Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, JuflXe 18; 1992, 5:30 p.m.,. City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California.~ ROLL CALL COMMiSSiONERS Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ROBERT SHERFY, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF: ~ Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Statement was made by Barbara Don Carlos representing the BIA regarding Fire Department fees and school impact fees. She stated her appreciation for the memo from City Manager-stating that all requests for fire impact fees be withdrawn from all Projects being considered at this hearing. She stated the BIA's opinion that fire fees being requested are impact fees which are unauthorized and illegal: Regarding school impact feeS;-she stated the BIA's understanding of the problems surrounding this issue. She stated they are working diligently through the task force to reach an agreement. She felt that the State fee satisfies the mitigation of new development and asked that it stand until the task force has reach an agreement. She was concerned about documentation being provided, stating the burden of proof should be on the school districts to provide documentation of need and specific measures they have undertaken to maximize current capacities and attempts on behalf of themselves to Solve their . OWn funding problems~ She stated they would nOt wish to cause a delay in decision rendering on those projects in which an agreement has been reached Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 2 between the applicant and School district and would not feel these would have a precedent setting effect. Chairman re. ad the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Ms. Marino said this would be an appropriate time to set limits on speakers. Motion was made by CommissiOner Rosenlieb that each side, favor and opposition, would have a 20-minute total speaking time. Commissioner Messner stated he had no problem with this issue, however would like to see a 5-minute rebuttal period added. Commissioner Powers stated the rebuttal period goes against the standard Procedure. Previous motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Marino stated the May 21, 1992 minutes would be distributed for the next hearing: Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to Continue approval of minutes of the regular meetings held May 7, and May 211 1992 to the next regular meeting of July 2, 1992~ Motion carried. 4.1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT ! This item was withdrawn. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 3 4.2) a,b GENERAL.PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT II 'AND ZONE CHANGE #5324 Commissioner Powers abstained due to a financial conflict of interest in that his employer is the applicant. Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he represents the proPerty owner and applicant in the sale of the property, however he remained seated. Staff report was given. Public pOrtion of the hearing was opened. Michael Dhanens represented the land owners north of subject site. He submitted copies of a site plan for this project, which he outlined for the Commission. He .felt a direct impact from this site on his client's ability to negotiate leases .with strong tenants would be dramatic. It would place their site at an economic disadvantage. Maurice Etchechury represented the developers of the property. He stated his agreement with' changes to Conditions in memos of June 18, 1992 from Public Works, June 16, 1992 memo from Planning Department and memo from the City Manager regarding fire station fees. He asked that the Commission approve this project over staff's recommendation because of an incorrect statement in the staff report, page 3 .regarding the general plan policy that all 4 quadrants of an intersection not be designated general commercial. He stated they found this to be an incorrect statement: With the removal of this statement it is possible to find no environmental reasOn warranting denial of this project. He outlined other commercial properties in the area and their relation to other properties. He felt at buildout this intersection could serve up to 4,000 dwelling units, feeling this warrants special considerations. He felt without an off-ramp on Wible Road the other mid-block location had questionable economic viability. He urged the Commission to approve this project with an additional condition that the signal at Panama and Wible being installed within 180 days Of the approval of this request by Council and at the time of permit Panama Lane would be improved not only on the associated frontage-but up to 1/4 mile westerly of Wible Road. This would be done providing the city can acquire the right-of-way and that reimbursement would be made when additional permits are pulled on the adjacent .property. Steve Hartsell, legal counsel for Kern Union High School District, stated the district and applicant had entered into an agreement regarding mitigation of impacts relating tO the high.school district. He stated the terms provide that the Minutes, PC, '6/18/92 Page 4 developer agree to inclusion of any approval by the City of Bakersfield. The condition reads as follows: "This approval is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and Kern Union High School District dated June 18, 1992." Lawton Powers spoke saying this site meets all criteria of the major chain markets and drug stores. He said -the market economy dictates where this site should be. · He submitted to the commission a graph showing developed shopping centers in the south area since 1975. He felt the 7-acre site referred to by Mr. Dhanens would be enhanced by this development. Scott Underhill, ASU and Associates, spoke saying his firm represents the applicants on the purchase of subject property. He provided information regarding commercial projects which have been constructed since 1980. He felt this project being on a 13-acre site would best serve the residents of the area. George Martin spoke saying he felt this site should be located on subject property. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman read staff's recommendation from the staff report. Responding to questiOns by Chairman Marino, Mr. Kloepper felt those additional items being proposed by Mr. Etchechury would be possible, the details of which could be worked out administratively. Responding to qUestions by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said the site was already zoned before annexation. The County's position was not to add anything to their approval. The basis for approving this within mid-block would have been property owner,s application and convincing arguments. Commissioner Rosenlieb said although the applicant has presented a good case, regarding the 2010 hearings the intent was that there not be anymore strip commercial, giving the example of what occurred on Ming Avenue close to Valley Plaza shopping center down to Stine and beyond. She stated she would not sUpport this request, given other commercial designations in the area. Chairman Marino stated he spoke with residents in the area who said they would welcome'a grocery store. He felt there would be a disservice if the opportunity for this type of use were not created. He stated he would support the applicant's original request. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 5 Commissioner Frapwell stated.his support for the project given the testimony and because of the conglomeration of commercial in this area. He felt this is a good location for this type of Use. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Commissioner Frapwell said he would support down-zoning of the mid-block area feeling it is a better use for the land than general, commercial. He cited an example of this type of situation. Chairman Marino stated his response to Commissioner Rosenlieb's question, saying he does not support down-zoning~ He felt it would be appropriate to bring back the-mid-block commercial for a possible rezone. Commissioner Messner was agreeable with Chairman Marino's previous comment regarding possible rezoning of the mid-block property. He commended the applicant for reaching agreement with the Kern High School District. He felt the applicant's analogy regarding a larger site supporting a smaller site was a good point, saying he did not feel strip type development is being encouraged with this project. He stated his support for the applicant's request. He was concerned regarding the lack of conditions on this item. He felt possibly conditions could be formulated and this issued could be continue until later in the meeting. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question by Commissioner Messner, saying if the Commission would prefer: to approve general commercial on the general plan, he requested the zone change be continued so it can be evaluated in this context. He also stated the need for the statement between applicant and high school district to be better, stated. Commissioner Anderson cited previous discussion regarding postponing an item to later in the agenda if a reformulation of motion is necessary. He stated his support for the applicant's request, saying he would like a motion for approval. Discussion continUed r. egarding reformulation of a motion for approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to refer this matter to be heard between Segments III and IV directing staff to formulate conditions of approval for the general plan amendment and zone change in support of C-2 zoning. Motion carried. Commissioners Andrew and POwers were absent. Mr. Hardisty stated no conditions are to be included relevant to other properties being rezoned as a condition of this approval. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 4.3) a,b GENERAL 'PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT III-A AND ZONE CHANGE #5320 ~ Page 6 Staff report was given. Chairman Marino stated letters had been received from attorneys for the applicant regarding school impacts, mitigation and forming of a nexus, a letter from Lou Shinder opposition, Robert and Kathy Neufeld in opposition, a memo from Public WOrks-revising conditions and memo from City Manager which will pertain to all items on the agenda regarding fire impact fees. Public portion of the hea~ing was opened. Robert Williams spoke in opposition saying he is a resident of Haggin Oaks development. He cited space available in other shopping centers, saying residents in the area don't feel the need for additional strip center space. He was concerned about traffic congestion and lack of support for a strip center. Tom Lingo spoke in opposition, being concerned about the lack of an environmental impact report, additional traffic, existing undeveloped commercial property. He felt the zon~ing as it exists is proper, and succeeds in buffering the residential zoning from commercial. Roger Alfred spoke in opposition. He stated his objections being the potential of distressing existing businesses, possibility of empty buildings, noise, lights and loitering. He recommended the Commission follow staff's recommendation. Kathy Neufeld spoke in oPposition. She stated her agreement'with the previous conditions regarding noise, traffic, light and glare. Doug Eberts, resident of Stockdale Estates, spoke in opposition. He stated his disagreement~ with this development. He said informed decisions were made by those who purchased in this area. He felt the applicant is asking the Commission to approve a wrongful zone change. He said they will not allow this to happen. Steve Hartsell represented Kern High School District. He submitted a letter commenting on imPact of CEQA with relation to school facilities, which he asked the commission to give full consideration to. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 7 Lou Shinder spoke in opposition, stating his comments have been addressed by previous speakers. He said his home is closest to subject property and would be most impacted. His concerns were noise and lighting stating he would not have purchased his property- had he known this would be developed. He felt subject development would have an impact on property values in the area, stating the area contains homes in a Very high price range. Don Ware spoke in opposition. He added to previous comments saying those in favor of this zone change live a great distance from the proposed zone change where the impacts would not be felt as much. He asked that the cumulative impacts be addressed. He felt this breaks rules of the 2010 Plan. He encouraged the commission to follow the 2010 Plan. Judy Salamal~a represented Castle and Cooke Development Corporation regarding community relations. She outlined their response to survey. She submitted 25 letters in favor and signatures to a Petition containing 504 signatures in support. Bill Galloway, resident of Las Palmas, spoke saying he did not share the feelings of fear of his neighbors. He said he was aware of traffic noise when he purchased. He was concerned about the non-stop residential development in the area causing additional overcrowding in the schools. Janine Kerber, resident of the Oaks, stated she felt this proposed shopping center would give residents shopping opportunity. She said she welcomes this shopping center. Duane Keathly, CB Commercial Real Estate Group, provided marketing for' the applicant. He Outlined the need for the proposed center being created by tenant interest and viability of this corner. He said the project is designed to be an upscale center. Roger Mclntosh represented the applicant. He submitted additional documents to the commission regarding the project. He outlined the uses proposed for the site being a high-end grocery drug tenant, sporting goods tenant and additional specialty shops, satellite pads and an upscale restaurant pad. He stated regarding the comment in staff report about increase in traffic that a traffic study was submitted along with the application, outlining the findings. He felt the increase is minimal because of the down-zoning at Old River and White Lane. Regarding noise he stated he submitted a copy of noise study prepared based on traffic increase around subject site, which he outlined for the commission. He felt regarding the light and glare issue identified in the staff report, with current ordinances this issue can be softened. He stated the major policy to support this use would be policy #49 of the 2010 plan which encourages continued Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 8 development of Cal State University and adjacent areas for education, cultural 'and supporting commercial and residential uses. David Milazzo representing the applicant outlined the project and surrounding areas. Mr. Mclntosh commented on the letter from high school district stating they could construct 400 residential homes at this time which would cause a much more substantial impact than a shopping center. Mr. McIntosh stated his agreement with the conditions of approval. He stated his agreement with continuing the zone change to a later date with action being taken on the-general plan amendment at this time. Tom Lingo spoke saying they submitted a petition containing signatures in opposition of those in the immediate area. 'Janine Kerber spoke saying she felt the noise consultant should get a reading at all times of day for accuracy. Public Portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman read staff's recommendation from the staff report. 'Commissioner Andrew spoke regarding noise impact, saying the report shows that the noise may not be as great as people in the area think. He felt those pUrchasing in the area did so knowing they were close to two major arterials and should have expected noise. He felt this project is a quality project, however had concerns about the size. He quoted results from the phone survey, saying they were such that he felt there is a need and desire for this use. Regarding the issue of apartment type uses, he felt there are enough apartment sites in the City. Discussion continued regarding size of proposed shopping center. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave history on this site and surrounding sites. She stated she objected to statements that the proposal is a logical extension of commercial office and retail, however she felt there is a market demand for this use. She felt the impacts from this use can be mitigated, however they are significant. She felt the city should be planning for multi-family uses around the university. Commissioner Powers was concerned about Policy # 19 of the Land Use Element of the 2010 Plan being the reason given in the staff report for denial. He felt 'corner-oriented commercial uses work. He was, however, concerned about the Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 9 size of the project being too large. He said he would like to take a closer look at relationship of this project to the project for mid-block commercial between Gosford Road and Old River Road on Ming Avenue, stating this should possibly be done in a committee setting. Chairman Marino stated his agreement with Commissioner Powers comments. He stated he cannot support this project because of the large size in a C-2 zone. He said he would not be opposed to sending this item to committee. Mr. McIntosh said they are aware of the concerns regarding this project. He stated their agreement with submitting to a P.C.D. if this is what the commission wishes. He said it is not their intent to put in a low-end type center on this site because of their existing investment in the area. Commissioner Cohn responded to comments made previously, stating he feels the rights of the property owners within the area should be respected. He was in agreement with sending this item to committee. As this project presently exists, he stated he would not be in favor of it. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hartsell said the school district's governing board has adopted a resolution indicating mitigation on projects would be computed at 40 cents per square foot. He said concerns were raised in the task force that any greater contribution from commercial would have a greater effect on development than residential picking up the cost of impacts. The district's board is looking at leaving the school facilities at their current level on commercial looking at picking up the full impact including commercial development on the residential site. He felt commercial developments do cause impacts because they bring people into the area and lead to more housing being built. Commissioner Messner said he did not see an adequate request from the school district for impact fees at this time. Mr. Hartsell said a report was submitted to the city adopted bY the governing board of the district which contains the 40 cents per square foot figure. Commissioner Messner.agreed with previous comments that there is no guarantee for an upscale center. He felt the commission is not here to solve existing problems but to deal with .incremental impacts. The studies show the noise and lighting impacts are minimal. He felt the overwhelming evidence determines the public does want an upscale shopping center on this site. He stated he would not be opposed to taking these issues to committee. .Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 10 Commissioner R°senlieb stated she did not feel this item should be sent to committee, beCause she was not confident anything would be resolved. Commissioner FrapWell stated he would not like to live in the area with this type of commercial being proposed. He felt this project is not good planning. CommissiOner Cohn asked'if staff has given thought to considering asking for a master traffic plan cOnsidering projected buildout for entire area. Mr. McIntosh Said this was identified in ~the traffic study for the 2010 Plan area. Discussion continued regarding this issue. Mr. McIntosh stated his willingness to discuss these concerns within a committee setting. Commissioner Andrew commented on issues surrounding close proximity of shopping centers such as reduction in pollution, with a shopping center being within walking distance. He felt there is a need for centers to be within 1/2 to 1 mile of each other. He agreed with Commissioner Messner's comment that public opinion must be taken into consideration on development. Chairman Marino felt the general plan is a vision of the future. Discussion continued between Chairman Marino and Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, regarding average daily trips and lane widening. Chairman Marino felt 14,000 trips a day is a significant number. He agreed with the need for an upscale shopping center. He felt this item should be continued to the July 16, 1992 meeting. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. McIntosh said continuance to the July 16, 1992 meeting would be acceptable. Commissioner Messner thanked those p~esent on this issue for speaking. He asked staff to consider the school district's latest letter of request in order to report on possible significant impacts at the committee meeting. He said he would like to invite neighborhood representati'ves to the meeting also. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to refer this item to the General Plan Committee and continue it to the regular meeting of July 16, 1992. He stated he would like no more than 5 representatives from the neighborhood invited, with at least 1 from the favoring side. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 'Commissioners Andrew, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Rosenlieb ABSENT: commissioner Anderson Minutes, PC; 6/18/92 Page 11 4.2) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT II AND ZONE CHANGE #5324 This item was continued from a previous portion of the agenda. Chairman Marino stated for the record Commissioners Andrew and Powers have abstained on this item due to conflicts of interest. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings 1-3, presented in the staff report, with findings #'s 4-7 deleted and new findings #4 and #5 added as follows: The proposed GC designation and HR designation can be found to be consistent with general plan policies. 5. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare justify the change of designation to GC on 15.5 +/- acres and HMR on 14.5 +/- acres. approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment 2-92, Segment II from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on' 15.5 +/- acres and HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 14.5 +/- acres with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to .City Council, with the following changes and additions: Delete Fire Department condition #2 Add school district condition to read as follows: This aPproval is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the develOper and Kern Union High School District dated June 18, 1992. Add Public Works conditions dated June 18, 1992 which amend original conditions Add the following additional conditions: Condition #13 as follows:. ~ The developer shall contribute his share of the cost for the traffic signal at Panama and Wible Within 180 days of approval by City Council. Minutes, PC, 6/i8/92 Condition # 14: Page 12 The developer shall improve the south side of Panama Lane up to 1/4 mile west of Wible Road providing the city can Provide right-of-way. Responding to a question by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Etchechury stated his agreement with the changes to conditions. Motion carried by the. following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Powers Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Cohn, to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report, approving the -Negative Declaration, and approving the requested zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 ~Commercial) on 15.5 +/- acres and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 2,500 sq. ft. minimum) on 14.5 +/- acres, subject to conditions as attached in Exhibit "A", as modified for GPA 2-92, Segment II, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino 'NOES; None 'ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Powers Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to send to the general plan committee the issue of alternate land uses of the commercial designation on both sides of Wible immediately south of the Arvin-Edison Canal. The intention being that the committee meet in late July or early August with staff and property owners with the specific intent of discussing 'the issue of down-zoning the property. A recommendation to be brought back to the next general plan cycle. Chairman Marino asked Commissioner Rosenlieb to amend her motion so that the intent of the meeting be to pursue alternate land uses rather than down- zoning. She amended her motion to reflect this change. Motion carried. r Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 13 Break was taken until '9:30 p.m. Chairman Marino stated a request was received during break to move items 8. and 11. forward on the agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to move items 8., lla. and llb. to this portion of the meeting. Motion carried. 4.8) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT VIII AND ZONE CHANGE #5321 4.11) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT XI AND ZONE CHANGE 4.4) a,b #5335 Public portion was opened on these hearings. Responding to a question' by Steven Hartsell, Chairman Marino clarified the intent of the applicant's request being a continuance to July 16, 1992. Jim Delmarter was present representing the applicant. He asked for continuance to July 16 in order to work out problems with Public Works conditions and come to agreement with school districts. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue these items to the regular meeting of July 16, 1992. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT III-B AND ZONE CHANGE #5329 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Steve Hartsell represented the Kern Union High School District. He cited a letter filed with the Commission dated June 18, 1992 relating to school facilities, saying the district has submitted letters regarding the proposal indicating there would be a significant impact on high school facilities related to this project. The district's position as it relates to the requirements of CEQA, is that unless suitable conditions are placed on the approval at this hearing, it cannot be made and an EIR would have to be carried out on this project. He submitted that Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 14 under the law these issues would have to be met or an EIR would have to be carried out on this projec.t. Neil Olson, High School District, said they have prepared an extensive document detailing theimpact of this and future developments. He said the nexus has been shown in detail, with.letters on file. He did not feel approval can be granted until mitigation has taken place. He said the district has identified what it considers to be mitigation which identifies the cost and specific impact of the project on the district and ability to provide education. He stated no agreement has been reached with the applicant to mitigate the impact. Roger McIntosh represented the owner of subject property. He asked for approval of this application. He concurred with the removal of fire impact fee. He said impacts have been identified in traffic study which he stated shows a net decrease in several intersections. He said an improvement agreement is in place to pay for signalization, he requested that an additional condition be added to allow the applicant to work with the figures to either increase or decrease specific items per reduction in traffic, to read as follows: "The net increase or decrease in developer's share of signalization contributions as identified by City Council Resolution 221-88 may be revised subject to approval by the City Engineer." Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this addition. Regarding the letter received by the school district, Mr. McIntosh said because of development of the overall area, it has resulted in a net reduction of about 257 lots. They anticipate no more than 40 lots within this entire 14 acre area, stating they feel the impacts have already been mitigated and reduced below what the land entitlements allow. He asked that a finding be made in accordance with CEQA to support this. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Staff's recommendation from the staff report was read by Chairman Marino. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Sherfy said in reference to Mr. McIntosh's letter an EIR would not be required at this time. Mr. Hartsell clarified what is being looked at is a zone change from commercial to residential, so that the impact is to allow homes to be constructed which would not otherwise be. Under CEQA an EIR is necessary in the absence of adequate mitigation. Responding to questions by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hartsell said a report has been submitted to the Commission by the Kern High School District's board describing the cost of providing school facilities on a per house and student basis. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 They are requesting the which is computed on a Page 15 average cost to provide school facilities for a residence per square foot basis for the high school district. Regarding questions by schools needed without children existing at this He outlined State rules create homes for which Chairman Marino, Mr. Olson clarified the number of further construction has been calculated. Based on time 5 new high schools are needed in metro Bakersfield. for funding. He said this propoSed development will no schools exist. Chairman Marino clarified the basis for the applicant's argument being that there was a plan and EIR which provided for a density beyond their development. Chairman Marino said commercial zoning does not generate students. The fee has to be tied to the project proposed which is a requirement of CEQA. Discussion Continued regarding school needs. Mr. Hartsell said based on district- wide data every hOuse generates an average of 1/4 of a high school student..The district has identified in the report filed with the Commission that all resources have been committed. Chairman Marino. s.tated a nexus needs to be formed by the school' district on each project, as it impacts leach schOol facility. He said the school district is not forming the proper nexus at this time. Mr. Olson rebutted this saying the report to the committee and planning cOmmission had been submitted to staff which he felt creates the nexus. Discussion continued regarding school district boundaries. Mr. Olson said the school needs must be addressed for the entire community because of the constantly changing boundaries. Commissioner Messner said the threshold under CEQA for determining the need for an EIR contains no language for requirement of a nexus. He said he is uncomfortable proceeding without an EIR when staff is citing a significant impact. Saying a supplemental EIR could be possible. Mr. Hardisty agreed with his comments stating EIR's do become irrelevant over a period of time. Mr. Mclntosh said it is not his contention that the EIR-mitigates the impacts on school districts but-because of reduced densities the impacts are off set. Phil Turner said the Murieita case states that a nexus must first be established before the impact is discussed. In both situations with the BUena Vista School District and Kern High School district it is clear they are not looking directly at this project. _Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 16 Mr. Hardisty-clarified the school district is not obliged to prepare the EIR in order to establish the extent of the impacts or alternatives for mitigation. Commissioner Powers stated he could not see the correlation of impact of commercial development on schools since generally they are developed after the residential development occurs. Mr. Hartsell outlined those measures taken by school districts to help finance schools. He said the school districts address cumulative impacts in determining the significance of a particular impact in order to prevent it from affecting the public and public agencieS. Commissioner Cohn stated he is uncomfortable trying to interpret the law on school mitigation. He stated the potential for litigation and wanted legal advice from staff in the form of a position paper from the City Attorney's Office. Mr. McIntosh stated his feeling that under CEQA the impacts have been mitigated stating he felt the commission can make this finding. He felt because the dwelling units have been reduced and will continue to be reduced this mitigates the impacts. Commissioner Cohn disagreed with this statement saying he felt because the applicant is making a new application it is subjected to complete reconsideration including fees. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. McIntosh said he would not agree to a fee if it were adopted by the City Council in the future. Mr. Sherfy felt a position paper would be necessary on this item because of complexity of the issues. ' Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was not comfortable with this issue because of possible future lawsuit. She stated she would follow the City Attorney's advice with respect to this issue. Commissioner Andrew ag. reed with the comments of commissioners Cohn and Rosenlieb regarding the Complicated issue of school mitigation, stating he is looking to the City Attorney for direction. Mr. Sherfy said he would be most comfortable with providing a position paper. Mr. McIntosh felt a specific positiOn paper on each application would be appropriate. Mr. Hartsell felt it may be appropriate that the legal opinion focus on the facts of each particular iteTM and not jUst a general statement. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 17 Mr. Sherfy said' he was not sure that a position paper0n each project was appropriate, however that its purpose would be to set out the guidelines as clearly as possible, discussing the!inplay of CEQA with case law and arriving at some general statements of law.. He felt the Planning Commission should only be given legal guidelines within which to make a decision. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, to continue this item to the next regular meeting, adding that the City Attorney shall report back with a legal guidance document framing the issues raised at this hearing specific to this project, including the issue of the previous EIR being adequate mitigation, issue of cumulative impacts and other information which may have a bearing on this specific case. Discussion continued regarding time frame for position paper on this issue. Mr. Hardisty suggested this item be continued to the meeting of the 16th with a workshop being scheduledi in conjunction with the July 2nd meeting solely to frame legal issues. Commissioner Messner clarified his motiOn was to frame legal issues. He amended his motion to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 16, 1992. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson was absent. Commissioner Rosenlieb left at this time. 4.5) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT IV AND ZONE CHANGE #5325 Staff report was 'given. Public portion of the heanng was opened. Chairman Marino commented on June 18, 1992 letter from Kern High School District. - Roger McIntosh was present'to speak in favor. He felt it may be appropriate to contact the property owner regarding the possible school mitigation. He felt 'additional mitigation should not be added since this property is proposed for a less dense use. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 18 Steve Hartsell said if this is being proposed for a less densely populated area, the only circumstance he would see under CEQA for requiring school mitigation is if under the current zoning it would be impossible to go forward with any project. In this case the zoning change would in fact bring about construction. Mrl McIntosh said the applicant was required by the commission to change the zoning on this property. Mike Callagy spoke saying he hoped the city attorney could add some logic and sound reasoning to this issue. Mr. Hartsell felt the legal' issue under CEQA is whether the action of the commission will cause an impact. If this is a situation wherein if this zone change does not occur they cannot build, then the district's letter is correct. Chairman Marino Clarified the applicant was told by the Commission to change the zone from R-2 to R-1. If this action does not take place they can ask for a change of. condition to the general plan amendment which is not subject to CEQA and they can be allowed to proceed with the same size lots, single dwelling units or duplexes. 'Commissioner Messner said the commission did not say that R-2 zoning was not buildable, however may not be the most desirable zone from a planning standpoint. Responding t° a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hartsell said he' would withdraw the letter dated June 18, 1992 and prior letter for this application. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving GPA 2-92, Segment IV, consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 26.9 ~-/-acres, subject to conditions and mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "A", and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb MinUtes, PC, 6/18/92 Page .19 Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving Zone Change No. 5325, consisting of an amendment to Chapter 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code from R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) on 26.9 acres, subject to conditions and mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "A", and subject to prior approval of GPA 2-92, Segment IV, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vOte: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb 4.6) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT VI Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman read staff'S rec°mmendation from staff report. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving GPA 2-92,~ Segment VI, consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element over eight separate sites, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None 'ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 20 4.7) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT VII, ZONE CHANGE #5318 Staff report was given. Public Portion of the hea~ring was opened. Steven Hartsell represent, ed Kern High School District. He stated the district submitted a letter dated June 18, 1992 on this matter. He said this letter was based on 165 dwelling units. The impact is reduced but would still be significant considering cumulative impact. He requested that a condition for the Kern High School District similar to that imposed on behalf of Fairfax School District be included with this project, Fairfax School District would have no opposition to this project with the condition specified by staff. Dr. John Forney,' Owner of subject property, spoke. He felt the project is the best solution for the property and for those needing affordable housing. Darrel Whitten said it was his understanding staff had written mitigation for the high school district fees. :He said.they would be agreeable to school mitigation, however asked that in the event the city brings forth a city-wide amount it be considered to be full mitigation. He commented on staff's recommendation of denial on the GC designation because the general plan does not allow for GC as small as that proposed or as close to other associated GC. He stated their position on this being due to extenuating circumstances of having to deal with the small piece on the corner they feel there should be a buffer between the LR and SI in the County. ResPonding to a question by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Whitten said the property owner of the corner portion has not been cooperative. Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Whitten said the use for the general commercial portion is not planned but may possibly be a fast-food restaurant. Hal Rosen stated he is using the application to address the commission on the subject of affordable housing. He stated he is a developer of affordable housing. He was concerned that lots being intended for low-income use would pay the same fees as houses in higher-priced areas. He felt it would be unfair. He felt the school district must provide mitigation of their own, which may include more use of the building. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 21 Commissioner Andrew said he would be in favor of allowing the commercial zoning. Commissioner Powers stated his Support for the original application. Mr. Hartsell said agreement had been reached between the applicant and Kern High School 'District on mitigation language which provides for specific amounts on a square footage basis and also protection that if the board comes up with a lower rate 'it will be passed along to the applicant. Mr. Kloepper asked-that Public Works conditions dated June 18, 1992 be included in the motion. Mr. Callagy asked for clarification that the fees being discussed will be attached to the portion being amended' from SI to LR. Mr. Hardisty said this is correct. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Whitten said the conditions of Public Works dated June 18, 1992 are acceptable. Motion was made 'by Commissioner Messner seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, with mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", and approving a portion of GPA 2-92, Segment VII, consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from SI (Service Industrial) to GC (General Commercial) on 1.7 acres, and approving an amendment !to the Land Use Element from SI (Service Industrial) to LR (Low Density Residential on approximately 8.9 acres, as illustrated on the -map submitted by the applicant, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A", with the following changes: Deletion of condition 2 of Fire Department mitigation add the following wording to Condition #3 following the words "the subdivider shall pay $5,885 per dwelling unit" "or lesser amount as adopted by City Council. Continuing with current wording. Adding Condition #4 as follows: This approval is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and the Kern Union High School District dated June 18, 1992. Minutes, PC~i 6/18/92 Page 22 and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, with mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", and the conditions outlined in the Public Works Department memo dated June 18, 1992 and approving concurrent Zone Change #5318, consisting of a change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone to a C-2 (Commercial) Zone, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb _ 4.9) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT IX AND ZONE CHANGE #5322 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson represented this item. Regarding Condition #6 of Planning Department conditions referring to fee for Panama-Buena Vista School district and high school district fees he asked that it be reworded to state that the fee is paid at the time of building permit. Mr. Hardisty stated his agreement with this change, however the same wording should be used on each case for consistency's sake. Regarding Item # 1 of traffic signal fees, he asked if a portion of the development commences is only a portion of the fee paid. Mr. Kloepper said this is correct and would be collected at building permit stage. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 23 Mr. Kloepper asked that ~the following phrase be added to the end of Condition #12 to read as follows: "Unless alternate freeway alignments have been approved and adopted." Mr. Robertson stated this was acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 2-92, Segment IX to LR (Low Density Residential) on 132 +/- acres and HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 16 +/- acres with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council, with the following changes: Exhibit "A", delete Item #2 Item #6 shall be revised to read as follows: The subdivider shall pay $4,746 per dwelling unit at the time of building permit to the Panama-Buena Vista Union School District or form a Mello- -Roos CFD, or some other mitigation acceptable to the district. Add Condition #7 as follows: The subdivider shall pay $3,878 to Kern High School District per dwelling. unit at the time of building permit or form a Mello-Roos CFD, or some other mitigation acceptable to the district. And add conditions of memo from Planning Director dated June 17, 1992 and Public Works memo of June 17, 1992, with the following modification: Condition #12 add the following to the end: unless.alternate freeway alignment is approved and adoPted. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:' Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None - ABSENT: Commissioner Rosenlieb Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 24 Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration, and approving Prezoning #5322 to the city designations of R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 132 +/- acres and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-one dwelling unit per 2,500 sq. ft.) on 16 +/- acres and RS-2.5A . (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) on 12 +/- acres, with conditions as attached in'Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: commissioner Rosenlieb 4.10) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT X AND ZONE CHANGE #5323 Chairman Marino abstained on these items due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant. Vice-chairman Anderson ~abstained due to a conflict of interest in that a portion of subject property touches a present client's property. Commissioner Powers chaired this hearing. Mr. Hardisty stated a request had been received for continuance on this matter. Staff report was waived. Public portion of the heating was opened; no one spoke in opposition. No one was present representing the applicant. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by COmmissioner Messner to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 16, 1992, motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYEs: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers None CommissiOners Anderson, Rosenlieb, Marino Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 25 4.12) a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT XlI AND ZONE CHANGE #5331- Mr. Hardisty clarified the applicant is Mr. Batey for the zone change. Staff report was given. .Public portion of the hearing was opened. Floyd Hinesley represented CenterCal Hinesley, owners of property on the westerly boundary of subject property. He objected to this application based on the fact he was not notified. He requested this application be denied or postponed to a later hearing date. He said they cannot make an informed · decision based on the lack of time. He said they have no objection to the applicant proceeding with the commercial designation. Mike Fuller, resident of the area, submitted a petition from adjoining property owners, concerned that the apartments would be two-story and possibly cause an overlook problem and this project fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. ~ ~: Kenneth Payne said he is ipurchasing two lots backing up to subject property and the owner~of these lots was not advised of this hearing. His clients for development of the two lots have a great concern about two-story apartments behind their property. They have advised him they do not wish to purchase homes if these lots are to,be two-story. Bud Ayres, owner of property west of subject property, spoke saying he .is opPosed to apartments being constructed behind his property because of possible loss of sales of his property due to possible two-story apartments. Steve Hartsell stated they submitted a letter on this project, asking that the project not be approved unless their condition in the form of a rate per square footage is included. He also stated the Rosedale School District is no longer in opposition because they have reached agreement with the applicant. Ken Payne clarified he is not opposed to multi-family, however is opposed to multi-story complex which could be constructed under the proposed density. Brian Batey was present to speak in favor. Discussion continued regarding possibility of hearing the general plan amendment and continuing zone change to a later hearing date. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 Page 26 Mr. Hardisty suggested this item be continued in order to give staff time to review the noticing problem. Responding ~to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said this item could be referred to committee in the meantime. Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Batey stated his willingness to meet with the committee to discuss alternatives for the property. Regarding possibility of multi-story apartments, Mr. Batey cited ordinance relating to screening of ov~erlook saying he is not opposed to trying to reduce the impacts, however the adjoining properties are being developed with two-story homes and could also cause an overlook problem. 5.2 Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers to send this entire matter lo the Zoning Ordinance Committee and continue this item to the regular meeting of July 16, 1992. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN 'coNSISTENCY FINDING FOR ABANDONMENT OF AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF COLONY STREET SOUTH OF PANAMA 5.1 LANE Staff report was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the summary vacation of the unimproved-portion of Colony Street and adjacent drainage easement and quitclaim of the "Future Drainage sump" site at the south end of Colony Street, consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan with the recommendation that an easement be reserved for public utilities located within the closing area. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb was absent. ELECTION oF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 Vice-Chairperson Anderson was nominated to the position of Chairperson for the fiscal year 1992-1993 by COmmissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell. Motion carried.' Commissioner Rosenlieb was absent. Commissioner Powers was nominated ~to the position of Vice-Chairperson for the fiscal year 1992-1993 by Chairman Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Cohn. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb was absent. Minutes, PC, 6/18/92 6. COMMISSION COMMENTS None Page 27 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary