Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, December 21, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC 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. 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 interested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld. 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all apPeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 21, 2000 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) 3.2) 3.3) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of Planning Commission minutes for November 2, 13 and 16, 2000 meetings. Agenda Item 7.2) - Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance regarding double frontage lots. (City of Bakersfield) Agenda Item 8) - Continuation of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Northwest Target LLC) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held November 2, 13 and 16, 2000. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 5.1) (Ward 4) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 27.91acres, generally located on the north side of Ming Avenue (extended), west side of Buena Vista Road and on the south side of the Kern River Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.2) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0660 - Kyle Carter Homes has proposed to change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 58 acres of the project site and OS-S (Open Space - Slopes Exceeding 30 percent) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 106 acres. The applicant is also requesting to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General plan to predesignate Paladino Drive, between Alfred Harrell Highway and State Route 178, from a coll'ector to a local street and redesignate the Class II trail along the same Paladino Drive alignment to a Class III trail under the Specific Trails Plan. The project is 164 acres in size and is located north of State Route 178 and east of Alfred Harrell Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - December 21, 2000 Page 3 (Ward $) RECOMMENDATION: Roll call vote. Approve 5.3.a) (Ward 6) $.3.b) (Ward 6) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0691 - Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene has proposed to amend the land use designation from LR (Low' Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 4.8 acres located adjacent to the east side of Stine Road, just south of Hosking Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. Zone Change File No. P00-0691- Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene has proposed a zone change from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 4.8 acres located adjacent to the east side of Stine Road, just south of Hosking Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 5.4.a) (Ward 3) 5.4.b) (Ward 3) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot has proposed to amend the land use designations from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 27.90 acres located between State Route 178, East Hills Mall and Mt. Vernon Avenue in northeast Bakersfield. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. Zone Change File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot has requested a change in zoning from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 27.90 acres located between State Route 178, East Hills Mall and Mt. Vernon Avenue in northeast Bakersfield. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - December 21, 2000 Page 4 5.S.a) (County) 5.5. b) (County) 5.6) (County) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley has proposed to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to GC (General Commercial) on 18.77 acres located at the northwest corner of Renfro Road and Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Disapprove Roll call vote. Zone Change File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley has requested a change in zoning from A (Agriculture) to.C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 18.77 acres located at the northwest corner of Renfro Road and Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Disapprove Roll call vote. General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0796 - City of Bakersfield has proposed a formal acknowledgment of the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan's Kern River Plan Element, Land Use Element and Circulation Element maps from July 1996 to September 1999. These map changes are necessary to retain consistent land use maps for the unincorporated parcels of land within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area located at eighteen separate locations. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT - MGC Architecture representing (Ward 7) Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development time set to receive testimony regarding the adequacy of the Initial Study and proposed re-use of the Grand Canal EIR for proposed Zone Change No. P00-0419 which consists of a request to re-zone the 64 + acre site from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone, known as the "Grand Canal" project, to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone for purposes of a mixed use commercial shopping center containing 555,000 square feet of leasable area, entitled the "Gateway Shopping Center." The site is located between State Route 99, the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H, Street, and Berkshire Road alignment. (EIR on file) RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to staff for preparation of Final EIR. Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - December 21, 2000 Page 5 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 7.1) (All wards) Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow the advisory agency to require developers to provide fencing between their project and canals within 1/4 miles of a proposed tentative tract. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE 7.2) (All Wards) Roll call vote. Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow double frontage lots on streets which function as a major street. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) for the Northwest Promenade located at 8100 through 9400 Rosedale Highway zoned PCD - (Planned Commercial Development). (Exempt from CEQA) (w~rd ~) RECOMMENDATION: Continue to January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Group vote. 9. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 12. ADJOURNMENT s'rA~cre~~~ Held Thursday, December 21, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Absent: ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioner Tkac, Kemper and Sprague indicated they have reviewed the tape of Monday's pre-meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 33 5.6) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0796 - CitY of Bakersfield (County) Staff had nothing to add from Monday's pro-meeting. The Public portion of the hearing was op~ned and no one spoke either for or against staff's recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commissioner comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Land Use Element, Circulation Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as described in Exhibit Numbers A and B. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT - MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development Staff stated that the project was presented at the pro-meeting and the Commission was informed that this meeting tonight is to receive comments on the rouse of the environmental impact report that was prepared for the Grand Canal project to support the change from a PCD to a C-2 zone. The project has received additional traffic analysis and they aro rousing the air quality portions, and reusing all of the other information related to aesthetics and noise and have revised conditions of approval from the Grand Canal project so that they will now fit a PCD to a C-2 zone change. The project will be heard by the Commission in January at which time staff will be recommending approval of the zone change and certification of the EIR and will have a final EIR which will contain the responses to comments. The public portion of the hearing was opened for the purpose of receiving comments and testimony on the reuse of the EIR. There were no comments from the public. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated that he believes the rouse of the EIR is appropriate with the reservation concerning the issue of the no project alternative. He believes this property is presently zoned as a PCD which allows commercial development so there should be some analysis in the EIR on the concept of keeping it as PCD as opposed to changing it to commercial. He believes thero are aesthetic issues that would make it appropriate to consider a no project alternative or no change from the existing PCD. Commissioner Boyle said that the slides shown earlier of the Home Depot project showed that there is virtually no landscaping around the Walmart and other stores in the aroa and they were built to city standards. He definitely feels that thero are important aesthetic issues that can only be addressed through a PCD. Commissioner Sprague stated that he would like to see a sign out front which says "Good Food, Good Times, and Good People". Commissioner Sprague said that in the past application that we had with Grand Canal, Berkshire ingress and egress to FreeWay 99 was disposed of and it would seem to him that the Commission should consider or look at how we can tie an overpass and on and off ramps back into this project to enhance the economics of the project from the highway travelers coming into the area. Believes that it needs to be kept as a PCD so they can look at the landscape and the way the development of the project goes. Commissioner Brady stated that he unintentionally had a brief conversation with the applicant during one of the breaks regarding the use of PCDs and his concern about the control factor of using a PCD. Commissioner Brady stated the EIR is the current subject, but with C-2 zoning the present Ordinances do not require the type of amenities to these types of projects that the Commission is requiring of other projects in the City, and because the ordinances don't measure up is why the Commission is requiring PCDs. Thero aro environmental issues when looking at having C-2 zoning. Staff advised that the uses of a C-2 zone would include retail uses, some professional offices, 96' for maximum height of buildings, requirement of block wall separation between project and residential. Commissioner Brady questioned how close to the residents to the south of the project could the 96 foot tall building be built to which staff responded the minimum set back would be 20 feet. Commissioner Brady asked if thero aro other buildings in town that aro 96 feet for a comparison? Mr. Grady said that he does not have that information. Commissioner Brady expressed concerns with lighting under the C-2 zoning and there is nothing in the EIR and traffic study that addresses these issues. Mr. Grady said there isn't a height limitation but the limitation on square footage is 571,000 square feet. Commissioner Brady said that when the Grand Canal project was Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 35 being proposed they knew how tall the buildings were and where they would be placed on the project and we had mitigation in place to protect the residential property to the south and wanted to know if that would exist in this case if the project is zoned C-27 Mr. Grady said "yes" because the initial study that staff prepared for this project looked at the conditions of approval for the Grand Canal PCD and the Commission's concerns were modified and carried over to this project so that a block wall, mounding and landscaping on the south side along Berkshire would be part of the design requirements for this project and would still be addressed. The landscaping requirements for the Grand Canal as it related to the properties that adjoin it are still in this project. Commissioner Brady asked if those conditions were placed on the project in light of buildings that were built at a particular location and a particulars size? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady said that we wouldn't have any guarantee with regard to the property once it is zoned C-2. Commission Brady stated there needs to be a PCD to control the location, size, noise, lighting, trucks, trash sites, hours of operation to ensure that the mitigation being proposed is adequate to fully mitigate the impact to the adjoining property owners. Applicant Paul Owhadi stated that he was not aware that the Commission was going to discuss the zoning of this project. He believed they were going to address the EIR issue. The EIR that was done is very comprehensive and the sole purpose of requesting the zone change is due to the applicant's inability to market 64 acres of land in a city with a population of 250,000. The applicant is willing to work with staff to develop the property. Commissioner Dhanens asked if his comments concerning traffic that he conveyed to Ms. Shaw would be considered or should he repeat them at this time? Mr. Grady said that it was not necessary to repeat them. Commissioner Brady responded that the ordinances have impacts that don't consider some of the realistic impacts to neighboring residents. Would suggest mitigation or conditions in a C-2 zone to protect the real environmental impacts. Applicant Paul Owhadi indicated that he cannot develop and market the 64 acres of land. He wants to get his tenants under C-2 zoning and then he will bring the site plan to the Planning Director who is quite capable of reviewing and approving on the Commission's behalf, but he is also willing to bring it back to the Commission for their approval. Commissioner Brady inquired of staff if in the past they have used a C-2 approval with conditions and then have a site plan come back before the Commission and use that process to mitigate some of the environmental concerns, to which Mr. Grady responded that he could not recall any. Commissioner Brady inquired of Mr. Hernandez that instead of using a planned Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 36 commercial development zone change to deal with the mitigation of environmental concerns of a project would they have the ability to use a condition wherein a C-2 project would have the site plan come before the Commission to address those mitigation issues to which Mr. Hernandez responded that according to the site plan review ordinance the Planning Director or the Development Services Director has jurisdiction to initially review the site plan review and if there is a disagreement with what is determined then that is appealable to the Planning Commission. There is no process under the ordinance that would allow the Planning Commission to have a condition in the CEQA mitigation measures that would allow the site plan to go directly to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brady inquired if a PCD was required could a condition be placed on the project that as a part of the PCD the applicant could come in with a phased PCD so that when he gets a particular tenant he can come in and he doesn't have to show buildings on the rest of the project to which Mr. Grady responded that has occurred in the past, but each subsequent project is a zone change. Commissioner Brady stated that the present ordinances of the City of Bakersfield do not adequately mitigate the impacts of projects of the size and scope of what is being presented in the EIR. He does not believe there is sufficient mitigation in what he has seen so far to address the concerns that he has. There will need to be more done. Commissioner Brady said that he does not believe that the EIR has appropriately mitigated the significant impacts that can and will be generated from the project. Mr. Hernandez stated that this hearing was held to make sure the Commission was appraised that they were going to use the EIR for the Grand Canal project as a basis for reviewing the applicant's request to have a C-2 zone change. Concerns have been raised related to CEQA and he believes those issues can be addressed at the time the zone change is considered by the Commission. When the C-2 zone change request is made, the appropriate mitigation measures can be considered and added to the CEQA document that can be carried over into the project as it is proposed and built. There can be conditions placed on the zone change approval if in fact that is the direction the Commission wants to go and that can be addressed at that time. Commissioner Boyle reiterated his concern that the analysis was not sufficient under the no project alternative. He concurs that the ordinances do not adequately address all of the impact issues. In a phased PCD they would be able to require things above what a site plan would allow. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels that there are specific environmental concerns as they relate to an expanded list of uses for the site as opposed to the limited ones that they were presented before that could have mitigation measures included in this thing that are ultimately approved with the project. Also, the staff report says that the square footage is not going to be any greater than that utilized by the Grand Canal which was 555,000 of retail and another 16,000 square feet of support. In Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 2t, 2000 Page 37 that environment, you are not going to put a collection of or even a single six story or seven story structure on there because your ratio and how you use the building to site ratio is not going to be real productive. A multi-story building would leave a lot of the project site undeveloped. Commissioner Dhanens feels that those issues can be addressed from an EIR standpoint as mitigation measures developed that ultimately get approved with the project that may or may not be incorporated in a PCD. Commissioner Brady said that his concern is that they have seen numerous different types of C-2 projects come through and the only way he has to evaluate all the impacts is by seeing what those particular projects are so that he can address them. If this particular project was surrounded by other commercial property, he would have less of a concern. Because this project is next to residences and because we have had a history in the city of concerns of residents next to large commercial property, he would like to avoid those by trying to do as much "advance planning" and dealing with these environmental factors ahead of time. If they can come up with conditions that addresses all the potential uses, then that is great, but he does want to raise all of the issues of commercial properties that they have raised for the projects that have occurred in the city for the last five years. Those potential impacts need to be mitigated with respect to this EIR. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to refer comments to staff for response. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT:' None PUBLIC HEARINGS - AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 7.1) Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) There was nothing to add since Monday's pre-meeting on this item. The public portion of the hearing opened for those in support or opposition to staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or opposition of the project. The public portion of the hearing is closed. There were no Commissioner comments. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 2 = CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) Item 4 - Approval of Planning Commissioner Minutes for November 2, 2000, November 13, 2000 and November 16, 2000. Agenda Item 7.2 - Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance regarding double frontage lots. (City of Bakersfield). Agenda Item 8) - Continuation of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Northwest Target LLC) A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held November 2, 13 and 16, 2000. See Consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 5.1) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. (Ward 4) Staff reported on a memorandum from Ms. Shaw modifying two conditions. Ms. Shaw said that Condition lb addresses the timing that a comprehensive drainage study can be submitted to the City Engineer. The second one is regarding the installation of street lights, and the possibility that they may be installing private streets in which case it doesn't necessarily have to follow the engineering and subdivision design manual, but they still have to meet standards and the approval of the City Engineer. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh with Mclntosh and Associates, representing Castle & Cooke California, Inc. stated they have reviewed the staff report, and have discussed the memorandum dated Dec. 21st with Public Works, and also a memo dated Decl 20th from the Planning Department clarifying the school fee and they concur with the memos and the staff report recommendations and ask for the Commission's approval. Public portion of the hearing closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page AYES: NOES ABSENT: There were no Commissioner comments. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt ~esolution making findings approving the mitigated negative declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from HMR to LMR shown in Exhibit B and refer to the two memorandum which were previously mentioned, which aro December 20th and December 21't Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens None None 5.2) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0660 - Kyle Carter Home~ (Ward 4) Commissioner Sprague stated a conflict of interest as he represents three clients adjacent or within 300 feet of the applicant's project. Staff reported there is a memo from Ms. Shaw from the Public Works Department regarding some questions that the Commission raised at the' Monday pre-meeting concerning Paladino Drive. Ms. Shaw stated that at Monday's pro-meeting Mr. Brady expressed a concern about the elimination of Paladino as a collector even though the vehicle numbers did not warrant the construction of a collector and his concern with the elimination from a continuity standpoint. Ms. Shaw said that she had a memo from Mr. Walker; Traffic Engineer, that he had sent on November 30th which discusses that the development would be subject to the current regional impact fee, and the second condition regards timing of improvements on the impact fee list, and if the development is dependent upon one of these improvements, and it's not constructed by the time that they aro ready to construct their improvement, then they'll have to make some sort of arrangements for the construction of the improvement. It is the same condition with the City in the Hills. The third condition is in regards to Mr. Walker's analysis of Paladino as a collector, and he raises four points in there for not eliminating it as a collector, which primarily deals with public perception of speeds and volumes of traffic upon local streets when there is not a collector there such as, cut through traffic. This is one of the things he is addressing when requesting that they stay in as a collector. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 4 Public portion of the meeting was opened.' No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson with Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying, representing the apPlicant Kyle Carter Homes, stated the reason for changing the land use designation from an LMR to a LR and from the Open Space Steep Slopes to LR. The reason they are doing this is because the intended project has a very Iow density. The existing designation does not allow them to have a density of less than four dwellings per net acre. Therefore, they were required to downgrade the LMR to an LR to meet the density requirements of what they would like to do on this particular development. The application also addresses the steep slope areas that were originally designated on the 2010 General Plan and was discovered byusing the City of Bakersfield's GIS system that there are no slopes that exceed 20%, and it would be a logical step to downsize from an Open Space Steep Slope designation to an LR designatio~n. Mr. Robertson said the property is currently zoned R-1 and by doing this project the approval of the application will decrease the amount of allowable units by 159 units. Mr. Robertson referred to the memo from Mrs. Shaw regarding the circulation of Paladino Drive and displayed a map on the overhead. Mr. Robertson said that deleting Paladino between Alfred Harrell and 178 would not disrupt the circulation of this area. The intersection of Paladino at Alfred Harrell Highway is approximately 1700 feet north of the intersection of Comanche and 178. It's not a great distance for traffic to divert and go south and then east if they need to go through 178. The development that Kyle Carter Homes is proposing for this area consists of 312 buildable homes on approximately 300 acres. There is a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre. They are decreasing the density significantly. Mr. Carter is also proposing a private gated community which lends itself to the quality of life in that area from a traffic standpoint. There won't be the drive-through traffic that could potentially disrupt residences in that area. The bike group that is designated on the trail's plan that follows Paladino will also be maintained in the alignment that is being proposed through the tract. Although it deviates from Paladino, it will still be allowed to go through the development as a bike lane. They are asking to down grade the bike lane from a Class II to a Class II1. The fire department indicates that fire service for this area would come from the Lake Ming Blvd. station, and that fire service for this area would not be disrupted. Deleting the collector on Paladino would not be a problem from the fire department's perspective. They have reviewed the staff report and concur with their recommendation for approval. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page $ Frank Tripicio, a real estate broker, stated that he is concerned with the northeast corner of the intersection of 178 and Alfred Harrell, and represents the present owner of that parcel which has asked him to attend this meeting to ask that the Commission consider an inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning, and ask that that inconsistency be corrected. On Exhibit A, the northeast corner is shown as a general commercial for the rectangular shape parcel, and the LMR for the two triangular pieces. When the present owner purchased that parcel, it was with the understanding that the entire triangular shaped parcel was zoned general commercial. It wasn't until Porter Robertson submitted the application that the inconsistency was discovered between the general plan and the zoning plan. His client is concerned that because of that inconsistency there may come a time when he will be asked to submit an application for the correction, and that it will be at his expense. They believe the inconsistency was created during a course of changing or adopting the general plan while the original configuration of the parcel was changed from rectangular to triangular. Representing the interest of his client he would like to ask that the Commission instruct staff to correct the inconsistency and not burden the present owner with the correction of that inconsistency. Ms. Shaw pointed out that there are aerial photos that show the circulation element roads that Mr. Robertson was pointing out earlier. Kyle Carter, the applicant, added they hope to make this development a gated community with a homeowner's association that maintains the open space and the inside roads. Mr. Carter showed the Commission some drawings of what the community would look when it was built. They don't want a fast road going through. The private streets will probably be a 25 mph or less speed limit maintained and enforced by the homeowners inside the community. Want to also decrease the density so that they don't have a lot of lots which increases traffic. They basically will be one acre lots. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady disclosed that he accompanied staff out to the site. He raised his concern that a gated community would not be amenable to a bike path. There would have to be a significant change to the Trail Plan, and he thinks it needs to be acknowledged. You would have to bike down 178 and up Alfred Harrell Highway to access the rest of the Trail Plan and into the Kern River. He believes it is being proposed to eliminate the trail over the subject property, and he feels that is a significant change. He doesn't know if it is fair to do that to the people to the south, and changing how they are going to access the rest of the trails that were mapped out for the area. With regard to Paladino, Paladino will end at Alfred Harrell Highway and will no longer connect to 178, because if there are gates, the traveling public in order to get to 178 will have to access Alfred Harrell Highway, and feels that is a significant change Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 6 from what it initially was. The Proposed plan will eliminate Paladino for the public's use. Commissioner Brady questioned what Public Work's perspective is on having a gated community which eliminates a bike trail and a roadway for access to 1787 Mr. Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, responded that the elimination of Paladino in this segment will have insignificant effect on the traffic level of service at the other intersections. It would end at Alfred Harrell Highway. There is no evidence that suggests there would be an impact on any of the other streets because of the loss of that connection. The purpose of the collector is to collect streets from the local areas to the arterial streets. The street system that is being proposed would be adequate because of Iow density of the proposed project. Staff is neutral on the elimination of Paladino between Mira Monte and Alfred Harrell Highway. Concerning the quality of.life issues with the elimination of Paladino if it is a gated community that is a positive because then the traffic that is internal is not part of cut-through type traffic. That's a positive, and that's in favor of the elimination which was not clearly brought out prior to my writing of that memo, and that indication. Concerning the question about the bike trail, they may need to reroute it through the area there. Kyle Carter stated that they have been working on the bike path issue. The gates will allow for vehicle access as well as a walk-in gate on the side which will remain open at all times, or be accessible at all times. It was never their intention to eliminate the bike bath. They want the bike path to go through there. Mr. Carter said they are working with California Water to purchase the piece of property where a water tank now sits to put an easement in to improve with a park. On both sides of the tank there are areas to create a gazebo for weddings, or a picnic area, or place for public meetings, and they hope that people will ride their bikes up there and take advantage of the view. Mr. Carter further discussed roads and layout. Commissioner Brady questioned the intersection of 178 and Mira Monte and what wobld have been Paladino is actually not within the project site, to which Ms. Shaw replied that the actual intersection is not. Commissioner Brady stated that part of staff's recommendations required applicant to make improvements to an intersection that is not a part of their project, and inquired how they can do that. Staff replied that the issue is eliminating Paladino as a collector, but it still intersects with 178, and at that location they do have right-of-way. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Brady inquired if the applicant is required to build out the intersection to improve it, to which Ms. Shaw replied not as a part of the current application, but that they probably will be required when they submit their map over the zone change area. Commissioner Brady asked if the applicant will be required to build the intersection first as a collector, and then when it gets on their property to a local street, to which Ms. Shaw responded that the current application is to eliminate the collector designation all the way to 178, including the property that they do not own. Commissioner Kemper inquired if staff could respond on Mr. Tripicio's question regarding the confusion about the zoning on the triangular parcel on the southwest corner to which staff responded that when the applicant finishes their project there will be two triangular pieces that are LR and if the owner of that LR wants those pieces to be GC then that owner would have to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment to have that property taken from LR to GC. Commissioner Kemper stated that she is comfortable with the bike access through the development. Commissioner Kemper inquired on the letter from Lyle's Diversified regarding the water line issue, to which staff responded that they just received that letter this evening, and therefore they have not had an opportunity to do a detailed analysis of it. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Hernandez if there is a legal issue regarding the notification of this hearing since it has been noticed for a downgrading from collector to local street and what they are considering is the elimination of the street entirely by making it a private gated community, to which Mr. Hernandez responded that the issue is to downgrade to a local street and the issue of it being a private gated street is not before the Commission at this time, and that issue will only be officially before the Commission when a tentative map is brought before the Commission. Commissioner Boyle states he is concerned with the dramatic impact of the bike path, and does not think the people in the biking community have received any notice about this possible change, and thinks that it would be appropriate to condition the approval with the requirement that the design of the bike path and the gates for access will be something that will be brought back to the Commission at the time of the Subdivision Map, and that would then give an opportunity for people who are interested in biking to be able to see exactly how they're going to get access through the property. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Hernandez that if the development is going to be a private gated community then the park planned for up by the water tank will not be a public park, but a private park, and the area could be closed for public use, other than members of the development, to which Mr. Hernandez stated was correct, unless there was some type of an agreement with the developer to make that a public park. Mr. Hernandez stated that based on what has been presented so far it would be a private park and only available to those located within the subdivision. Commissioner Boyle stated that there needs to be some kind of condition that the public would have access to the park to the extent they have legal access to the property by the bike path or otherwise. Commissioner Boyle asked where the water line would be to which staff responded that the line is not totally within the applicant's project. Commissioner Boyle inquired what restrictions this was going to place on the owner of the property to which staff responded that there would be an easement for a water line, unless Cai Water relocates that line. Ms. Shaw stated that they have not heard from Lyle's Diversified other than the letter that they received on today's date. Commissioner Boyle is puzzled why Lyle's Diversified is not present, and believes that a legitimate issue has been raised in their letter. Harold Robertson stated that the alignment indicates that the line on Mr. Lyle's property, is only half as long as what Mr. Grady indicated on the map. About mid point it changes direction and it goes in a northeasterly direction up to the tanks on the top of the hill. Currently that water line is approximately 70 to 80 feet southwesterly of the property line separating Mr. Lyle's property from this applicant, and it was ultimately intended to be underneath the full width construction of Paladino, which Mr. Lyles would have been required to construct in this area. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw if there is a standard for a turn around at a private gate, so when someone gets up there there is not a traffic jamb or people trying to turn their cars around, to which Ms. Shaw responded in the affirmative. Ms. Shaw indicated that the City standard is that there is generally room required around the key pad so that you turn past the key pad and turn right back around, requiring extra width at the private entry to contain a traffic problem. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 2t, 2000 Page 9 Commissioner Boyleinquired of Mr. Grady that in considering the idea of downgrading from a collector to a local street, they have received a representation that this is going to be a private gated community, and that it is going to have a density of approximately 315 homes. If the project is approved the applicant is not obligated to either of those representations to which the staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Grady if it would be appropriate to condition the downgrading from collector to local street on the fact that it will be a private gated community, and that it would be a density of approximately 325 homes to which Mr. Grady responded that he could make that a condition. Commissioner McGinnis inquired on the water tank issue and Mr. Carter responded that it would be a private park. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the park by the water tank does not come to fruition if Mr. Carter had an alternative site for a park area in the project, to which Mr. Carter responded in the negative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the trails, to which Mr. Carter responded that there are three trails that would go through the project. One would go along 178, one through the middle, and one on the other side of the bluffs. Mr. Carter further commented that the entry way submitted would be a park-like setting that would be maintained by the HOA. Commissioner McGinnis is concerned that Paladino will disappear at Alfred Harrell Highway. Commissioner Kemper stated that it is typical for gated communities in Bakersfield to have private parks. Staff stated that there is a specific trails plan for Rancherio Road to Alfred Harrell Highway and that has a condition of multi purpose trails and different classes of bike trails, one of which would have been along the Paladino alignment. The rest of the trails actually occur to the north and east on the property that is owned by the Nichols, and then there is one trail that runs along Alfred Harrell Highway and along 178 outside of the project boundaries. This path itself would be a striped lane on a paved road, where the other paths to the north and east would actually be your multi use trails. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December'21, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Brady stated that he is against eliminating a road way. Based on the representations of the applicant and the traffic engineer he would support the downgrading of the roadway of Paladino to a local street under the following conditions: 1) that the applicant apply for and get granted a gated community; 2) that the plan for the trail and how it is going to be worked through this be submitted to Public Works Traffic Engineer for approval of moving the bicycle traffic through the project and connecting it through from 178 to Alfred Harrell Highway; and 3) the density cap of 350 be put in place. Staff stated that 1.67 dwelling units to the acre is a better restriction cap than a particular number of units. Commissioner Brady stated a '1.67 dwelling units per acre would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Brady is concerned about Mr. Lyle's memorandum.' Applicant represented that Commissioner Brady's restrictions would be acceptable conditions for approval. Commissioner Brady stated that he would be willing to support the project and the downgrading of the roadway with his stated restrictions. Commissioner Dhanens inquired that if the intended density is less than 4 dwelling units an acre, why would it not be easier for everyone involved, including the applicant and staff, that the General Plan Designation be SR instead of LR, to which staff responded that there is no zone change for that. Staff also stated that you could use the 4 dwelling units an acre to set a cap or keep the 1.67 presented in the application. Commissioner Dhanens stated that with respect to the Paladino Drive situation he does not have a problem whether it's an SR designation, or whether the Commission .votes to impose a cap on it. He believes that the reduced number of lots, and therefore the reduced traffic, will justify that they downgrade Paladino in that section because it is not going to carry the amount of traffic that it was originally intended to when it was an LMR designation and significantly more traffic anticipated. Commissioner Dhanens stated that concerning the water line there is an easement and existing pipe line that had Paladino Drive been constructed as in the General Plan the easement would have been below that. By shifting Paladino Drive they are going to have a water line easement that's going to be no where right now, and it's going to be up to the adjoining land owner to kind of figure out how they incorporate that into their internal circulation, or some other Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 11 means of doing the allocating to account for that, or move it. Without representation from Mr. Lyle's or the water district there is not much they can do. about it since it is outside the project boundary. Commissioner Dhanens stated that with respect to the trails a lot of the bike trail currently exists on Alfred Harrell Highway and 178 already. Moving it internally is a good idea when Paladino existed. To enhance that and still have that trail system would be a positive for that area so that bikers will have that option when they go through this area. There needs to be a condition to maintain the trail plan through the neighbor, which would be consistent with the specific plan. Commissioner Boyle commented that with respect to Mr. Brady's comments he would prefer to have the bike path come back to a public hearing as opposed to being done by Public Works. While the notice is legal,' he does not think the biking community or other people out there would have interpreted this project as having an impact on their bike path and they should have an opportunity to have a public hearing. They will have to condition the project that it would have to come back to a public hearing as part of a Subdivision Map or whatever the case may be. Commissioner Boyle commented that concerning the issue of the density cap, he is concerned that there is no guarantee that the applicant will be the ultimate builder even though he has the utmost confidence in the applicant. If the 4 unit per acre is the cap set, then any other builder, but the applicant, could build a radically different project. He thinks a 1.70 unit per acre cap is more of a guarantee that the project will be a very Iow density. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw if item number one of her December 19, 2000, memorandum would need to be incorporated into any motion that the applicant will pay the regional impact fee to which Ms. Shaw responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired that given the density of this project if it would be necessary to condition this project on the improvements being made to 178 in order for them to build out this project to which Steve Walker replied that they would like to keep the 12,500 cap in. Commissioner Boyle inquired if item number three would be deleted from the memo now that it was becoming a local street to which Mr. Walker concurred. Ms. Shaw clarified that Exhibit B is going to have to change based on their discussions. There will be a connection at'Alfred Harrell at a different point than what was shown on Exhibit B, so Exhibit B has been modified to reflect the new information from Mr. Carter, and should be included. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 12 Commissioner Boyle reiterated that he is concerned with the issues raised by Mr. Lyles but he is not present. The matter will be going to the City. Council and he has an opportunity to have his public hearing if he desires. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution approving the negative declaration, approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LMR to LR on 58 acres, and from OSS to LR on 106 acres as shown on Exhibit "A", and to amend the circulation element to redesignate Paladino Drive from a collector to a local street and realign said designation between Alfred Harrell Highway and State Route 178, and redesignate the Class II trail along the same alignment to a Class III trail under Specific Trail Plan as shown on Exhibit "B" as modified pursuant to the information provided by the applicant this evening, and also as further modified as follows: 1) that'the down-grading to a local street is conditioned upon that the Subdivision Map will be for a private gated community, and that it will have a density of 1.70 units per acre, and furthermore the additional condition that the bike access into the project, as well as the design of the bike path, will be a matter of a public hearing, either at the time the Subdivision Map, that there be a further condition that whatever private park may be built on the water tank lot that it will have public access, and also to incorporate conditions one and two of the December 19th Memorandum from Marian Shaw. Commissioner Kemper asked for clarification on the public park as opposed to a private park to which Mr. Boyle responded that it should not be allowed to be posted as "private property no trespassing" which would be consistent with what the applicant has presented. Commissioner Brady requested that Commissioner Boyle's condition be amended to eliminate the park condition and make the issue of access to a potential park a part of the public hearing on the Trails Plan so that they can have a full hearing, and the applicant would be on notice that they are looking at the issue, and the applicant could bring in different maps or suggestions as to what he might do with it, and then the Commission can consider it all at that one time. Commissioner Boyle agreed to amend his motion. Commissioner Kemper inquired if the maximum density should be "a maximum of 1.7" so that if they wanted to make it less than 1.7 it would be okay to which Commissioner Boyle agreed to amend his motion accordingly. An amended motion and a second to that amended motion was made. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 13 AYES: NOES ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens None None 5.3.a) 5.3.b) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0691 - Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene (Ward 6) Combined with 5.3.b below. Zone Change File No. P00-0691- Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene (Ward Mr. Grady stated that there is a question as to whether or not these units are going to be developed for church parishioners, and staff had contacted them and the response was that they may be, but that was not the intent of the development. They could be market rate units as well. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Robertson, representing the applicant stated, they have reviewed the staff report, and concur with staff's recommendation to approve the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to LMR on 4.8 acres as shown in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 14 A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 to R-2 on 4.8 acres as shown on Exhibit "B" and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: None 5.4.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot (Ward Combined with 5.4.b below 5.4. b) Zone Change File No. P00-0744 - Home Depot (Ward 3) Mr. Grady stated that the Commission should have received a copy of a map showing the internal circulation for this particular project area. Staff received some late correspondence today which has not been included in the analysis, however, it has been provided to the Commission. There is a letter from the Department of Transportation, East Hills Mall, one from the Heritage Bible Church and one from Heritage Village Senior Apartments. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he and other Commissioners do not have the internal circulation map and inquired if staff has additional copies of that to which Mr. Grady replied he would find out. The public portion of the hearing was opened for opposition to Staff's recommendation. James Rumel stated that his children attend Heritage Bible Academy and he is a member of Heritage Bible Church. He commented that this private school is located on Bernard Street and Mt. Vernon and the concerns he has is that he is not opposed to a lumbar yard or hardware store in East Bakersfield, but thinks the project should be done with great precaution concerning traffic. Being a private school, children are brought by their parents from all over the community and it is ludicrous that the traffic going to East Hills Mall is all routed to Mt. Vernon. All the traffic going to the mall has to go by the school or uses the Oswell off-ramp. A Councilmember commented that you could probably shoot a gun in East Hills Mall and it would go all the way from one end to the other and not hit anybody. That is a concern to him as a resident. They would Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 15 suggest that they extend Mall View Road to Mt. Vernon and allow people to get off of Mt. Vernon and widen the off-ramp at Mt. Vernon so that people can actually have three lanes to get off of Mt. Vernon. One of the lanes would be going straight through to Mall View Road, and to the East Hills Mall so the traffic is diverted from Bernard Street. Mr. Rumel feels that it would be extremely easy to widen Bernard Street and requested that they put a right turn lane into the school. The lumbar yard is going to be opened earlier in the morning than the mall and there will be increased traffic in the morning. It is still unclear whether that intersection is controlled by City or County, but he would like to have that intersection fixed so that it is safer and that the dead end street of Mall View Road be extended to Mt. Vernon. The best answer is to put another off-ramp along 178 to get you into East Hills Mall and down to Fashion Plaza. The public portion of the hearing is opened for those in support of staff's recommendation or the applicant. Scott Mommer, with Larz Anderson and Associates, present on behalf of Home Depot Corporation, stated that circulation for the site was a concern and he presented diagrams of turning movements for Mt. Vernon and Bernard. On Mt. Vernon what is being proposed, and it's in conformance to the traffic report, is a dual left turn lane into the project at the existing intersection. They believe this will relieve impact to Bernard and provide the access not only to this proposed shopping center, but access to the mall. They believe that this project will actually help and benefit the mall because this is not a competing business that is coming in for this particular property. On Bernard the original turning movements proposed is a left turn pocket. There will be a free left turn lane all the way down Bernard and will not have a median. Mr. Mommer stated that the issue concerning Highway 178 and traffic capacity is that one benefit of this type of development is that the AM PM peaks of a home improvement store is actually from 10:00 to 2:00 versus the standard traffic patterns of commercial development which tend to lean toward AM PM peaks that are common to the daily traffic. This development will actually be an off-peak generator of traffic which is a benefit not only to the highway, but to the local street and the intersection improvements. CalTrans has completed a Project Study Report for the off-ramp, and they are currently going to go into the process of a design and improvement to the off- ramp at Mt. Vernon and Highway 178. Mr. Mommer stated that stacking was also discussed, and as previously mentioned, the turning movements into the center will be by means of a dual left turn lane with a traffic signal, and the length of each lane is 200 feet, so combined there is an overall length of 400 feet. Mr. Mommer stated concerning the issue of circulation and pattern for the existing church that the current development plan is to allow their access to remain as it is today, which the future concept and what the plan brings before the Commission is an internal circulation road that can be utilized for future development on the triangular Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page piece. There are some obstacles on the triangular piece, being grade differentials, a Chevron line and a Unical line that runs across that property. Renee Nelson asked if the internal circulation road is anything like the road that's at the other one because there is cars parked back there and if we're looking at that as a means of moving people from the mall over to Mt. Vernon it might be something that should be clarified that it is not going to have trucks coming in. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that traffic is going to be a major problem with this area. The traffic study is indicating almost 15,000 cars based on a retail community there .without a site plan. It is advertised as being four to five big box stores and retail area, but we're led to believe it's going to be Home Depot and another big box store which is only two, and he was informed that Wal-Mart employees were advised that they are going to make a Super Wal-Mart in this area. He believes there is either going to be a Sam's Club here or Von's is going to close and a Super Wal-Mart is going to go into the Sam's Club there, which is going to add to the confusion, and add to the traffic in that particular general area. He is concerned that the read system through East Hills Mall was not built for all this big box operation. Commissioner Sprague further commented that a request to do a C-2 zone against the PCD that is already existing and you flow traffic out of that and into it, he is concerned with landscaping, docking, deliveries, internal traffic, traffic on the street and the stacked lanes coming off the highway, the school issues, the apartment issues and where it is located, you only have one option and that is to make this a PCD so that it can come back and it can be looked at and properly planned. He believes the PCD is the way to do it. Commissioner Sprague commented that there already is traffic grid lock on Highway 178 and Mt. Vernon and Bernard, and it will stack further with this development, and he does not know how you mitigate that. May try to do an off-ramp out of the mall onto 178 and then you've got traffic congestion between Mt. Vernon and Oswell which is trying to get to Oswell to go off there, so it is going to take a pretty good master mind traffic planner to do that. Commissioner Sprague commented that school traffic and general traffic is a problem and he is concerned with the stack up of traffic on 178 off Mt. Vernon, and the applicant stated that CalTrans is working on this, but if they are going to mitigate that and add three lanes it could be 5, 10 or 20 years down the road as far as plan and money. Commissioner Sprague commented that he is concerned with what happens with the church and the apartments and what the development of commercial does to the noise contamination and light contamination into those apartment areas, and that will probably be addressed with a site plan When submitted. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 2t, 2000 Page 17 Commissioner Sprague stated that the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and Bernard which is presently church has been sold. It is presently zoned C-2, and the plans for that are for it to be a commercial shopping center that adds two more commercial in the central core area. Commissioner Sprague stated that they don't really know where the traffic signal locations are. They don't know about right and left hand turns, and turn lanes and stacking capacity of the'lanes from the highway on Mt. Vernon and on Bernard coming in, and he believes these are major issues and that there should be stacking lanes for at least 15 cars plus there. Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff as to the effect of conversion from residential zoning, which is presently there to commercial along the school, the church, residents in the general area. He believes that this is a major issue. ~ Commissioner Sprague does not know if the sites can be filled to level from where it's at, because it is inundated now. He asked if it's going to be a rolling hill development or is it going to be level?. He is reluctant to approve the plan without knowing what the site plan is and knowing what kind of buildings are going to go in there. Commissioner Sprague indicated that the Wal-Mart issue is a big issue that needs to be addressed. The connection with the Fashion Plaza requires the approval of adjacent owners for traffic use and street accessing East Hills. He has no idea what the capacity is for this. If another 15,000 cars are going back and forth through there he does not know what this is going to do to that road system. Commissioner Sprague 'commented that the General Plan Amendment on the. Plat Map shows that the parcel adjacent to the highway between this to the north is office commercial, and the zoning is R-3, and inquired what this does developmental wise to that if they decide to build apartments in there between the highway and the commercial, because it's already zoned R-37 Commissioner Sprague requested a reply from staff on the CalTrans letter of December 7th. Ms. Shaw replied that she has not reviewed the December 7th letter. Mr. Walker replied that they have reviewed the letter from CalTrans with Mr. Schuler. They dispute that the City in the Hills Project is a direct impact on this intersection because it is two miles away. Mr. Schuler commented that CalTrans had comments regarding the issue of how much of the traffic would be captured and how do the pieces interact with one another. There is a number on how many trips will be coming from the East Hills Mall and using the Home Depot, and that is what CalTrans was questioning, and they had used a 15% Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 18 number and in discussions with CalTrans yesterday, they agreed to go to a 10% number. The City Traffic Department concurs with the 15% capture rate. CalTrans did not. Therefore, he looked at the additional impact of that 5% differential going back on the CalTrans facilities, and in the PML it was about 15 trips out of about 3500 trips going through the intersection of Mt. Vernon and the eastbound ramps which is less than half a percent. It is not a big increase. Mr. Schuler further commented on.the growth rate of traffic at the CalTrans ramps and that CalTrans indicated they felt there would be a lot of influence from the City in the Hills project coming west and getting off on the westbound off-ramp, utilizing the facility or any of the items down Mt. Vernon, and then coming back and increasing the volumes on the eastbound on-ramp. He feels that this does not impact or drop the level of service of the intersection at the westbound ramps below what is acceptable. The eastbound ramps would require an additional left turn. Commissioner Sprague inquired of the length of the stacking lane to which Mr. Schuler responded 200 feet of stacking with a 120 foot taper, which would be 8 to 10 cars. Mr. Schuler confirmed that it is suppose to be a double stacking lane. Mr. Schuler stated that CalTrans has no specific timing for improvements of the ramp. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is concerned with the frontage road to the church and the problems there. Commissioner Boyle wanted to confirm that CalTrans is studying the possibility of widening the Mt. Vernon off-ramp going eastbound but there is no building date yet? This was responded to in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw if we know what the actual traffic is on that off-ramp, as well as the intersection of Bernard and Mt. Vernon, and what they are designed to handle? Ms. Shaw said she did not know. Commissioner Boyle inquired if the map presented for internal circulation is going to be public streets or some type of private internal circulation? Ms. Shaw stated that her assumption was that they would be private internal circulation streets and be covered in the commercial CC&R's. Commissioner Boyle said that the map shows two left turn lanes in and two out of the project and asked how you get four lanes of traffic into a 30' wide street to which Ms. Shaw responded that we will have to view this as a conceptual map. Commissioner Boyle stated that in general he would support the project and he shares the concerns about the traffic issues. He does not think the traffic issues are insurmountable, but he believes they bear some consideration. His concern is the Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page double left turn lane only going into a 30' p,rivate circulation street. He is supportive that maybe this be taken a look at with a PCD or, at the very minimum, condition the map with some type of requirement that it come back to the Commission to look at circulation as part of the' Subdivision Map. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw if it was the will of the Commission to have Public Works have a strong degree of influence on how this internal circulation is built and designed if they are more comfortable having that as a PCD or would they prefer to see it as some type of condition that it be done at the time of the Subdivision Map to which Ms. Shaw indicated that there is no guarantee that they would have to do a Subdivision Map if their lotting is appropriate to what they are planning. They could do a lot line adjustment which is a ministerial act. Commissioner Boyle inquired if they would need a PCD to which Ms. Shaw replied that with regard to concerns about the access from the double left turn lane into the shopping center, Public Works does review all traffic plans and they do look at this type of thing when they get the improvement plans. With regards to the internal circulation a PCD would work well. If they are going to have any type of on-site CC&R's for cross access generally the City does review and approve those. Other than that she would have no objection to a PCD. Commissioner Brady commented that he supports the project, but he believes there are significant problems with fitting this project on this piece of property. He will not support it unless it's a PCD because these problems need to be addressed. Commissioner Brady inquired if staff looks at the issue that if this project goes in they may be creating a situation of blite in the adjacent properties, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Brady inquired of Mr. Hernandez if they are required as part of the environmental review necessary with this project to consider the issue of blight that may be created on the adjacent businesses to which Mr. Hernandez responded that when the City did the environmental analysis on this project, and they did the initial study, if, in fact, they found that blight would create a significant impact then yes there would be an impact on that issue, therefore no subsequent analysis needs to be performed on that issue. Commissioner Brady stated that he is uncomfortable with this issue and it should be looked at. Scott Mommer stated that as part of the project application they submitted a detailed traffic analysis for the project and completed a noise and an air study for the project to show the negative impact on this property and the surrounding uses. The traffic study submitted addressed the center being built out in excess of 300,000 square feet. The certainty of development of this site is probably a concern with the City. He has been working this property for many years, and has worked with other major retailers, and some of the other concerns is the mall, and taking away from the mall. This piece of Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 20 property has been dormant for quite some time. The Home Depot proposed will definitely generate traffic, and they want to generate traffic. The report provided identifies mitigation measures of traffic signals, road widening and turn lanes. With that study it shows the use of the property, and Home Depot would be willing to commit to a time frame to build the building within so many months because it is their objective to get this store opened as soon as possible for this area. Another type of retailer has always been a concern of taking away from the mall, but the Home Depot will not take away from the mall, and believes it will help the mall. If they go with the other zone being discussed, it puts them off into the future that they potentially cannot open it in late 2001or early 2002, because the process would go longer, which is why they are willing to commit to a time element for a building permit for the rezoning. The circulation plan shows a 30' internal circulation road, and those dimensions on the plan are actually in the center of the project. Naturally at the road connections those are widened to not only account for the lane movements for dual left lane turning in, but also there would be median islands as you come in as an entry feature. The circulation plan shows the internal circulation. They are aware of the grade differentials and have looked at that. They know what dirt they have to move to make the project work. They know what roads have to line out in order to create a circulation pattern to taken into the account the differential grades and that's why the road is not a straight road with T's. It takes into account the issues. They believe they can work with staff to create the site plan that will be in harmony with the Planning Commissioner's request. Commissioner Brady stated that he is not going to support the project unless it is a PCD. Commissioner Brady inquired if they studied the potential for blight to which applicant responded in the negative. Commissioner Brady is concerned with the lack of study of the potential for blight. Mr. Hernandez stated that CEQA does not require the City to analyze social impacts, but environmental impacts that are caused by the project as it is proposed. Unless the City can find that there is some type of social impact that is generated by environmental impact then the City can go into further study of the social impact. First it has to find that there is an environmental impact that subsequently triggers a social impact. For the City to be able to study the social impacts, they go through a list of the different categories to see if one of those environmental issues also creates a social impact. Commissioner Brady asked if staff is comfortable in. recommending the Negative Declaration and a finding that the impact of this development has not risen to the le~/el to trigger a CEQA study to which Mr. Hernandez responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hernandez stated that they have no substantial evidence in the record to show that one of the environmental categories listed under CEQA generates so much impact that is also creates a social and economic impact. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 21 Commissioner Brady stated that he would support a Negative Declaration at this time because he believes that the impact of this development will improve the amount of traffic coming into the area for the mall, if there is appropriate connection of the roadways and internally so that traffic can then flow into the mall in an appropriate manner. He believes that to do this it needs to have a PCD. Commissioner Brady inquired of staff that with regard to timing if the applicant was required to come back with a PCD how quickly could that be done, to which staff responded that they need a minimum of 20 days for the notice, and the next meeting is the first week in January, so assuming they came in with a plan tomorrow, we could probably schedule them on the second meeting in January. If not, the first or second meeting February. Commissioner Brady inquired how quickly they could submit a map and deal with the issues discussed for a PCD to which the applicant responded 30 to 60 days. Mr. Grady commented that the General Plan could be approved this evening with the requirement that it be developed as a PCD and then when the plan is ready it could be scheduled for a zone change. Commissioner Brady inquired that if the applicant has to make the maps anyway if this would really be slowing the applicant's process down by requiring a PCD to which Mr. Grady replied that it would be one additional step for the zone change that could suffice for their site plan review hearing as well, and once approved they could submit for a building permit around the same time. Commissioner Brady stated that he'would be in favor or approving the General Plan Amendment with the requirement that they bring back a zone change for a PCD. Commissioner McGinnis stated he has concerns about traffic issues and that he could not support the straight C-2 zoning. The PCD will give us more input and give staff more input and give everyone a chance to work together to overcome some of the problems. Commissioner Boyle inquired of staff that assuming the approval of the PCD there needs to be the first motion made with the condition that it be a PCD and then not make the motion for the zone change, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle reiterated that all of the plans and studies have not been submitted to make a determination as to all of the facts and plans. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the issues regarding external circulation for a traffic study and' upgrading of signals, widening of off-ramps, and there .are other intersections that are being effected that the project is going to pay its proportionate share on improving. The proposal indicates a possible connection to the property to the north Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 22 that would otherwise be landlocked, it shows a potential connection to East Hills Mall so that there is a way to get people from Mt. Vernon through this project to East Hills Mall without having to travel Bernard. There was also discussion about lighting and trees and those type of things which he believes are all adequately covered in the zoning ordinance with respect to landscaping and the parking areas, landscaping around perimeters, landscaping adjacent to projects and things of that nature. The other issue of placement of buildings he does not think the location of buildings is going to impact any of the adjacent property. In his mind, he does not believe that a PCD is necessarily warranted. He thinks it is an added step that they are going to submit it and they are going to support it. With respect to East Hills Mall and some of the surrounding areas, he feels that they are adequately addressed. Commissioner Dhanens does not agree that it has to be a PCD, but he certainly wouldn't vote against the project on that merit. He would encourage the rest of the Commissioners to consider that again. COmmissioner Dhanens stated that with respect to the economic situation and the blight, he does not believe that a Home Depot is in direct competition with surrounding businesses and does not cause a concern. Commissioner Dhanens inquired of Ms. Shaw if a deceleration lane in the southbound portion of Bernard Avenue to aide in the traffic entering Heritage Academy, could be impoSed upon the applicant, to which Ms. Shaw responded in the negative. Mr. Hernandez clarified that when the motion is made the recommendation will be to approve the General Plan Amendment, but there will need to be a motion approving the Negative Declaration and denying the zone change requested. Commissioner Kemper concurs with Chair Dhanens that she would prefer this not be a PCD and that she believes the developer can work directly with City staff in an acceptable manner. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designatiod from HMR to GC as shown on Exhibit "B" and recommend the same to City Council, but adding the condition that the developer submit a planned commercial development. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 23 ABSENT: None A motion was made by. Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, but denying the zone change from R-1 and R-3 to C2 as shown on Exhibit "B" and recommend the same to City Council. Motion was approved by the fOllowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None A dinner break was taken at this time. 5.5.a) 5.5.b) General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley (County) Combined with 5.5.b below. Zone Change File No. P00-0756 - Floyd Hinesley (County) Mr. Grady stated that there was no additional information to provide at this time. Public portion of the hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation to disapprove the General Plan Amendment and the zone change. Glenn Barnhill, President of Barnhill Consulting, Inc., representing Floyd Hinesley addressed points made in a letter to the Commission from the Del Rio Area Concerned Citizens, and then addressed an additional point made by staff in the staff report. 1) The Del Rio group states in their letter that a General Plan Amendment should demonstrate a need or a benefit of which the application does neither, and granting such a request is detrimental. Applicant's response is that the future growth in the area will create the need for commercial development. The applicant feels the benefits come from reduced traffic and reduced air emissions resulting from having commercial in 'close proximity to residential. This project complies with the intent of the General Plan in this sense. Therefore, it provides benefits to the area. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 24 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) They also say the rezoning is premature. Some 2000 acres are under land use deed restriction, and for the next eight years cannot be developed. The applicant agrees that it would be premature to develop this site at this date, however, it is not premature to plan the development for future commercial use. When an attempt was made to rezone the northeast corner of this intersection to commercial it failed because it was too late. With regard to the deed restricted farm land, not all of the 2000 acres is surrounding this particular site. Much of the property is located south of the river and west of Buena Vista. The eight year period remaining is conceivably within the window that this site may be developed. The proposed C-2 site and the existing C-1 site would consist of 32 acres. This area cannot support a project of that magnitude. The applicant agrees that this area cannot support 32 acres of commercial, however, they would like to contend that the commercial located north of their site is no longer a viable commercial location. That.site was approved when it was believed that an interchange would be located at Renfro Road and the Kern River Freeway. The interchange has been dropped and the commercial is now located mid block on Renfro. Commercial at the intersection of two arterial highways with further signalization and expanded intersections makes more sense. The applicant's proposal places no reliance on the construction of a freeway to the north. Two mini markets and gas stations are located at Allen and Stockdale Highway. One and a half miles to the east Darrel's mini storage has been approved. The applicant's response to this is that the plans submitted were clearly labeled conceptual and the market will actually determine what types of commercials are to be located at this location. As previously mentioned, if you wait for the market to exist the request for change would be too late. The applicant has offered to the Del Rio group and to staff to go with a PCD, and applicant makes that same offering at this meeting. Tract 6012 is located directly north of the subject property. Commercial eaSt and south of the site seems to be poor planning. The applicant responds that the earlier General Plan policy encouraged commercial in close proximity to residential. There are buffers such as landscaping, berms and walls which will make commercial very compatible with the area through the use of the PCD. It will provide the needed assurance to guarantee that the site is developed using the soundest planning principles. Traffic constraints cannot support the project. Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road and the Kern River Freeway will carry large volumes of traffic. The applicant believes this statement has major flaws. If the freeway is still viable, there is no off-ramp planned for Renfro. Renfro Road dead ends at the river with no plans to bridge the river to the south. The Public Works Department has Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 25 prepared a response to this statement, and is part of the staff report this evening. The project does not depend on the future freeway, and the traffic analysis has shown that the planned circulation network without the freeway can support the project. Additionally, the circulation element does show Renfro continuing to the south across the river in the future. Lastly, although staff does not say so directly, the staff report could leave one to believe that the request is not consistent with the General Plan because a half mile spacing does not exist between commercial designations. The key phrase in the General Plan policy dealing with this is "encourage" separation. The word "require" was not used because the writers realized that a separation is not always possible. While staff does not recognize the Western Rosedale Specific Plan, it does so for these purposes. Staff should recognize that the south beltway has been adopted as part of Western Rosedale and goes right through a portion of the commercial that is located on the south side of Stockdale Highway, which is not far from the project site. This west beltway comes through that site without providing access to it, does not provide access to Stockdale Highway. The only interchange near this location is shown with the Kern River Freeway. Applicant has confirmed with staff that if the general commercial in the Western Rosedale Specific Plan was to be annexed to the City it would require a General Plan Amendment because the City does not recognize Western Rosedale. Under the City's General Plan it is designated IRA. Based on his 25+ years experience in the planning field, he would suggest that this particular northwest corner is the best commercial site. Anthony Olivery of Olivery Commercial Group stated that they see this as being good planning for the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change because currently there is 13 acres that is zoned C-1 that is a mid block site on Renfro Road, which at one time was probably a good idea in relation to the Kern beltway and the fact of the on and off ramp proposed for the area. At some point in the past the City identified the future need for commercial development in this specific area. Today, due to the various changes of the Kern Beltway and the deletion of that on and off ramp, the .site doesn't really make practical sense. The applicant is proposing the idea of shifting it to the most practical location at the corner of these two major arterials. The site has good dimensions that allow for better planning. The applicant believes that demand will warrant a well planned shopping center for this immediate area in the future. The applicant is more than willing to accept a PCD which gives the neighborhood and the community and the City more control within the design elements of what is being proposed. The applicant believes that keeping shopping close to surrounding neighborhoods is good planning in that it reduces traffic and congestion. Applicant requests the Commission support of the proposal and not to consider staff's recommendation. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 26 Floyd Hinesley, the applicant, reiterated his scenario of events with this specific parcel. Tom Fallgatter commented on the shopping center similarity at Gosford and Stockdale Highway. This site really has no other use because there is commercial to the north of the corner, and it is not particularly amenable to homes at the intersection of two major arterials. The neighbors do not want apartments. The freeway is no longer going to happen there. Therefore, this site is very suitable for commercial. The Commission has the power to initiate a down zone. Asking for a down zoning of this area so this property does not go unplanned. The applicant is willing to have a PCD on this property in order to meet the neighbors concerns about how it will be developed. The applicant is willing to provide for a block wall along the north side of the property with a covenant running in favor of the neighbors that would prohibit any access between this parcel and the north parcel so that those parcels could never be joined together as a shopping center. The applicant would prevent any ingress and egress permanently between the two parcels. The applicant is willing to consider any other reasonable constraints or conditions on the project in order to meet the neighbors concerns to the extent it is within their power in terms of development. The applicant is open to landscaping · requests. This has already been offered to the neighbors. Applicant is asking the Commission to become proactive with the zoning. The applicant would stipulate to sealing the project off from that zoning, and it will be free-standing and it would never be a 33 acre shopping cente~'. The public portion of the hearing for those in opposition to staff's recommendation is closed. The public portion of the hearing for those in support of staff's recommendation to disapprove the General Plan and zone change is opened. Barbara Lomas with D.R.A.C.C. the property west of the north parcel has a tract map currently. To the east there are homes that already back up to Stockdale Highway. It is not unheard of for homes to be backed up against arterials. She believes that the block wall suggested by the applicant poses a safety problem for fire and police. Mrs. Lomas referred to page 4, item 2c, page 8, item 8h, page 9, item 8b, page 10, item 12a, page 10, item 13a, page 11, items 15 a and b, page 11, item 16, page 12, item 17b. There will not be enough future growth to warrant a commercial center. We have inadequate police service currently. There is no public transportation. Logically Renfro Road will probably not be supported to cross the river because of lack of funds. It is not this Commission's, nor the City staff's obligation to ensure Mr. Hinesley makes a profit on his endeavors. Requests Commission's support to affirm staff's recommendation to disapprove the zone change request and also disapprove to the contrary of staff the Negative Declaration. Joy Trigerio's home backs up to Renfro and she would not be opposed to there being a shopping center at this location as it appears the applicant is willing to work with the neighbors. Ms. Trigerio asked if there would be a traffic signal at that intersection? Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 27 When they bought their home they were told it was commercial. Chairman Dhanen's response was that the PCD would take care of Mrs. Trigerio's concerns. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The hearing is opened for Commissioner's comment and action. Commissioner Sprague agrees that this is the best future commercial site for this area but is concerned with the existing commercial to the north and to the southwest totaling approximately 52 acres, which he believes would require and EIR to address the problems in the area and the traffic. Inquired of Mr. Grady if a commercial holding zone could be added to the zoning ordinance to create a guaranteed commercial zoning for which would allow for future commercial building. Mr. Grady responded that it could be proposed. Commissioner Sprague stated the project came in proposed as commercial C-2 with mini storage on the corner, a little commercial north of that, and mini storages and RV parking adjacent to it, and the traffic study was done based on the mini storage and the RV and little mini market which does not generate the trips that a shopping center would. Commissioner Sprague inquired if the applicant is proposing to do a mini storage during a holding period and then take it out and put a shopping center in the future to which Mr. Barnhill for the applicant responded that at the time the application was submitted they did not know exactly what would go in there, and the plan is conceptual, and the mini storage could be an interim use because it will probably be eight to ten years before it is ready for a shopping center. If the use does change they would have to supplement the traffic study. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Barnhill if the applicant would have to go before the CUP grouPto get zoning for a mini storage site to which Mr. Barnhill responded that at the present time there is no immediate plans to develop the site, and that it will be eight to ten years before the site is developed. Commissioner Sprague stated the acreage is a problem and that large of a piece of property requires cumulative studies of an area EIR and other EIRs because of the shopping centers that are being developed within a mile and a mile and-a-quarter. There is another mini storage within a mile and-a-half east of this area, and asten years go by and the west beltway is getting close to being looked at there are issues that may warrant commercial. He further stated that he does not see impact fees going toward a bridge fund for north south traffic corridors over the river. Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff if impact fees are spent on bridges to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sprague stated concern for blight. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 2R Commissioner Sprague inquired of Mr. Hernandez if he could reply to Mr. Fallgatter's recommendation that the Commission could down zone the C-1 property to the north to which Mr. Hernandez responded that the City can initiate a down zone but it could not be done tonight. It would have to be re-noticed for a public hearing. Commissioner Sprague inquired of Mr. Hernandez if there could be a commercial holding zone established to which Mr. Hernandez replied that they would have to go through a whole ordinance change before it could be considered and would require hearings before the Commission and adoption by the City Council. Commissioner Brady stated that it would be too much commercial in one location if it was contiguous with the existing commercial and agrees with Del Rio. He agrees with Mr. Fallgatter and the applicant that the corner is where the commercial property should be for ingress and egress and for community access. Does not recall a down zoning of anyone in the recent past. He inquired of staff of what would be involved in down zoning and what the cost would be to the City to which Mr. Hernandez replied that it is not a popular thing to do and the courts have made it clear that down zoning property is not the taking of someone's property unless it deprives them of all economic value. Commissioner Brady states that houses can be built on that parcel and people will buy the homes, and it still has value as residential property. He does not feel that there will be any harm to the community if they don't move forward with the application for the rezoning and the General Plan Amendment. He does not see the need for the City to take the unusual step of down zoning someone's property in this situation. He would like to see the C-1 property go to a residential and have that commercial piece down and become a PCD so the neighborhood concerns could be addressed. He stated that he would support staff's recommendation and support the denial. Commissioner Brady inquired if staff has a response in regards to the issues raised with the Negative Declaration, to which staff responded that there is a companion document that has staff's responses to each one of the comments. Everything that Ms. Lomas talked about that has a check list to it either identifies existing conditions that would show that there is not a significant impact such as the property is not located within a designated area that has 100 year flood plan and it would say that in that statement, or with respect to the ag conversion that the property is not under Williamson Act Contract so we are not looking at converting agricultural land prematurely or promoting or inducing growth by having property that is in that contract. The other comments about the population density that the commercial property as proposed by the applicant is intended to serve the immediate neighborhood and in itself is not an inducer, but is a service provider to the neighborhood. He heard no statements that those comments which are staff's CEQA response were inadequate. Commissioner Brady confirmed that there was no substantially evidence placed in the record which staff feels requires the Commission to deny the Negative Declaration. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 29 Commissioner Kemper stated that she agrees that this piece of property would probably be best for commercial, but there are houses that back up to the property and it would decrease their value. The existing C-1 to the north is kind of a dinosaur and it would be nice to down size, but is not sure that she would want to down zone it. Mr. Grady stated'that if the Commission accepts the applicant's statement that they are eight to 10 years out before they would ever start commercial development, then the Commission could also accept applicant's position that approving the general plan designation without necessarily zoning it would put them in a position to come back to the Commission at some time in the future for a zone change, with the condition that the other property be relocated. It would then become incumbent upon the applicant if they ever expect to develop this property that they are going to have to work to move the C-1. This occurred at Panama and Wible. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Hernandez if the applicant could initiate a down zone if he chooses to pay the fees against an adjoining parcel property to which Mr. Hernandez replied that he did not believe that would be possible. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw that if the Kern River freeway is not built but a Kern River Parkway is built, and the parkway is built out to Renfro Road, would the parkway cross over Renfro Road or would it be a lighted intersection such as Truxtun and Mohawk to which Ms. Shaw replied that as of this date all discussions allow for freeway standards with grade separated interchanges or simply grade separated roadways that would not have interchanges. As of today if it would be built as a local freeway it would still be a freeway with no at grade traffic intersections and no traffic signals. Commissioner Boyle inquired if the City could build a local freeway instead of building it as a Truxtun extension type parkway to which Ms. Shaw replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle stated that he believes both parties have made reasonable arguments, but ultimately feels that 50+ acres of commercial is too much. The best use of applicant's parcel is commercial, but it could also be built residential. He would not be supportive of down zoning the other property. Commissioner Boyle stated until a final decision is made on a freeway or a parkway to be built that maybe the current decision is premature. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if that area were annexed to the City that the City is not obligated to carry over the general commercial land use designation, to which Mr. Grady responded in the affirmative. Mr. Dhanens asked what the General Plan designation Would be for that property, to which Mr. Grady responded that there is -a choice in terms of what is discussed with the applicant as to what it is they would like to have it designated when it comes to the City. Mr. Grady stated that our obligation would be to reach that understanding and agreement at the time they are working with the applicant. It could be GC or some other designation. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 30 Commissioner Dhanens states that he believes that the best location for general commercial and for C-2 property is at the location of two arterials with a signalized intersection. He does not believe that they should down size the northern property. He stated that he would not like to see a mini storage on that site either. The Commission can approve the general plan, but not the rezoning of it for now. Commissioner Brady stated that with regard to approving the General Plan Amendment but conditioning the zone change on the rezoning of the other property he does not know if that benefits the applicant because it may impede his ability to find some other use for the property. Commissioner Brady inquired of the applicant if it would be of some benefit to get the General Plan Amendment but have a zone change conditioned on something happening to that property to the north to which Mr. Hinesley responded that he is one who would not prefer to initiate a down zoning. Mr. Hinesley stated that to have the General Plan Amendment approved and withhold the zoning may be an option. Mr. Hinesley stated that he does not think that he would ever develOp that property for residential use because it would not be economically feasible. Mr. Hinesley stated that he does want time limits imposed upon on the General Plan approval because if the market indicates that the property is ready for development in two years then he wants the option to apply for a zone change and be able to expect support from the Commission and from the neighbors. Otherwise he would support the General Plan approval. Commissioner Brady responded that there is no guarantee when a zone change is made that the Commission is going to be obligated to accept it. Mrs. Lomas stated that the reason they did not go line by line in staff's response to the Negative Declaration is because it is quite lengthy, and D.R.A.C.C. has problems in the way that staff addressed each and every issue. For example, staff sites the taking of farm land and it seems in staff's response the only thing that matters is if it is still under the Williamson Act, and the statement does not address the Williamson Act, but staff's response did. This is prime agricultural land under deed restriction. Commissioner Brady stated that based on the development and the location and the fact that there is housing development adjacent to the property he does not feel that it is prime agriculture land because any agricultural activity would create a nuisance to that adjoining property and there are problems there and those problems exist now. Commissioner Brady stated that because it really is almost encircled with residential development it really is not prime agricultural land anymore. Commissioner Brady stated that he does not believe that there is any substantial evidence in the record to deny the Negative Declaration and he would therefore support the Negative Declaration. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 31 Commissioner Brady stated that he would be in support of the suggestion to approve the General Plan Amendment and conditioning the zone change on the requirement that the GC property to the north of the project be down zoned to non-commercial property. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the Commission would be able to put a condition on the approval of the General Plan Amendment that approving the subsequent zone change at some time in the future as yet undetermined that it be contingent upon the C-1 zone property being zoned to something other than commercial, or could a Commission in the future be more responsive to having both commercial sites if they chose, to which staff responded in the affirmative that they could place that condition on the property. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the Commission would have to make some determination as to what that commercial zoning would be on this particular property to which staff responded that if it is the Commission's desire to make it a PCD it should be done now. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Hernandez since the applicant does not own the property but has an option, what would happen if the Commission exercises this proposal and the applicant does not exercise his option; is the owner then stuck with this property that is neither friend nor foe at that point because it will have zoning which is inconsistent with its General Plan designation to which Mr. Hernandez responded that when an applicant comes in they have the property owner sign the application so the property owner is in agreement with what is being applied for before the Commission today. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Fallgatter if the Commission was to agree to the changing the General Plan but not the zoning and conditioning it on a PCD and conditioning it further upon the general commercial to the north being rezoned, is the applicant then obligated to exercise his option, or could he then subsequently decide not to purchase the property to which Mr. Fallgatter responded that he did not represent the applicant in the contract stage, but the applicant would not necessarily be bound to purchase based on that form of approval. Mr. Fallgatter further stated that another suggestion would be to produce a Power of Attorney form to act on behalf of the owner or obtain the owner's written consent to this unusual form of zoning before the next Council meeting. Commissioner Boyle stated that he was not sure that he would support the concept, but certainly he could not support the concept unless the owner of the property had been advised of this and had the owner's approval. Commissioner Sprague asked Commissioner Boyle if he was proposing that this item be continued to get the approval from the owner to which Mr. Boyle responded that we could condition upon the applicant having the owner's approval prior to it going to City Council would be a sufficient condition. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Page 32 Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Hernandez the validity of this condition to which Mr. Hernandez responded that when the owner signs the application they are agreeing to the action that the Commission is going to take, but if the Commission desires to make sure that the owner be advised and aware of what the Commission action is tonight before final action is taken by the City Council the Commission can require that the applicant will secure the permission of the owner in order to proceed to City Council. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-lA to GC as shown on Exhibit "B" and recommend the same to City Council with the following additional conditions: 1) that before the property is rezoned that they have to haVe a rezoning of the property to the north from general commercial to some other form of residential property; 2) that the zoning for the property at such future time that it be granted would be a Planned Commercial Development; and 3) that the applicant will secure the consent of the property owner to the specific type of split general plan and zone designation prior to the hearing before the City Council. Mr. Grady asked Mr. Boyle whether he wants to preclude the property from being developed as retail, or office to which Mr. Boyle amended the motion to be other than retail. Commissioner Sprague amended his second. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: · Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: Commissioner McGinnis ABSENT: NOne A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration but disapproving the zone change from City pre-zoning A to City C-2 as shown on Exhibit "B" and recommend same to City Council. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None Commission took a five minute break. Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 38 10. 11. 7.2) Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the proposed amendment to Title 16 with finding as set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City -Council. ~ Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None Amendment to Title16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) to allow double frontage lots on streets which function as a major street. (Exempt from CEQA) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS None. Commission COMMENTS Commissioner Kemper confirmed that staff will respond to Mr. Tripicio's question. Staff is going to look at the previous parcel maps and zoning on the property and see if at any one of those prior approvals something may have been done that did not get carried through that would have ended up with a different shaped commercial property other than the rectangle that is shown tonight. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady advised there are eight items consisting of a tentative tract map, a conformance zone change, a couple of maps that were continued but will not be continued again, and a comprehensive sign plan for the Northwest Promenade. decided that a pre-meeting would be held. It was Minutes, PC, Thursday, December 21, 2000 Parle 39 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. February 6, 2001 Planning Director