still produce noise but is not considered significant. They noted in the Ell:{ that the corridor would not be developed for perhaps 20 to 30 years and that there would be additional housing at that time and you would have to do a full analysis at that time to mitigate it. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Zimmerman then if it is their opinion that at the time of construction further noise studies would be required to determine where noise barriers will be erected? Mr. Zimmerman said that regardless of what you do, you would do a new noise study at the time the freeway is built because circumstances change, threshold of criteria might change, and federal and state regulations might change. There is no doubt a further study and analysis would have to be done on the noise issue. Carl Hernandez stated that one important concept the Commission needs to understand regarding the EIR is that the EIR before them is what's called a tiered EIR. What CEQA allows is that you can have a number of environmental documents depending on the type of decision that's before you. In this case you are trying to set the specific plan line. With a tier one document, CEQA allows you to evaluate broad environmental issues and then at the construction and design stage of the project CEQ^ requires you to focus on the more specific and site specific criteria for significant effects that have been studied in the previous EIRs. Mr. Hernandez stated that this will not be the only EIR that is performed for this project. Commissioner Brady confirmed with Mr. Hernandez that there is no way that at this time it can be determined what the design of the overpasses and underpasses will be or their location in 1999 when construction will not take place before 2020 or 2030. Mr. Hernandez said that is correct. That is the concept of having the tiering document. To. be able to evaluate broad issues and later to narrow in and focus with further EIRs. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 10 Commissioner Brady asked for a comment from the consultant or staff on what the adequacy of the discussion regarding whether number one the environmental document addresses merely drawing the line and the effect that might have on the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and second the actual construction of the freeway as a separate issue. Mr. Zimmerman stated that neighborhood cohesiveness is addressed in both documents. It is brief but to the point and was identified as a potentially significant impact, On Page 3-107 in the blue document mitigation was identified for such an impact. Mr. Zimmerman also pointed out that one of the purposes at this point of locating the corridor is to identify that corridor so that development goes on either side not in the middle so you are not going through in years to come relocating all the homes within that corridor. Corridor protection is the basic attempt in this document. Mr. Hernandez stated that a social or economic impact itself cannot be evaluated as a significant effect caused by the project. CEQA law says that local agencies are not required to address those impacts. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Zimmerman if he feels that the document addresses the issues about the significant flooding that has occurred in the area historically and if running a freeway through this area will create a dam and increase the level of flooding on adjacent properties? Mr. Zimmerman said the document does address flooding. He pointed out figure 3.4-1 in the blue covered document (the original EIR) which identified that all of the alignments would cross through the floodplain. The mitigation states that at the time of design they need to take into consideration not changing the extent of flooding or exasperating the type of flooding through drainage channels or adding additional culverts under the freeway to allow the floodplain to cross so that it stays the same. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the impact of flooding had adequately been addressed in the three documents? Mr. Zimmerman stated yes and Mr. Gauthier stated yes. Commissioner Brady said that recently they had been told that a new traffic study had been done which indicated that there was a traffic flow difference in what the various routes would handle and asked if there is such a study if that is a part of the environmental documents? Ms. Shaw said that it is a part of the environmental document. Some figures have been presented. Ms. Shaw referred to Section 322 on Page 3-6 or 3-7 of the supplemental EIR. Commissioner Brady asked if the Kern COG model'is what we use in this area for all efforts to determine traffic forcasting? Ms. Shaw said it is used for all general plan amendments and traffic studies. Commissioner Brady asked why the year 2030 was chosen? Ms. Shaw stated that it is a year of horizon, that is, a few years after they expect the freeway to be built. Commissioner Brady stated that there have been some concerns that somewhere some money would appear and the freeway would get constructed sooner. He asked Ms. Shaw for a comment? Ms. Shaw said there is no money expected to be attached to this freeway at least until the year 2017. It is not on Kern COG's list for construction. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Kind if the request for continuance was on the adequacy of the EIR or choosing the alignment? Mr. Kind stated it was for both items. The people on the Hosking Road corridor were under the impression they were no longer under consideration and they just found out they are still the preferred alignment and there has not been adequate time for the neighborhood to get together to address the issues that they thought had been put to rest 6 to 8 months to a year ago. Commissioner Brady stated that another issue has been raised that a year has passed since anyenvironmental study has been done concerning the other routes other than the "red line" preferred reute. Does staff have a comment about the development and changes that have occurred in the last year that have-not-been' addressed in any environmental document and do we have enough information presently to make a determination in light of the lapse of time? Mr. Hernandez said that he understands the concern that has been stated but feels that it would be speculative to try to study that because tentative maps that come in for renewal and tentative maps expire and there is no way to be certain that a certain vesting tentative map that has been approved is going to be finaled and whether houses are going to be constructed within the area. The rights that those maps have cannot be affected by any decision of the Planning Commission once they have vested. Mr. Hernandez also stated that it appears that there is some concern as to whether the draft EIR that was done needs to be restudied in light of new information that was brought up in regards to the blue alignment. He believes that the City is not required to perform any other study or recirculation of the draft Ell:{ because there was no "new" significant issues which were brought to the city's attention with the study of the blue line or any other new significant environmental issues that have been ~raised through any of the hearing processes they have had including today. Commissioner Brady said that he has a concern that there may be new issues that have come up in the last year that haven't been addressed because we did not recirculate the document to the agencies and the people based on present day circumstances. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hernandez if the passage of time is irrelevant with regard to whether this EIR is adequate to address all the environmental concerns? Mr. Hernandez stated that the law makes clear that the passage of time does not effect the status of an environmental document as long as there are no "new" environmental impacts which have either been brought to the Commission's attention through public comment or through the consultant that has done the work to date. The consultant has reviewed the documentation and has found there are no new significant environmental effects since the Commission last addressed the draft EIR. In addition to that there are no new environmental effects which are raised with the additional information that was done for the blue line study that is shown on the screen. A five minute break was taken. Commissioner Dhanens asked if in respect to CEQA Guidelines if it is required for the consultant to look at the cost or the cost benefit analysis of the various alignments and do some kind of study to determine which one would be more cost effective based on its configuration? Mr. Hernandez stated that CEQA just requires that the different project alternatives and their different environmental impacts be compared with one Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 12 another. CEQA does not require that the city do a cost benefit analysis on each of the project alternatives. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Hernandez if the cost benefit analysis would be done at the time of construction. Mr. Hernandez answered that CEQA does not require an analysis be done at that time either. Commissioner Dhanens said that since it had been a year since the original environmental document was written and there had been some Vesting Tentative Tracts approved if that would be considered a significant environmental impact that would need further study? Mr. Hernandez stated any study would be clearly speculative. There is no guarantee that a tentative map would ever be built. Mr. Hernandez said it is an economic issue not an environmental issue. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels comfortable in the environmental document and the teStimony being considered has been adequate to address all of the alignments. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he shared Commissioner Dhanens comments. He stated that he feels comfortable with the environmental impact report. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he feels it is their job to try to find an alignment that will effect the least number of people and still move traffic the way they are set out to do at this time. Commissioner Sprague stated that in the committee meeting on Monday no specific line was chosen. Regarding the EIR, he feels that staff and Woodward Clyde have discussed the issues regarding noise. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if an alignment was chosen in the area where the additional study was made around Bear Mountain Road if it would have any effect on the environmental impact report in any way? Mr. Hernandez stated that the only concern he would have from a legal standpoint would be how another alignment would affect the noticing that has been given to the community. If an alignment was chosen outside of the notice area, it would be a concern. Commissioner Sprague asked if, out of the six alignments, they were mixed or matched and an alignment was picked, if that would affect in any way the environmental impact report in front of them now? Mr. Hernandez stated that it was staff's opinion, it would not change the basis for the adequacy of the document itself. Commissioner Sprague stated that he was having a tough time supporting the approval of the environmental impact, report tonight without knowing where they are at with some type of specific line .corridor that they could be working with and basically he is leaning toward supporting a continuance of the environmental impact report subject to the next item on the agenda which is the beltway alignment. Commissioner Kemper stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Dhanens in that the environmental impact report has adequately met .the requirements of the law. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 13 The flood issues she feels are addressed adequately in the Tier 1 document and does not feel the issues should delay the approval of the environmental impact report. They can be addressed more specifically at a later time. Commissioner Brady stated that he had an opportunity to review from the environmental impact report Pages 354 - 361 that deals with the noise studies. He stated that he had read them before in a previous document and he reread them now and feels they do address the issues of sound walls and each of the particular alignments and he feels that they are satisfactory with regard to meeting the criteria necessary for approving this draft environmental impact report. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Hernandez if the Commission chose a "mutation" route would it be conceivable that they might need to have a continuance and re-notice the residents in the area? Mr. Hernandez said that a re-noticing would not be necessary if it was in the corridor that was studied. Regarding the specific plan alignment, there is a potential that re-noticing might be necessary if the alignment falls outside the noticing areas that were provided for the project. Chairman Tkac asked Mr. Hernandez if a person buys a home in the area, how long has it been noticed that a freeway might be going in there? Mr. Hernandez said that it is important to note that the South Beltway has been an element of the general plan for some time and now we are going forward to set a specific plan line. So, with regards to notice about the alignment going in the area, the general plan shows it. The legal requirements of giving notice are when a public report is given to the State of California, there is a requirement that certain types of information be included in that report that give notice to persons who are going to purchase the property of any particular items that may be of importance to the individual making the decision to purchase the home. Mr. Hernandez says that he believes homeowners are provided that type of information through escrow or prior to escrow so that they can. know what types of matters may be affecting their purchase. Chairman Tkac asked Mr. Zimmerman if he could give a brief statement of when an environmental impact report is put together how do you arrive at the recommendations you make regarding all aspects of pollution? Mr. Zimmerman said they looked at the standard that is normally addressed on this type of project. They were hired by staff because they have a lot of experience on transportation projects. Based on that experieni:e they look at all of the issues that need to be addressed under CEQA.. There is a whole range from dust to air pollution, noise, visual effects, etc. that you are required to take under consideration of whether there are any significant environmental impacts caused by the action the lead agency might take. They are grouped into categories and each are addressed. Chairman Tkac stated that he was satisfied with what he has seen. They have gone overboard to look at in detail and given the fact that in time there will be other reports done along the way, he is prepared to certify the EIR. There were no other Commissioner comments or questions. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 14 Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to adopt the resolution recommending certification of the South Beltway Transportation Corridor Final Environmental Impact Report with findings as presented in resolution Exhibit "G" to the City Council subject to approval of mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "C" with the inclusion of two memos, one dated December 16 and December 7, 1999, from city staff. Commissioner Dhanens stated that it appeared to him that contents of the December 7 memo were reiterated in the December 16 memo. He stated that they seem to address the same issue with regard to current oil and gas exploration issues. Mr. Gauthier answered that one ofthem'has to do with oil and gas issues. The other one were some additions to the resolution made by Carl Hernandez. Mr. Gauthier said that the memos are separate and the motion Commissioner Kemper made is applicable. Motion was carried .by the following roil call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Boyle A 20 minute break was taken at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: -9.1) General Plan Amendment File No. P98-0760 - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield (Wards 1,3,6, 7) Staff report given by Ms. Shaw of the Public Works Department. Ms. Shaw stated that any of these alignments will affect people's homes but the blue line alignment (Hosking alignment) best serves the City of Bakersfield as a whole for carrying traffic. Ms. Shaw stated that the Public Works' staff has got to recommend to the Commission that that particular alignment be recommended to the City Council as the preferred alignment. Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following people spoke in opposition to the recommendation. Mr. Ken Kind, representing the property owners of the Hosking Road corridor, stated that he found it hard to believe the traffic figures alone weren't a factor that would have changed the EIR in the past year. He feels that the corridor should be selected on not how many people would be displaced but by how many people it would "impact." You can't just count the number of houses that Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page will be bulldozed. The houses within 1,000 or 2,000 feet should have rights, too. At the latest count, there are around 750 houses out there which means a couple thousand people whose lives are going to be irrevocably changed if this corridor is adopted. Roger Mclntosh, representing Delfino LLC, showed the Commission what impact the Hosking Road alignment would have on two tentative tracts. He stated that this area is a prime area where it is no longer viable to use as an agriculture area. It is a 20-acre parcel and a 40-acre parcel and it is his feeling that the subdivisions will build out in the next ten years. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he looked at the traffic tables and the ADT shown on the Hosking Road alignment and he would question the number of 122,000 cars per day vs. 16,000 cars per day on the alignment two miles to the south. He asked the Commission that when they consider the alignments, they need to think of the volume and the immense traffic that this model is projecting to use of the Hosking Road alignment. Mr. Mclntosh suggested that the model be looked at and see what assumptions were used. The following homeowners within the blue and red alignments spoke in opposition: Deborah Harrison, Arlene Collins, Bonnie Quoinnes, Ms. Lockridge, Tom Baine, Michael Lehman, Ron Hobart, Xavier Reyes, Clark Skinner, Penny Manning, Marilyn Balfour, Butch Kelly, Betty House, Matt Whylan, John Sternaman, Ray Lemee, Jim House, Norm Mashow, Bruna Lemee, and Alma Kirby. Dennis Fox spoke in favor of the project except for the east side of the alignment. John Cicerroni stated that he was not sure if his comments were for or against the preferred alignment but his comments are specific to terminating at Comanche Road and Highway 58. He asked if city staff was in favor of that? Ms. Shaw said that staff's comments and support were pretty much limited to the area through the core of the city which is around 99. With regards to the east extension that is pretty much in the county's jurisdiction. The city has taken a look at connecting at Comanche and that is as effective as the other alignment which connects further to the east. Staff feels that either one will work quite well. Mr. Cicerroni stated that he would take that as a yes and reserve the rest of his comments in support of terminating at Comanche. The following people spoke in favor: Mr. Cicerroni, representing various property owners in East Bakersfield, stated that they were in favor of terminating the beltway at Comanche. He said that over the last two years they have submitted letters to both city and county planning. There are numerous reasons for terminating at Comanche, such as: Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 16 cost, better service for cultural entertainment and recreational centers, better service for existing proposed housing, greater preservation of ag land and finally terminating in a method so that it will permit continuation of a beltway down Comanche, connecting to Alfred Harrell and points north. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Cicerroni if he was saying that the beltway should terminate and intersect with Highway 178 and Comanche? Mr. Cicerroni stated that they think it should terminate down Comanche connecting with Alfred Harrell Highway. Pauline Larwood, representing Sunridge Nursery, spoke in favor of supporting staff's recommendation terminating the South Beltway at Comanche. Stan Antongiavanni asked the Commission to rise above the emotional issues and do the best thing for Bakersfield not necessarily for a neighborhood. Keep in mind that they are voting on behalf of 250,000 people not just himself as a landowner and individual homeowner. He stated he supports staff"s recommendation of the blue line. Dave Cross, representing property owners at Bear Mountain Blvd. and Freeway 99, supported the Bear Mountain route. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Kemper stated that when this came before the Commission over a year ago, it was in response to a City Council person whose concern was that in the 2010 Plan the alignment that had been on the map for years was in an area that was already developed near Pacheco. It was obvious the City needed to come up with another beltway route because that area was already built out. One of the reasons City staff came up with the proposal for the blue line was because of trip numbers. In order to get the money to build the freeway, you have to have the numbers to justify it. The closer it is placed to the city, the more trip numbers and money. Commissioner Kemper stated that she is not in favor of either the blue line or the red line. She is not sure if a decision could be reached tonight. Commissioner Sprague stated that he feels in the true sense of the word, Bear Mountain is probably the best alignment going out but not terminating at Malaga. It should align along Comanche and come out at 178 and possibly going north at a later date when a north/south beltway is considered. He stated that if the specific line that is chosen tonight or at a later date is selected it is his belief that they not only need to consider the existing people that are going to be displaced but also the existing tentative and vesting tentative tract maps that are already on the board. Commissioner Sprague mentioned that last year when he started making comments on the subject that maybe they should look at tweaking south of Taft Highway in the Pumpkin Center area 600 feet or so and possibly getting around Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 17 the Curnow Road area where it is open farm land and then laterally out connecting into 99, going out to Cottonwood Road and then laterally east to Comanche and coming up Comanche. He stated that that is what he thought they were going to get when it came back as an additional environmental evaluation booklet. But it came back as the Engle Road alignment (the red line). Engle Road is quite a bit removed from Taft Highway and consequently when you get that far south of Taft Highway, you will obviously generate lesser traffic units and trips per day on Engle Road. If you go between those, traffic generation would go up. A line needs to be set to accommodate for projected future growth and development in the north and south areas. Commissioner Sprague said that it is his belief that we can choose a Bear Mountain Road alignment or they could choose an area between Taft Highway and Curnow Road, lateral across farmland, slightly curve up Comanche, build up the roadway over the floodplain, drain it, and terminate at Highway 178 and it would not affect any homes or less than five homes if at all. Commissioner Sprague suggested that this be referred back to committee to look at some other alternatives as long as it is within the area of the EIR that was approved and perhaps the Commission could arrive at a conclusive specific line that will work for the future and work for the citizens of Bakersfield. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the 2010 General Plan established a South Beltway Line that was adjacent or near Panama Lane and Pacheco. It has been built out and no specific plan line was adopted so, therefore, reservation of right- of-way did not exist at that time. The Commission is trying to do that at this time. Until the line gets drawn on a map, the agent (or developer) doesn't know what to tell future home buyers. Commissioner Dhanens explained the EIR process and explained that as Planning Commissioners appointed by the City Council they have a responsibility to look at issues that affect the entire City of Bakersfield. Not one particular neighborhood over another. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if the traffic numbers were based on a Kern COG modal that is used every time a general plan amendment or zone change is presented in terms of addressing traffic impacts? Ms. Shaw said "yes". Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw what the difference is between the figures that were used a year ago and the figures that are presented now? Ms. Shaw stated that they are using a 2030 modal which is a projection 10 years further down the road. Commissioner Dhanens asked if there were any other factors at work besides the additional 10 years. Ms. Shaw stated that what is taken into account is what they expect the circulation system to be in that year' 2030. Between the older model that was done for the previous study and this one they did take a closer look at. several segments and made some changes. It has to take into account the buildout of the land uses that are allowed by the general plan but all those assumptions are based on the projections, projecting out an additional ten years. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 18 Commissioner Dhanens also asked Ms. Shaw if it also takes into account that if the project were approved, that the land uses in that area would change to a point where they would be more dense or would be developed faster because of the project or that additional land that is now agricultural be converted to some other use because of the freeway and its growth inducing impact or is it just on the books today? Ms. Shaw said they use what is on the books today as a basis. The demographers at Kern COG do make their best guess as to how those land uses would develop. Commissioner Brady stated that he sees his role on the Planning Commission as a problem solver. He put a lot of research and personal time in this project and he is not just trying to solve the problems of those in the neighborhoods now but the people who are going to live in this city in 30 years. One of the problems will be how to move traffic from point A to point B. The problem is going to exist and staff is trying to solve the problem. He stated that he will not support now or in the future the Hosking Road alignment. The City should live by the decision they made. Bear Mountain would not solve the problem of moving a significant number of people. Commissioner Brady stated that he thinks Engle Road is too far south and that people would not be willing to drive that far south to go north. When the Commission voted to have a new alignment, he believed that the new alignment would be just to the south of Taft Highway so the existing businesses would not be disturbed. He believes that if the alignment were moved 600 to 1,000 feet south of Taft Highway and Taft Highway became a frontage road that there would be enough separation so that traffic would not be affected. He stated that he would support that alignment. It is the best alternative that they could go to. Commissioner McGinnis said that he personally could not make a decision at this time. He does not care for either the blue or red line. He does not have enough information to select another alignment at this time. He feels that the best solution is to refer this item back to a committee and go on with the rest of tonight's agenda. Commissioner Sprague stated that he did not support either the red or blue alignment and does not support Mueller Road as proposed. He stated that he, if there are no other Commissioner comments, would like to make a motion to continue this and refer it to the beltway committee that was established to work with staff to come up with another concept beltway that reportedly could go south of Taft Highway in the Curnow area approximately 600 to 800 feet south of Taft Highway and then to Cottonwood Road and lateral east gently moving up to Comanche and going in to terminate at Highway 178. Commissioner Sprague stated that this is a possibility they could work out that would work for the city and consequently that is his motion. Mr. Grady told the Commission that if they continue this matter that it could not be heard again until the next general plan cycle. The first meeting in January has been canceled so the earliest this could come back is the second meeting in Minutes, PC, December t6, t999 Parle t9 January and there would not be enough time to notice it for the scheduled hearing in February in front of the City Council for the cycle. So, the earliest it could be heard would be the March general plan cycle. Commissioner Brady asked Commissioner Sprague if his motion was specific · enough to give enough direction to the committee to prepare that specific alignment and to eliminate the other alternatives from consideration? Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks the committee can have an open mind to a specific line that can be drawn within the area of the EIR and that all areas could be looked at and have some current aerial photos available so that they can see layouts and how it is effective as the beltway runs. It doesn't have to run specifically south of Taft Highway in a specific area. He hopes that staff would be able to generate factual material that they would need including Vesting and Tentative Tract Maps that are on the board at this point in time and possible consultation with Woodward Clyde on some of the work they have included to arrive at the decision of the approval of the EIR. Commissioner Brady asked Commissioner Sprague if he would consider an amendment to his motion to eliminate the Hosking Road Alignment and the Bear Mountain Blvd. Alignment as a consideration? Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks that Bear Mountain should be left in as a consideration because it has been addressed several times. Leaving it in he feels would not be a determent. He would clearly amend his motion to include the termination of the Hosking/McCuthcheon as being a preferred route and also eliminate it from discussion in the future. Commissioner Dhanens stated that 12 months ago the Commission made a similar suggestion and it took exactly 12 months to get it back in front of the Commission again and it seemed like a lot of it had to do with the environmental document and going to the Council to get additional funding. Would it have the same problem this time? Mr. Grady said that if the Commission picks an alignment that stays within the corridor that was already studied and we do not have to have any additional environmental analysis we might not have the same problem. But we might run into some things that would require an additional environmental analysis and may require additional funds which we do not have and which could delay the project from being heard in March. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if the Commission were to pick an alignment tonight that is a combination of ones that had been looked at before, what type of logistic problems from staff's point of view would be in doing that? Could it be done? Mr. Grady said that you would have the same problems that you had when staff brought the Commission the Hosking alignment and then asked staff Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 20 to look south. No one is expecting the line to be anywhere but where it is right now. The environmental information is sufficient for the Commission to make a decision but residents and property owners would have to be noticed that the line has been moved in a big way. Commissioner Kemper seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by group vote. Mr. Ken Kind confirmed with Chairman Tkac that Hosking Road is off the table and will not be back as an alignment. Chairman Tkac said "yes, that is correct." A five minute break was taken. 9.2.a & b) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P99-0697 - Martin- Mclntosh (Ward 4) Staff report recommending approval of the general plan amendment and denying the R-2 zone change was given. Staff suggested that a condition of the general plan amendment should be that the change in zoning only be made with a PUD. Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest. Commissioner Boyle does not have a conflict as stated earlier in the meeting. Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following people spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation for the General Plan Amendment: Jeff Darling, a resident of the Polo Grounds, presented the Commission with a petition of 250 signatures of residents in the Polo Grounds opposed to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Mr. Darling stated that they are opposed to the project because the zone change has come after the properties were purchased. Careful consideration by all of the property owners before purchasing the property making an educated decision upon where they wanted to live. The school districts were looked into, the crime rate was looked at and they reviewed the area with Realtors. They checked the zoning before the lots were purchased. They accepted the commercial zoning at that time. There is zoning for multiple family dwellings 1/4 mile to the east and they accepted that also. Population density is another reason they are opposed. It will increase the population by at least 500 people. Mr. Darling asked what is the effect of this rezoning on the Polo Ground density cap? What effect will it have on the schools? Commercial zoning has no effect on the school district but multiple family dwellings would have a dramatic effect on the school district. The residents feel the area needs more commercial sites and feel that property values will be decreased. Mr. Darling and the property owners strongly urged the Commission to reject the purposed zoning change. The following people spoke in opposition of the zone change and agreed Commercial zoning is the right zoning for this corner: Claude Durham, John Brown, Chris Riley, Jim Egan, Mike Bindel, Les Hill, Natalie Sween, Alisa Turner, Shelly Hill, James Bally, John Turner and Laura Birely. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 21 Brian Shetler said that he was also opposed to the zone change but that it was proposed to him that the lot which is odd shaped would be changed to a rectangle shape to make the lot more useful, Roger Mclntosh, representing the owner of the property Calloway Associates, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. ' Mclntosh put together a map and showed it on the overhead the situation at the corner of Calloway and Olive. He stated there are two canals there. The Calloway Canal cuts the corner off and leaves about a six acre parcel at the corner. The Calloway Canal is owned by the North Kern Water Storage District. The Friant Kern Canal is a federal project. The 16,342 square feet property that is left is owned by Calloway Associates also. It is not big enough to be a viable commercial site. It is his understanding that the city is working with the Friant Kern users (the Federal Government) to try to put in a bypass pipeline that would run through the intersection to replace'the Friant Kern Canal. If that were to happen, the Federal Government would still own the property or there might be some provision to trade the property with the City of Bakersfield. Someone other than the current property owner of the C-1 property would own the land. Mr. Mclntosh stated that this does not make a good commercial corner with two canals 16,000 square feet, no frontage on one arterial and a lot of frontage on the other arterial. The property owners are proposing a multi-family subdivision with public streets with one access on Calloway. The property owners are proposing four-plex units ranging from $625 to $750 a month. They are made up of one, three bedroom unit with two baths, and three, two bedroom units with two baths. The units range from 900 square feet to 1,100 square feet. They have garages. This is not the typical apartment complex that is being proposed. They are all one story units, Mr. Mclntosh then went over what could be put in a C-1 zone which include: Any uses permitted in a C-O zone (commercial office), apparel and speciality shops, autOmotive service stations, bakeries, book stores, candy stores, Christmas tree sales, Church, cosmetic stores, drug stores, florists, fireworks, etc. Mr. Mclntosh said that the uses in a C-1 zone would have more impact on a neighborhood than R-2. By the time you have loading dock areas, garbage sites, dumpster, lights and glare, and also the height restrictions in a C-1 zone is that you can build up to four stories. Also, under a Conditional Use Permit, any of the uses permitted in an R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones can be built. In addition, Mr. Mclntosh stated, that there were some assumptions made in the staff report regarding the size of the site. There is some discussion that it is a 16.36 acre site and assuming that 25 percent of the area would be used for public roads, that would leave 12.27 acres. Mr. Mclntosh stated that they have come up with about 13.69 net acres which at ten dwelling units per acre would allow for 136.9 units. Mr. Mclntosh said that if they don't build multi-family on the property, it won't get built as a commercial site until there is some resolution to the canals. They agree with staff's recommendation and ask the Commission's approval. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 22 Commissioner Sprague thanked the audience for coming out and waiting through the beltway discussion. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if this was a PD overlay or if it is just straight C-17 Mr. Grady answered that the City does not have an overlay zone so it is straight C-1. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if the owner of the property was compensated for the canal going through the property? Mr. Mclntosh said the canals were put in before the current owner acquired the property. Commissioner Sprague asked if there was room for a secondary emergency vehicle access on Calloway? Mr. Mclntosh stated that they are proposing to have the secondary emergency access as part of the multi-purpose trail. Commissioner Sprague asked how wide the access is? Mr. Mclntosh stated that he believed the access to be 20 feet? Commissioner Sprague asked if it was the same owner for both pieces of property? Mr. Mclntosh replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Sprague stated that he has reviewed the project and supports staff's recommendation to deny the change to R-2. Commissioner Boyle stated that he had talked to a few members of the audience but the discussions were limited to the beltway alignment and the difference between general plan amendments and zoning changes. They did not discuss the specifics of their project. Commissioner Boyle asked staff why there is such a difference in the environmental analysis saying there is no significant impact to schools but the Kern County Superintendent of Schools is recommending denying the project because there is a significant impact? Mr. Grady said that the Superintendent of Schools is speaking from a financial standpoint. Not necessarily that it will be an overcrOwding situation. There is a statutory requirement that sets what the school district's fee is. They recommended that if this project gets approved, that it gets annexed into a service area that they have where they collect money to do additional stuff with schools out there. When one looks at the map of the project it seems difficult to understand how this project could cause overcrowding of the school when you have undeveloped single family residential coming in with single family homes in the future. Commissioner Boyle said that he would not be in support of this project at this time. He does not believe in changing the general plan and zoning too early in the development of an area. We shouldn't change what we have too quickly until we know what we as a city and a community want out of a development. Commissioner Brady asked if there has been any discussion with the Calloway Canal to see about piping that underground also? Roger Mclntosh said that it had been talked about but more in line if the Friant Kern Canal were to be acquired by the city, it would open the corner with about six acres and they could underground the Calloway Canal as well and have a good commercial corner. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 23 Commissioner Brady said that the only way he would consider allowing a zone change is if they could provide evidence that you can't use this property as commercial. If you are saying that it is just not convenient at this time, he feels · that is a different set of circumstance. Commissioner Brady asked Roger · . Mclntosh if its his client's position that they cannot build out this property as C-1 due to.the restraints of the canals? Roger Mclntosh said it is their position due to experience that it is an undesirable commercial corner. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if them was some discussion at Monday's pm-meeting about going underground with the Calloway Canal? Mr. Gauthier said that what they talked about. Mondaywas that they am going to go underground at the intersection but not right now. . Commissioner McGinnis asked staff about the letter from the San Joaquin Valley . Air Pollution Control District saying this activity would contribute to dust and air i mass in that area? Mr. Grady said that is the typical letter they get from air ' districts on all commercial projects with regard to dust that is generated from the construction of the project. Commissioner McGinnis said that he would support the site to remain as C-1. :Commissioner Sprague asked staff if a CUP is necessary to put a mini-storage and RV storage on that corner as was originally planned under the C-1 zoning? Mr. Grady said that is correct. ~ Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration and denying the requested general plan land use element with findings as will be presented in the attached resolution and recommend said to ;the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Brady 'ABSENT: Commissioner Dhanens Commissioner Boyle asked that since the general plan amendment was denied if there was any zone change to be considered? Mr. Grady said "no" because we were recommending that you not change the zone. !Roger Mclntosh asked how you appeal a "no action." Mr. Hernandez said that ;typically when you deny a general plan amendment, then you are in effect saying you can't make the zone change either. However, to allow the applicant the right to appeal before the City Council, the Commission should make a motion to deny the requested zone change. Minutes, PC, December t6, 1999 Parle 24 Commissioner Brady asked if the motion is just to deny the R-2 or should there be some reference to staff's recommendation regarding the PUD? Mr. Hernandez said what the Commission is actually doing is both denying the proposal of the proponents of the zone change and also the Commission is not accepting staff's recommendation that a PCD be brought back to the Commission so what needs to be done is a motion should be made to deny both staff recommendation and applicant's proposal or you could just deny the zone change. Commissioner Brady said that he would just like to make it clear for the record that he would agree with the motion to deny the request for the R-2 but he would be in support of staff's recommendation for the PUD. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested zone change with findings to be presented in attached resolution and recommending the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dhanens 9.3.a & b) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P99-0701 - Clarence Kastner (Ward 4) Staff report recommending approval of the general plan amendment and zone change was given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No once spoke in favor or in opposition of the project. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that 56 acres is an awfully large block to approve as a negative declaration and wondered if staff had some input on a negative declaration in regards to this? Mr. Gauthier said that the State has a threshold of 80 acres when you convert ag land. Anything less than that is not even required to be sent to the State. Commissioner Sprague asked if this was in or out of the Williamson Act. Mr. Gauthier said it was out. Commissioner Boyle said that he drove around this property and although he hates to see ag land converted that this is for the most part infill. It is surrounded on three and one-half sides by development. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Parle 25 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt the resolution approving adopting a mitigated negative declaration approving the requested general plan land use element amendment with findings and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution, see attached Exhibit E-1 and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague Tkac NOES:. None - ABSENT: COmmissioner Dhanens Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, · to adopt the resolution approving adopting a mitigated negative declaration approving the zone change as requested with findings and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution, see attached Exhibit E-2 and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dhanens 9.4.a & b) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P99-0867 - Porter Robertson (Ward 4) Approved on the Consent Agenda. 10. COMMUNICATIONS None 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Subdivision Committee has met and he anticipates another meeting will be held in the near future and they will report back to the Commission. Minutes, PC, December 16, 1999 Page 26 12. Chairman Tkac asked Mr. Grady that since the beltway went the way it did, does a new committee need to be reassigned? Mr. Grady said the committee finished its business at its last meeting so the committee would have to be reconstituted. It could be called the same thing. Chairman Tkac announced that he will leave the committee the same consisting of Commissioners Sprague, Dhanens and McGinnis. Commissioner Boyle mentioned that when the beltway came back again to the Commission, that a special meeting might be scheduled so people do not have to wait so long to speak on other items on the agenda. ~. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT t3. PRE-MEETING. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, not to hold a pre-meeting on January 17, 2000. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:47 a.m. Janua~ 25,2000 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director ' · \