Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/91 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, November 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Tmxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CAUU -- COMMISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS . KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL Absent: ADVISORYMEMBERS: Present: STAFF: 'Present: TERI BJORN LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director 'JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any. public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Minutes, PC, 1U7/91 Page 2 3. PUBLIC HEARING.- EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5105 4~ 5.1 Staff report was' given. Public portiori of the hea~ing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Rand~, Bergquist was present. He stated all conditions were acceptable. Public portion of .the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to ~make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the one-year extension of time to expire November 17, 1992 for Tentative Tract 5105, subject to the condition Changes and additions attached to the staff report as Exhibit "A". Motion Carried..Commissioner Bjorn was absent. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - PARCEL MAP 8096 Staff report was given. Chairman Marino said the applicant had requested a continuance on this item to the regular meeting of December 5, 1991. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in Opposition. Roy Sanders represen.ted the applicant asking for a continuance to the December 5, 1991 meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers'to continue this item to the regular meeting of December 5, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5540 This item was continued ~from the October 17, 1991 meeting. Staff. report was given. Mr..Hardisty clarified for the record the question raised regarding a condition by Community Services requiring the establishment of a maintenance district, saying the intent was that it include both the streetscape and parks to serve the neighborhood. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 3 Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Jim Delmarter represented the developer. Regarding Condition V.A he said if the street comes through more than likely it will not.line up with-one of the cul- de-sacs asking that the Public Works Department recognize this possibility. Mr. Kloepper said Public Works would prefer to have a substandard separation in order to'get the street through.~ -. Mr. Delmarter said' they have concern regarding Condition V.D.1. in which Public Works asks for dedication of Auburn Street from its existing terminus easterly to Morning Drive. It is an off-site dedication and serves no purpose for this subdivision and asked for its deletion. Mr. Kloepper said.there was a condition in their set of conditions which would have required that the Commercial area south of the residential area would have been included as a lot in the tract. Meeting with the developer it was discussed that this could be considered as not-a-Part. It- was also discussed that under the map act's provisions construction of improvements can be required on the not-a-part if necessary for orderly develoPment of the area: He asked that this condition remain. Mr. Delmarter clarified there would be 90 feet of dedication that the developer would have to .provide. He cited a bill signed by the Governor which clarifies'the subdivision map act deleting the ability of the public agency to require' construction and imprOvements on designated remainder parcels until a permit is issued for that parcel. Mr. Delmarter said they.are not adamant about.dedicating the property, however they do not feel it is necessary at this time. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In respOnse to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Kloepper said the bill referred to by Mr. Delmarter would have no effect on this project since it becomes effective January 1, 1992. Mr. Delmarter-said the reference in this bill is ' to designated remainders. After discussion, Mr. Delmarter clarified his client will agree to dedicate the north 45 feet of alignment of Auburn Street as .determined by the City Engineer. Chairman Marino felt the required dedication is excessive and the City's negotiation of the purchase Of it further complicates the situation. Minutes,~PC, 11/7/91 Page 4 In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr.-Kloepper said if there were a road that cut diagonally through this property"a full width dedication would be required. Chairman Marino said where a street bisects a piece of property the property owner benefits from both sides Of the street which is not the case in this situation. In response to a questiOn by Commissioner Anderson, Chairman Marino recommended that the north half be required to be dedicated to the city and the south .half be reserved. Alexandra Paola was present saying she has given the entire area along Morning Drive on the east side of the property, and felt she had given enough. In response to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Anderson said he felt this was 'unusual 'in that there typically-is benefit to more than one property owner and the burden of cost is divided, however in this situation it is not the case and he did not feel' it would "be fair. He felt the proposal by the Chairman would be fair. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to-approve, and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5540, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the amendment of the Conditions in the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated November 6, 1991, and further amended: Page 2' of Public Works Department conditions #V-D.1. to read: Thenortherly 45 feet of Auburn Street from its existing terminus easterly to morning Drive on alignment approved by the City Engineer. The addition .of a new sentence: The south 45 feet of Auburn Street from its existing terminus easterly to Morning Drive shall be reserved for future dedication or purchase. Motion Carried. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. .__ Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 5 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5556 Staff report was given. pUblic portion of the. hearing was opened. David Meeks asked for clarification because residents in the area are not happy with the pre-existing situation. He asked if this would be a new development with a new partnership and if they would install a brick wall which would circle the entire development since it was originally promised to them. He said there has been continuing crime in the area. Mr.' Hardisty'ciarified approval of this map includes a condition that requires the cOntinuation of a block wall up Oswell and around the corner on the north side. As development occurs on Sterling and Virginia it would be continued there as well. Mr. Meeks_cited the C.C:&R.'s have not been followed by the developer. Mr. Hardisty said these requirements are not placed on the project by the City. If the_- C.C.&R.'s are not being followed-it becomes a civil matter. Mr. Martinez'said he also lives in:the area and feels something needs to be done because of the violence.and crime in the area. Mr. Hardis.ty responded saying the next' phase of development would logically be the area north of the Dunninger extension which would-in effect create a block wall continued up around Oswell and around the corner of All°Way Street to the Virginia Avenue School, however there is no way of determining when this will be done. -In response to a question bY Commissioner Messner, Mr. Martinez said he was referred to this hearing by the-Police Department. Mr.. Messner said he wanted this referred to the Police Department with a report back. Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified the Commission's limitation on ihis subdivision. She suggested that they meet with their councilperson. She asked if the acceleration of the construction of a block wall along Oswell Street would remedy their problems. He said it would not unless it were constructed completely. In response: to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the construction of a block wall along Oswell and down Alloway, Mr. Martinez said it would help the situation. Minutes, PC, 11)7/91 Page 6 Commissioner Cohn stated he understood staff's concerns that the isSUes raised 'by the neighbors are of a civil nature, however it seemed that perhaps the develOPer has contributed to the situation that occurs in the neighborhood. He said he did not feel reticent about requiring the developer to rectify the condition. He felt perhaps this matter should be referred to a committee in order to find out from the deVeloper what they ~will do to try to rectify the sitUation. Commissioner Powers said he would like to hear the developer's uiew of this. Chris C°nway was present representing the applicant. Mr. Kloepper clarified Condition V-C for him. Mr. Conway said the balance of the conditions were acfieptable: Mr. Conway stated 'he asked one of the speakers to talk to him after this ~hearing in order that he may be able to get them in touch with the developer to try to reach .an agreement. He said because the developer is not at this hearing he cannot speak for him on this matter. He objected to a continuance at .this time since theY_are on the 47th day of the 50 day time frame for this tract. It would be 0nly under the condition that the Commission were going to deny this tract that-he would be willing to accept a continuance. He felt something could be worked out with the homeowners. In re.sponse to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Conway said it would be under duress that hewould agree to a continuance in the event of a denial. -Commissioner Anderson felt the lack of ability to guarantee any solution to the -problem wouId prompt the Commission to send this to a committee. He asked if an extension of time could~ be granted that would not penalize the applicant. Mr. Hardisty said. a further continuation of this item would cost more in terms of time than bringing the commission to a solution. The wall is required as a condition of approval and is required prior to the recordation of the map. The acceleration of the time frame would have to be tied to an impact brought about by the approval of this Subdivision. At the request of Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty clarified the applicant's option if this item is not acted upon within the proper time frame. Commissioner Anderson said he would be predisposed to encouraging the applicant .to request a continuance. Mr. MeekS-said theY are concerned about the safety of their children. The agreements of the original developer have not been carried-out. 'Minutes,' PC~ .1-1/7/91 Page 7 'Mr. C0nway _said he would like to work toward a solution and felt if this comes down. to a denial he would be forced to accept a continuance2 A wall will eventually go' around the entire tract. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she did not want to discourage the developer from -develOPing the area, however to ignore the residents' problems would not be in keeping with her view of ~the commission's role, She said she would like to see the applicant request a continuance and this item referred to a committee. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Conway said he would willingly request a continuance. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt since a commissioner was absent and She would not be present at the fiext meeting this should be sent to the Parks and Environmental .Quality Act Committee,_ because all are present. Mr. Hardisty strongly urged the Commission to take an action on this map at this hearing. He did not'feel sending it to committee 'in view of the applicant's comments would be productive. In order to be denied it would have to be denied because-of failure to comply .With standards and ordinances of the city. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said a condition for block wall could require construction prior to recordation of the final map. It cannot be more restrictive. Commissioner Messner said he' saw no problem with referring this item t0 Committee: Respondingto a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the existing conditions would be attached if the applicant chose to have the application summarily approved. Commissioner Anderson felt if a condition were placed on this requiring a wall be constructed prior to recordation of the final map it would force the developer to rectify the P~oblem .or not record the' map. He felt an. alternative would be to approve With the condition that the wall be installed on Oswell and Alloway Streets prior to recordation' of the final map. Mr. Conway said he would like ~o see an either/or situation because he felt the construction of the wall would not necessarily solve the residents problems. He said he would be agreeable to a condition requiring fencing prior to recordation of the final map and said it was his understanding the applicant intends to follow this through to recordation. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to . refer this item to the Parks and Environmental Quality Act Committee and continue this item to :the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of Novembe~ 21, 1991.: He invited the neighborhood representatives stating he would like to seca representative from the Police Department at the meeting. -Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, November 14, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. in ~the basement conference room. Motion carried. Commissioner Frapwell abstained due to the fact he did not participate on this item at the previous hearing. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5397 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Martin Cohan represented the applicant. He said he was agreeable to the conditions of approval. The option of a density bonus based on low income. housing is not feasible because there are discrepancies as to low income housing. The difference-in the frontage will amount to about 8 or 9 lots. The difference based on the cost of land and cost of development to the homeowner will be about $1,000 to -2;000 per house which will knock some-buyers out of the market. Public portion of th~ hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb said during 2010 hearings people .from the community asked why there are minimums that are always violated. She said it was her understanding from these hearings that the Commission felt the 6,000 square foot minimum should be adhered to with no less than 55-foot wide frontages, with the only exceptions being density bonus situations. She said she is not convinced that the 6,000 square foOt lot with 55 foot frontages is adeqUate. Discussion cOntinued regarding frontages. Commissioner Messner was concerned about setting a precedent in this situation. Commissioner Cohn agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb and Messner's comments. He felt unless the Commission is dealing with an optional design situation or other special circumstances the Commission should establish some consistencies. Minutes, PC; il/7/91: Page 9 In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Rosenlieb Cited the sizes of lotsin adjoining tracts. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the Commission needs to agree on a livable minimum of lot sizes, 6,000 being what has been agreed to in the past. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr.-Hardisty said because of the ability to get a modification to lot standards, there have been no tracts using the. density bonus. The subdivision ordinance is being-amended and will be before the Commission near the first of the year. -Chairman Marino said he learned that lot width can be taken from the front yard, however when square footage of the lot is lost it causes a problem. . .Motion was made by'Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make findings #1 through 11 as set forth in the. staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5397 subject [o the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson voted no. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to make findings #1 through 3 in the staff report for modifications, and approve the modification of the lot frontage from 60 feet to 55 feet on interior lots and deny the modification for the reduction of the lot area from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson voted no. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. 5.4 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5444 - Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition._ Mike Mason was present to speak in favor. the conditions of approva!. He said they were in agreement with Public Portion of the hearing was closed. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson regarding the distance from a gas pipeline, Mr. Hardisty said the fire safety control division reviewed this pipeline at this time and 'm previous subdivisions and felt this is-consistent with the previous subdivision approvals. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of explosion of the gas line and proximity-of construction to it. Mr. Hardisty said .this-is a very-seriohs Concern and did not feel comfortable with it until he has . Minutes, PC, !1/7/~1 ~ Page 10 looked into it. He cited the possibility of removing-the line completely. In response to a question regarding fire hydrants,'Mr.' Hardisty said he did not feel the lack of requirement would be a problem. He requested continuance on this matter in order to receive a report from the Fire Department. 5:5 In _response to a'question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Mason said he did not have a problem with continuing this item. Commissioner Rosenlieb was concerned that a wall was not required behind the required landscape planter boxes and the lack of requirement of a revieTM of an independent set of Wall plans by the-Public WOrks Department. Mr. Hardisty said he would check into. these items. -- Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to'continue this item to the regular meeting of November 21, 1991. -Motion carried: Commissioner Bjorn was absent. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5521 Staff report was given. Public portion of the' hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McInt0sh was Present representing the applicant. Regarding the'Public Works memo dated November 6, 1991, he said he initiated these changes and agrees with them. Regarding Planning Department-condition #7 Quarthill Drive is the street referenced and he agreed to this. Regarding the Public Works 'condition-requiring a regional traffic impact study with mitigation measures or the agreement of the developer to pay a fee he requested it be. removed. He gave a history of the area and conditioning of subject parcel. NOwhere in the conditions Of surrounding areas is there a requirement for a regional traffic study or agreement to pay a future fee that may or may not be adopted. 'He cited the ordinance dealing with vesting tentative maps, saying fees required as conditions of approval shall be such fees as are in effect as of the date of filing of the final map, except that whenever a subdivider elects to defer payment of any fees until development or issuance of a building permit the fees shall be those in effect as of such later date. He cited the conditions allowing the advisory agency to alter from them, saying the priOr two tentative tracts should have had the same condition. He cited Section 66474.2 referred to in the local ordinance. Mr. Kloepper said-the .commission must make finding #3 if this tract is approved, which says this tract will not significantly affect the environment or existing residential-deyelopment and the adequacy of the negative declaration. A point raised during the environmental process'refers to the generating of traffic. A Minutes, PC, _11/7/91 'Page 11 memo from the traffic engineer states that the peak traffic Will increase by 203 trips and the average daily traffic will increase by' 1,963 trips. He felt it may not be proper to say that this project would not have an effect on the existing transportation system. He felt the only way to determine it accurately is by a traffic impact study. He cited sections which provide for traffic studies. He felt there are special.circumstances in this situation. Those adjacent tracts referred to by Mr. Mclntosh .will be SUbject to traffic impact fees. Attorney Marino said this tract must be looked at regardi~ng its impact, however conditions cannot be placed on this map based on the fact it is a vesting tentative map rather than a regular tentative map. Mr. Kloepper said he is not asking that the Commission approve a condition since they would be subject to the fees, but are allowing for a condition in-lieu of this that the City would consider a satisfactory and equitable approach to the traffic study requirement. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she felt staff was remiss in not'requiring a regional impact study on other recent tracts. - Mr. Kloepper said ~the condition being requested by public Works is an attempt to meet the statements outlined in the environmental document. Mr. Mcintosh felt they have no idea what the impact fee will be in agreeing to it at this time. Commissioner-Messner felt the applicant is creatively applying the laws to his advantage. Commissioner Anderson disagreed with Commissioner Messner's comments feeling the'applicant has the right to pursue for his client whatever the law provides. He asked for legal direction from City Attorney Marino regarding implementation of the second paragraph of the memorandum. Ms. Marino said the Commission cannot take an action to include this requirement. Mr. Kloepper clarified the traffic study and resulting mitigations, if any, would not be a fee. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Mclntosh said he would not agree, to. a traffic impact study. Discussion continued regarding the impact study not being required on previous tracts. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 12 In response to a question by Commissioner- Cohn, Ms. Marino said there is nothing to prevent the commission from requiring a regional impact study if there is substantial evidence that there may be impacts on transportation in .the city caused by this project. Responding to a-questi°n by. Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said until an impact fee 'is in place to address impacts any project resulting in over 50 trips should have atraffic Study submitted for evaluation to determine the-appropriate lei~el..of mitigation. However, the_ Commission should not be relying on the outcome of studies that are not yet completed. He recommended that any project going through an environmental review be accompanied by a traffic impact study before coming to the Commission. In response to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, said over 1,900 trips per day would be expected for this project, approximately 203 trips at peak hour. Policy states the city would look at requiring a traffic study when there is over 50 trips at the peak hour. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said Finding #3 shoUld be revised with an additional finding to support Public Works' additional condition. Mr. Hardisty said their finding with respect to the initial study should show that the project may have a significant effect on the physical environment or existing residential development in the area and issuing of a negative.declaration for the project is not appropriate at this point and that the CommiSsion require a traffic study be completed on this project' and when completed it be brOUght back as the basis for a mitigated'negative declaration; Mr. Hardisty responded to a question saying the motion should be to continue until such time as the study, is completed. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was not convinced that the Commission cannot be more aggressive on vesting of tentative maps asking that this be researched for futu.re reference. Commissioner Anderson asked for an overview of vesting of Tentative Maps. Mr. Hardisty cited vesting a tentative map sets in place the conditions, fees, circumstances for development of a subdivision as of the rules in place at the time · the application is deemed complete, thereby protecting it from further fee changes. 'In response tO a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said the applicant's rights are not Voided because, the environmental review process will not allow the avoidance of a significant impact. Minutes, PC,' 1U7/91 Page 13 In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. McIntosh said the reason for applying for a vested tentative map is they are aware of a number of fees that will be applied in the future. He gave his opinion that the traffic impacts have been addressed through the 2010 Plan, general plan amendment, annexation process and prezoning. Regarding a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty clarified the Commission is still within the environmental review period. Mr. Kloepper reiterated the environmental document states the needs will be addressed through the conditions of approval. Discussion continued regarding the need for traffic impact studies on other subdivisions. Regarding a question by Chairman Marino, Ms. Marin° said the city is not discriminating against this subdivision because there has been no substantial evidence presented on other previous maps that they would have an impact on the transportation system to the extent that this would. Commissioner Mar]no said he could not support a motion for approval that would include 'the November 4th memorandum. COmmissioner Powers said he would be uncomfortable with approving this item. He said he-would like to see this item continued with staff presenting clearer information, and .to give him more time to research vesting tentative maps. · Commissioner Rosenlieb sa!d her understanding was that the government agency could require mOre under the vesting tentative map than what would be required. Ms. Marino clarified more information can be required at the time of filing, however more conditions cannot be imposed than on any other tentative map. Mn McIntoSh clarified part of the reason for a vesting tentative map is to allow the developer to secure his right to develop in case of possible moratorium, etc. Commissioner Cohn felt:the real issue is not the traffic impact study, however the mitigation of the traffic' impact study and suggested that staff's recommendatiOn be followed, therebY continuing this matter, requiring the traffic impact study and 'Presenting to the CommiSSion at a later date. At this time it will be up to the Commission to decide whether mitigation must be applied to this tract. CommissiOner Powers said he would be Uncomfortable taking this action. Commissioner Cohn felt this is a serious problem which must be addressed, continuing this item will not change it. MinUtes, pC, 11/7/91 Page 14 . Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the comments made by staff that the Commission cannot impose this traffic study on this vesting tentative map if it is not being impose on other maps. He stated his support for a motion which would allow the City Attorney to research this matter. 'Responding. to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said he did not believe a continuance would cause staff to change their position on this item. He said if a continuance would allow for a clearer picture for the Commission he would be in agreement with this. Motion was made by. Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of November 21, 1991. Mr. McIntosh stated he would not be available on this date .and asked for a short recess in order to confer with his client. *10-minute recess was taken at this time. Mr. McIntOSh stated in speaking with his client he is not interested in continuing this matter anyfurther and would agree to a condition as follows: "An adopted fee shall be paid upon adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee not to exceed $1,342 per unit." He also requested that the Planning Commission initiate a change in the General Plan from a level of service "C" standard to level of service Responding to a question, by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Kloepper said Mr. McIntosh's request would meet the requirements set out by their memo of November 4, 1991, and recommended that this modification be made. Commissioner Powers withdrew his motion for continuance. Ms. Marino responded to-a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, saying an additional finding should be added as follows: "The fee proposed would be adequate mitigation of the impacts." Motion was made bY Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5521, subject to conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following amendments: Minutes, PC, ~:1-1/7/91 Page 15' 5.6 The addition of a finding as follows: iThe traffic impact fee as proposed will be adequate mitigation for the traffic impacts of this property. Th~ incorporation of the memo dated November 6, 1991 from the Public Works Department to the Planning Department. The addition of the following condition #XI-H: The subdivider agrees that the tract will be subject to the future traffic -impact fee.upon City Council adoption, not to exceed $1,342 per single family'unit. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5551 Commissioner Powers abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest. ~ Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. .Dave Merritt Was present asking for clarification of the CH overlay on the northeast corner, saying the map sent to him did not show this. Chairman Marino asked-that this item be researched. Responding to a question' by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said this would not have to be readvertised if the CH overlay was omitt4d because it is not a substantial difference in the circumstances in the development rights of the property nor the developer's proposal to subdivide the property. John Sarad spoke in favor saying they are in agreement with the conditions. He clarified Mr. Merritt's question saying they laid the tract out to allow a church to be pla~ed on this corner. He clarified the condition regarding the proposed oil Well site saying it is a proposed drill site and is a current production site. They recognize their rights to access minerals and have laid out the tract so that they can continue to.do so. They are propOsing that a block wall be placed around the actual operation site rather than putting it around the 2-1/2 acre tract. He felt in doing so it would meet the criteria for visual mitigation as well as the fire department's criteria. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 16 Mr. Hardisty responded saying it has been the City's practice to require these block walls.' DiscUssion continued regarding a previous similar situation. Public ~portion of the hearing was_ closed. Mr. Kloepper said for the record the intent is that Lot 167 would be used as a sumP,, sin~e it does not have access to a street. Regarding a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. HardiSty clarified as part of the Subdivision review, the Commission is not authorized to require a block wall. Mr. Hardisty said the block wall Could be required if it is found that it is necessary to mitigate the risk of upset and exposure to an oil well facility, however it cannot be required otherwise. Regarding the drill site location, Mr. Hardisty agreed that when a drill site occurs rather than' blocking it off it has been left open. Commissioners Rosenlieb and Marino stated 'they are not opposed to the applicant's request. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question by saying there would be a 25:foot setback from wall to right-of-way that would be up to the developer to landscape. Mr. Sarad said they wanted to landscape around the wall with xeriscape to allow for low maintenance. Mr. Hardisty responded to Mr. Merritt's previous question -saying when the City Council adopted the zoning on this propertyit did not include the' CH overlay on' the corner and there were no special conditions- applicable to-0ilwell drilling sites. Responding to a question by Mr. Merritt, Chairman Marino-said as. part of the motion staff is to be directed to change part of the Agricultural zoning to R-1 he did notfeel it.would be a problem to include the remainder of the 10 acre site to a CH overlay. Mn Hardisty clarified this could be introduced and would not affect the 'ability to subdivide the property. Mr. Sarad stated he would not object to thi~ proposal. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and.to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5551, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", attached to the staff report, as amended in the memorandum_from-the Planning Director dated November 4, 1991 with-the following changes: Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 17 Condition #11, Page9 of 13 as changed in the Planning Department Memo dated November 4, 1991: To strike "and oil well sites". Page 10 of 13, Parks Department Condition #1 to read as follows: A block wall is required around the perimeter of the existing production site. Landscaping shall-be installed between the back of sidewalk and the back of wall on Johnson Road, Bonner Springs Street and Farlington Avenue. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers was absent due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Cohn voted no. CommissiOner Bjorn was absent. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner _Messner to direct staff to initiate a zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) with .the CH (Church) overlay on the 10-acre site on the corner of JohnsOn Road. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. FILE 5230 --'AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-l-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE TO-A C-2 (COMMERCIAL) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4821 MING AVENUE..(Negative Declaration on file) Chairman Marino declared a conflict of interest on this item due to the fact he is a trustee for -the property owner. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Staff report was waived. A letter was received from the applicant dated November 5, 1991 requesting continuance-to the regular meeting of December 19, 1991. Public portion of the hearing was Opened. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that this item be advertised to reflect the accurate zoning request. Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said he preferred that this item be continued to the first meeting in January. Minutes,'PC, tl/7/91 Page 18 Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the first meeting of 1992, which would be January 9, 1992 and direct staff to advertise this item as a P.C.D. zoning rather than C-2. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino Was absent due t9. a-possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. 7.1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 1-91, ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5235 AND KERN RIVER NO. 10 ANNEXATION Chairman Marino declared a conflict of interest on this item due to the fact he is emplOYed by .the applicant. Commissioner Anderson declared a conflict of interest on this item due to the fact he provided services for an adjoining property owner in the last year. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to appoint Commissioner Powers as interim chair. Motion carried. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened;, no one sPOke in opposition. Russ Winkelman, DeWalt Corporation, said regarding the mitigation measures they fully understand and agree with 'them. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Winkelman said he is aware of the letter received from Castle and Cooke. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said lot sizes less than 1 acre in size is the number considered for urban density. LAFCO will probably hear this annexation late February or March. Commissioner Messner: felt the letter receiVed from Castle and Cooke brought up some very good points. Commissioner Rosenlieb noted for the record DeWalt Corporation is the applicant on this item. She felt the letter from Castle and Cooke, while raising ~ome 'good points, does not pertain to the subject. She stated her favor to growth of the City, sayin, g she has no problem with this particular request. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 19 Commissioner Cohn stated his opposition to the City increasing .its sphere of influence to beyond existing significant development. He was concerned about the lack of infrastructure to support these areas in the event they ask for tract maps. He felt there are connotations viewed by the. development community when the sphere of influence is expanded. He felt as soon as this. is approved through the process_the 'Commission will be faced with request for tract maps. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she feels a certain sense of control if this area is within the City's jurisdiction, because the Commission has been looking at developed areas with inadequate infrastructure as in County areas. Commissioner Cohn felt this is an invitation to leap frog development. There is plenty of currently undeveloped area within the City. Commissioner Messner said there is no doubt a plan for development is forthcoming. He felt a green light is only being given to consider a plan and not for leap frog development. Commissioner'Powers echoed Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments regarding land Use designations. Mr. Winkelman assured they would be working very closely with both staff and - 'the commission in bringing forward the land plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Sphere of Influence Amendment No. 1-91 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AyES: Commissioners Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NoEs: Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino ABSTAINED: Commissioner Frapwell Minutes, PC, -11/7/91 Page 20' Motion was made by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings .presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving Zoning Upon A/inexation No. 5235 consisting of a change of zone to the City 'designation of-A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) and amending Zone Map No.'s 122-.16,'122-21, 122-22 and 122-23 with mitigation as listed in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES:- Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: 'Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino ABSTAINED: Commissioner Frapwell Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving Annexation of Kern River No. 10 and recommend same to. City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers 'NOES: Commissioner Cohn' ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino ABSTAINED: Commissioner Frapwell Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 21 8. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE- T~is item Was. continued frOm the regular meeting of October 17, 1991. Mr. Gauthier ~summarized the progress on this item. Barbara Don Carlos representing the BIA shared concerns about the appropriateness of a reasonable and justifiable impact fee. The Omni-Means report she felt was lacking in detail as far as documenting the methodology and costs involved in the project. She asked that conditions be included in the 'approval of this ordinance. That it contain a phased-in approach, yearly cap on increases .of this fee and that the Commission initiate a general plan amendment to change the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan to incorporate a level of service "D" rather than "C" which it currently mandates. Mr. GaUthier said the issues raised tonight have been addressed at either a TAC meeting or during ~public hearing. In response to a comment by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the CounCil may phase in the fees. 'Commissioner Anderson asked for comment regarding initiation of general plan amendment to change mandated level of service from "C" to "D." Mr. Hardisty said "C" is the preferred level of service saying this level exists in the City. He outlined the evaluation methods used in determining levels of service. He said he did not recommend going below level of service "C". Commissioner-Powers said he shared the same concerns expressed by Ms. Don Car[os regarding a cap being placed on the increase of fee. He recommended that it be a specific percentage or that the increases be tied to an index such as th e CPI. With these concerns he is comfortable with the plan and intends to support it. Roger-Mclnt0sh said regarding the level of service it is defined in the level of service ordinance which, does not exist. He felt it needed to be defined or it needed to be lowered because he was concerned that the infrastructure was being overbuilt. Lloyd Norton said when the study began they tried to identify all things that could be legally charged through the program but pared down the .project list which is how they came to the amount to be charged. The City is quickly going to be ' faced with finding the rest of the funding. Phasing in of a phase in would be a farther departure from addressing the large problem existing. He outlined the requirements for_!evel of service "C". Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Public pOition of the hearing was closed. Page 22 Regarding a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Norton said the level of service is trying to quantify what the driver is feeling. It gets down to the desire - on the issue of quality of life. It has been indicated that peak hour analysis is what should be pursued as standard traffic engineering practice because this is when. the problems occur. 'Mr. Hardisty said. in this city there is a morning peak, mid-day peak and evening peak which is not a pOlarized situation as in ~some other cities. Commissioner Messner said he agreed that funding of the roads and infrastructure is a very dynamic situation because things are unpredictable at the · State level. He felt it would be inappropriate if a rigid cap were placed.on the .funding mechaniSm. He said he has not heard enough evidence to request that staff initiate a general plan amendment. He felt it was appropriate that the issue be studied further and perhaps staff should look at a level of service ordinance. Chairman Marino said he agreed with Mr. Norton on how this'will impact housing. -He said he was sensitive to how this will affect home buyers and would Support a phase in: He felt a phase in with half in January and half being paid in June would not impact the overall development community as hard. Regarding the yearly cap he Raid he is-satisfied with the public hearing process. Regarding -initiating a level 'of ~service or general plan amendment ordinance he said he was willing to discuss this as a separate issue. In relation to the nexus issue, he said he felt staff did an excellent job of presenting the issues and how they were arrived at. He asked if the Omni-Means methodology and information they generated been provided to the BIA. Mr. Hardisty responded it had and staff had worked with 'them in calculating COmbinations. Chairman Marino said he was satisfied with this. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she supported staff on the issue of phasing in the fees. Regarding the yearly cap she agreed with Commissioner Marino's comments-that during the public hearing process it will come up-for annual review. She said she is not ready to request staff to change the level of service in the 2010 Plan. She felt although everyone did their best to .come up with a solution on this item 'that it was however inadequate, however she Would support it. She felt this fee would escalate dramatically i_f the 1/2 cent sales tax does not happen in the next two years. Regarding the comments made by the GET representative she said she felt he presented a good case for transit. She felt that transit was viewed as the "ugly step child" in this process. She said her level of awareness r~garding transit needs was raised with this presentation. Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 23 CommiSsioner Coiln thanked the-city and county staff for their work on this issue. _'He felt.this falls woefully Short of meeting the city's needs. It is in his opinion too little, too late: ~He felt this ordinance is simply another example of the community Selling itSelf Short because it is clear with the suggested amount of 'funding there-are serious concerns whether it will allow for a reasonable ability to circulate within the community. The original amount is not near what will actually be levie& He said he cares about affordability, however he cares more about quality of life. A suggestion that the community w. ould lessen what'theY are willing to .live' with' by changing the level of service to degrade what was agreed to in the 2010 Plan. is another example of the city or county saying they will put up with it because' the alternative may be that housing will cost more. He felt the Commission must look at what is best in terms of planning for the community. He agreed' with~Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments regarding the presentation made by GET. He felt Mr. Moland was in a sense the sacrificial lamb. He did -not feel the issue of affordability should be focused on. He compared the fees with other similar cities. 'He felt if the impact fee will be set at the suggested levelhe could not support it. because it does not go far enough to meet theneeds of the community. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to .adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommended same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYESi Commissioners Anderson, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bjorn Commissioner Frapwell Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 _ Page 24 Motion-was made-by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to 'adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the .ordinance and Capital Improvement Program and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call voter AYES:- NOES:' Commissioners Anderson, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino 'Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: Commissioner 'Bjorn ABSTAINED: COmmissioner Frapwell Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolutiOn making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Regional Transportation Facilities List and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYEs: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino Commissioner Cohn Commissioner Bjorn Commissioner Frapwell ABSTAINED: Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner to rescind PlanningCommission Resolution Nos. 7-85 and 55-83 upon Messner effectuation of the traffic impact fee ordinance and recommend same to City Council. Motion Carried by the. following roll' call vote: AYES:. Commissioners Anderson, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino 'NOES: 'Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn ABSTAINED: . .Commissioner Frapwell Minutes, PC~ 11/7/91 Page 25 SELECTION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS 10. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to appoint Commissioner Anderson to the school district task force with Commissioner Bjorn serving as alternate. Motion carried by the following'roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Powers; Rosenlieb NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Marino Commissioner Bjorn ABSTAINED: Commissioners Anderson, Frapwell GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT THE-NORTHWEST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND EYE 11. STREET. Staff report was given. . In response to'a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Don Anderson said parking will be adequate. Motion was made by .Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to find acquisition of the site consistent with the General Plan. Motion carried. 'Commissioner Bjorn was absent. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Mr. Hardisty brought attention to the memorandum from the Public Works Department concerning traffic congestion. He also cited the handout on comparison of building permit fees. ~ Verbal None "~ Minutes, PC, 11/7/91 Page 26 12. 13, COMMISSION COMMENTS Regarding the handout' referred to by Mr. Hardisty, Commissioner Rosenlieb noted she had received a pamphlet from the California Building Industry Association entitled "Build Schools Now." She noted the higher school fees being charged in California,' questioning why some do not coincide with those in the handout from staff. ADJOURNMENT- There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at t1:42 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary /Planning Director/