HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/91MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Held Thursday, October 17;'1991.., 5:30 p.m.,.City Council Chamber, citY Hall, 1501 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
1. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
JIM MARINO, Chairperson
STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson
TERI BJORN
DAVID COHN
STEVE MESSNER
DARREN POWERS
KATE ROSENLIEB
Absent:
C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate
ADVISORY MEMBERS': Present:
'LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney
FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public
Works Director
CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director
STAFF: Present:
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
approve minutes of the regular meetings held September 5,'and September.19, 1991.
Motion carried.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 2
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 2-91 (FEDERAL SIGN)
Staff report was waived.
Committee report was given by Commissioner Anderson. He said in Compliance
with the skyline ordinance there will be building signage on two sides of the building
instead of what was originally proposed on four sides. Mr. Bidwell commented that
with the cooperation of the applicant and his representative he felt that the
Commission has come up with a better overall sign plan.
Dennis Gardner was present stating he had nothing to add, the hospital is relatively
happy with the recommendation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Messner
to make findings set forth in the Sign Committee report and approve the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for San Joaquin Hospital, subject to the COnditions of
approval listed in Column #3, Table A1 in the Sign Committee Report, and in
addition, prior to.-issuance of a sign permit, applicant shall provide a revised
comprehensive sign plan to the Planning Director which incorporates the conditions
of approval. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9702
Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item because of a possible
conflict of interest in that his company has provided services to an adjoining land
owner within the last 12 months.
Commissioner Marino abstained from hearing this Rem because of a possible conflict
of interest.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
nominate Commissioner Rosenlieb as tempor, ary chairperson.
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
jim Green asked what zoning this parcel map would be changed to. Mike Lee, staff
planner clarified the current zoning of the parcel map and how it shOuld shift to
match property lines. Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified what is being heard in
conjunction with this parcel map.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 3
Bob Smith-was present rePresenting the applicant. He requested that Page 4 Of 8,
Building_Department conditions 1 and 4 be deferred until the time of subdivision or
further development. Mr. Bidwell said he would have no problem with these
changes. On Page 6 of 8, item 2, Mr. Smith requested that it be deleted because it
is covered in the tentative map and this subdivision does not create any structures
in which people would have to be notified. Mark Turk, Fire Department, said he
would have no problem with the deletion of this condition.
Public portion of the 'hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
~approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9702 subject to the conditions outlined in
the Exhibit "A", incorporating the conditions outlined in the memorandum from the
Public Works Department dated October 17, 1991 with the following changes:
Page 4 of 8, Building Department Conditions:
Condition #1 to read as follows:
A preliminary soils report and grading plan shall be submitted and
apprOved prior to issuance of a building permit or filing of final map
for further subdivision.
Condition #4 to read as follows:
A six (6) foot chain link fence is required between any subdivision and
the right-of-way of any canal prior to development on any parcel.
the deletion of Condition #2, Page 6 of 8, Fire Safe _ty Control
Motion carried. 'Commissioners Anderson and Marino were absent due to a possible
conflict of interest.
6.1 PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT-5545-OPTIONAL DESIGN
(SIMPSON-VANCUREN)
Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained on hearing this item due to a possible, conflict of
interest in thaf the applicant is her employer.
Staff report was waived on this item.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 4
Committee report was given by Commissioner Bjorn. She stated there was no firm
recommendation or concensus on the issues with some committee members feeling '
that in light of the pending Proposal to reduce the minimum lot widths to 55 feet but
continUe to maintain the 6,000 minimum overall lot size they would feel comfortable
further reducing the lot widths and sizes, however perhaps they could support the.
reduction if the request Were accompanied with a condition attached to the approval
of the map which would :require this to become a P.U.D. development. This would
give the Planning Commission and staff more control over the architectural features "'
of the site.
Public-portion of the hehring was opened; no one spoke-in opposition.
'Jim Redstone was present representing the applicant. He submitted a letter
regarding changes they would like to see to the conditions of this map. He said they
felt the conditions of the map are less desirable to the developer as well as being less
-safe relating to private and public use of the parcel. In order to mOve the project
along they are proposing a compromise. He noted to satisfy the stated concerns of
the neighborhood representatives that a 10-foot wide public utility easement is now
proposed-to be included within the lot area for those lots along Mountain Vista
Drive. Since they have agreed to all the conditions imposed by Public Works the
optional design subdivision 'procedure is no longer applicable to this subdivision,
therefore they are requesting that findings for modification of lots sizes be approved
by. the Commission based on other lots approved within the area and based on the
provisions outlined for a modification. He was concerned about the requirement, of
a P.U2D. being placed on this item becaUse the time involved could be costly t° his
project. He said they would be more comfortable with this being allowed under the
P.U.D~ rather than denial ~
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bjorn asl~ed if there were any other way other than the P.U.D. zone
change that the commission could assure that the amenities proposed would be built
on the lots. Mr. Hardisty said these types of things cannot be required as a matter
of-approval of this subdivision. He said a P.U.D. could .be heard before the
Planning Commission on December 19 and then would go to the Council sometime
in January. Mr..Hardisty cited a subdivision which contained C.C.&R.'s regarding'
landscaping on slopes which required the .city's consent for any changes. He said he
would not recommend this type of situation because the Commission could not
actually require it. Commissioner 'Bjorn said she is hesitant to approve a normal
subdivision with these reduced lots widths and sizes in light of the current policy,
without some sort of assurance that there will not simply be small lots with smaller
or lesser quality homes.
Minutes, 'PC, 10/17/91
Page 5
Commissioner Cohn asked if the Commission approves the map with a P.U.D. would
it be-setting a precedent for future developers who wish to come before the
Commission with lot sizes that are less than requirements. Mr. Hardisty said the
ability with the P.U.D. is to set variable lot sizes based on the design and amenities
proposed as part of the development, however he is not convinced that tile roofs,
_stucco and separating walls would justify the variance from standards.
Commissioner Powers felt what is being proposed is a deviation from the standards
as far as the way most tracts are presented in the community. He said he is
concerned that what is being proposed is what will be constructed. In response to
a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said a developer can request a
condition on a map, however it would not be considered very enforceable by the city.
Mr. Hardisty-said in the Tevis Ranch Park there was a sincere offer of dedication of
10 acres of park land and the trade off for that would be small lots around the park,'
however in the end the city could only obtain 5 acres because this is alt that was
required by ordinance.
Commissioner Messner-was concerned about the findings that must be made, saying
he feels the amenities proPosed are typical. He said he is leaning toward the P.U.D.
requirement:
Chairman Marino agreed with theapplicant that there are3 subdivisions in the area
with similar standards where lot sizes and widths have been reduced. He said it does
not bother him-to reduce the lot-widths because in effect square footage is being
taken out of the front yard and putting it in the back yard, however he is concerned
that this is-not '-the case,~ this square footage is simply decreasing. He felt the
subdivision should be appr0vedwith the condition that a P.U.D. be filed prior t°
recordation of the final map with the P.U.D. specifically addressing .the types of
houses and amenities: He reiterated some of the concerns of the neighbors being
the reduction of the landscaping on Mountain Vista saying he would support this.
In response to a question: by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty said the applicant
must concur with a P.U.D. zoning condition being placed on this item. Mr.
-Redstone said theywould be willing to accept this. Since the present zoning is R-1
and the General plan depicts low density residential he asked if they would be able
- to submit plans to be checked by the Public Works.Department. Mr. Kloepper said
the Public Works Department would have no problem processing a final map and
-tract improvement plan concurrently with the P.U.D. hearing process.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page6
Mr. Redstone outlined condition changes he requested in his letter dated October
15, 1991, which is on file. Regarding Condition # XI.A. Mr. Kloepper
recommended the following changed wording added to the end of the first sentence:
"or contribute appropriate fee for said construction by the city." In response to a
question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Kloepper said the words "on' White Lane and on
Mountain Vista Drive" could be deleted on Condition V.E.3. Other conditions of
the letter were agreeable. He also pointed out that Parks Department Condition #1,
Page 8 of 11 shall be changed to 5.5 foot wide landscape strip.
Commissioner Bjtr. n asked for suggested language to be added for the P.U.D.
zoning.: Mr. Hardisty gave the following wording: "The development proposed shall
be adopted-by P.U.D. zoning, to be completed prior to recordation of a final map."
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the
staff report, with the exception of findings 12 and 13 on Page 4 of the staff report,
and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5545 as a typical subdivision (as opposed
to optional design) and approve a modification to reduce the lot frontage to 52 feet
with a minimum lot area of 5,460 square feet, subject to the conditions outlined in
the Exhibit "A", with the following Changes: -
Public Works Condition V-E.3. to read as follows:
Easements for required landscaping widths as approved by the Planning
Commission on White Lane and on Mountain Vista Drive.
Pubiic Works Condition IX.A. add the following to the end of the first
sentence:
"or contribute appropriate fees for said construction to be performed by the
City.
Public' Works Condition X.B. be changed as follows:
Change 6 metro size to 4 metro size and change 47 standard size to 6.
standard size. '-
Parks Condition #1,';Page 8 of 11.:
Change the 8 foot wide landscaping strip to 5.5 feet.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91'
Page 7
6.2
Planning Department Condition #'s 8 and 9, Page 11 of 11:
To be' deleted.
Condition #10 to read as follows:
-Minimum-lot frontage on cul-de-sac lots shall be 35 feet except where lot
lines are not radial in which case 52 feet shall be the minimum.
Add Condition #11:
The develoPment proposed shall be adopted by P.U.D. Zoning.
Motion ca~'ried. Commissioner Cohn voted no. Commissioner Rosenlieb was-absent
due toga possible conflict of interest.
PUBLIC HEARING, ~ TENTATIVE TRACT 5362 (SEQUOIA ENGINEERING)
Staff report was given:
Public portion Of 'the hearing was .opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Bob Smith was present representing Sequoia Engineering, he said he had received
the memo and conditions, however on Page 12 of 12, Item 9, Lot 199, he requested
that the drill island be accePtable as shown on the map.. Mr. Hardisty said he
preferred to use 150 foot setbacks since this is most often referenced in the zoning
ordinance, however if the Commission wishes to find it sufficient because of the Kern
Island Canal on one side and road on the south side it could be-a workable
arrangement. Construction of homes would, however be prohibited within 150 feet
of the central point shown for drilling.
In response to a question by. Commissioner Marino, Mr. Smith said he would agree
to the deletion of the 2.5 net acre requirement and inserting a-condition such that
no homes would be allowed within 150 feet of any well to be drilled.
MinutEs, PC, 10/17/91 - Page 8
In response.to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said the zoning
~ordinance was based on earlier fire department recommendations of 150 setback
between wells and assembly type uses and homes, the code does not prohibit the
constrUction within 150 feet but it gets more restrictive when it drops below 150 feet.
Mr. Bidwell said the ordinance in place came about as a result of rig-toppling in the
· County with the intent to protect residences or places of occupancy adjacent to wells.
The .150~foot setback comes from a consultant's report in which heights of rigs were
used in drilling wells, with the doubles able to exceed a height of 110 feet. When
allowing for toppling it. goes far beyond 100 feet.
Commissioner Anderson asked if property on the southwest corner were .being
allocated for access tO the drill site. Mr. Smith said this configuration was agreed
upon between the previous property owner and developer and is what was requested
bythe mineral holder.
Public portibn of the hearing was closed.
In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the
minimum required ~fencing around an oil well is 6 foot chainlink with 3 strands of
barbed wire. Block walls have been required on certain subdivisions with existing
wells 'and in conjunction With general plan amendments and zone changes which
allow more discretion. At the subdivision stage only the standards required by
ordinance can be applied. However, yard setback ~standards and landscaping
requirements would apply as they would on lots within a residential subdivision.
Discussion continued regarding deed restrictions designating streets as front for
building setback.
Commissioner Rosenlieb referring to the staff report recommendation that a
redesign to eliminate some of the "unusual relationships" or imposing deed
restrictions that identify ~the front yard for building setback, asked if staff is
comfortable with the tract. Mr. Hardisty said he sees the potential problems but
must rely on the subdivider to manipulate the design. It would not be a simple
solution.
Commissioner' Rosenlieb said she is not comfortable with the design as proposed.
Commissioner Powers'said he felt comfortable with the redesign recommendation
of the staff report.'
Commissioner. AnderSon asked if it was the applicant's intention to redesign a
portion of this tract. Mr.. Smith said it was his understanding that the conditions
' require houses t° face the cul-de-sac on the awkward shaped parcels and they do not
have a problem with this. Regarding the type of fence to be installed between the
drill site and adjoining residential, Mr. Smith said they haVe not addressed thiS issue.
- Minutes, PC, 10/17/91: Page 9
In response to'a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said until the
,drilling activity commences there is no fence requirement. The drilling of a well on
this site would require the issuance of a conditional use permit by'the Board of
Zoning Adjustment, This process contains standards that require sound attenuation,
requiring a.well to be totally wrapped for sound-proofing, with restriction of hours
of work. He outlined other requirements to attenuate noise.
Commissioner Anderson said a lot of time was spent discussing the importance of
protecting adjoining neighbors from sound associated withnormal operation of the
well, but also talked to great extent about safety issues such as keeping children out
of the site. Also on one occasion a subdivision was conditioned to include a block
fence adjacent to residential with a 6-foot fence of barbed wire and chainlink interior
to it. He felt these requirements were appropriate. He said while he has no
problem with lot widths-in the tract he has a problem with approving without
concurrence on the part of the applicant that he will make a similar attempt. He felt
a single-fence would-be the best protection for the homeowner.
Commissioner Messner asked if the conditions of approval would require a block
Wall and landscaping between Lot 199 and the street. Mr. Hardisty said it will be a
dirt .lot situation. Commissioner Messner said he was not happy with the overall
design of this tract and unless it is redesigned he would not support it.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
In response to a' question-by Chairman Marino, Erlin Denlinger, Franco
Construction, said he was not sure that this would ever be-used as a drill site,
however if it should then a block wall requirement should possibly be imposed. In
conjunction with the subdivision, layout they have had to redesign Dixie Lane to
conform to the adjacent tentative map. They tried to accommodate the access on
Wible Road. The 20-foot access shown on Lot 44 going to Hosking Avenue was a
mishap which was left when this was split. There is in the design criteria between
the Lonestar Drive/Ranier Square intersection of 150 feet which was the reason this
court was pushed down. If lots 64, 69, 71 and 76 look like odd shaped lots, there
are houses that will fit on each of these lots probably facing Becks Court and Ranier
Square On.Lots 69 and 71. Lot 76 could be a typical corner lot plan where the front
faces Ranier square. 'Lots 93, 98, 99 and 101 are typical corner lots.
Chairman Marino said there is a concern about drilling islands allowed in
· subdivisions. The Commission is concerned about getting a block wall at the very
earliest as protection to Lot 199. Mr. Denlinger said he would agree to an additional
condition requiring a block wall at the time of Development of Lot 199.
-Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 10
6:3
Commissioner Anderson said he would be concerned about the block wall not being
constrUcted until time of drilling of the well because there would be a need prior to
this.. Erecting a wood fence with a block wall erected at a later date would cause
problems regarding trash and safety issues. He asked that consideration be given to
this.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, 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 5362, subject to the conditions
outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the revision included in the October 17, '1991
memorandum from the Public Works Department, and with the following changes:
Planning Department Condition #9, Page 12 of 12 shall be replaced With the
following:
No dWelling shall be constructed within 150 feet of any well. There shall be
a 25-foot setback along Hussong Way.'
The addition of Planning Department Condition #10:
A six-foot high block wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of Lot
199 prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot adjacent to Lot 199.
Any access openings in the wall to Piranha Way. shall be approved by the City
Engineer.:
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Powers
Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5372-REVISED (SEQUOIA
ENGINEERING)
CommissiOner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict
of interest in that his company is providing services for an adjoining land oWner.-
Chairman Marino abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of
interest in that his employer oWns property within 300 feet.
Commissioner Rosenlieb chaired this item.
Minutes, PC,. 10/17/91.
'Page 11-
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Bob Smith represented this item. He said he was aware of all Conditions regarding.
this item including memo from the Planning Department dated October 16, 1991,
and Public Works.. He requested that Condition of Public Works Department memo
read as follows: "The subdivider shall construct secondary access acceptable to City
Engineer and Fire Department." Mr. Kloepper said considering the fact this tract
will probably-be phased he felt this request would-provide more flexibility in
approving secondary access. He recommended approval of this change. Regarding
page 4 of 12, Item XI.B. he asked that it be revised to-read as follows: "This tract
shall not be recorded prior to' abandonment of the existing canal and right-of-way."
Mr.-Kloepper stated his concurrence.
Public Portion of the hearing was closed..
In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said a block wall
is not required between residential and Commercial at this time because a
requirement of a zone change is to be made to accommodate the realignment of
Olive Drive and there shall be a shifting in the commercial and residential. At this
time they will-be on more solid ground in respect to discretionary powers to require
it. :-- The -Commercial .zoning ordinance which goes into effect.on January 1, requires
this as a matter of Code. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt if the Commercial goes in at.
a later date and the residential was already developed it would result in a double
fence situation 'and she is trying to make sure this possibility is' eliminated. Mr.
Hardisty. said the block wall is not required as a matter of code compliance.
Commissioner Powers felt this could be required, as a condition of the zone change.
In response, to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty suggested that
if it is required it be timed So that it matches the issuance of building permits to lots
in the phase. He wanted t° avoid the problems of grading.
In response to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Smith said he felt building
a block wall-at this time creates problems, because the commercial area will probably
not be 'developed. -
Commissioner Rosenlieb said this is what the Commission has been doing and she
did not see' any reason to deviate from it.
~Minutes, PC, 10/17/91 Page 12
Discussi0nc0ntinued regarding the requirement of a block wall. Mr. Hardisty said
the block -walls have been approved basically with the concurrence of the subdividers.
If they choose not to go along with the Commission they have that right since it is
not required as part of the subdivision ordinance. In this situation if things are going
to move along and there' is no ordinance on this site against double fencing.
Regarding a question by.Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said a requirement
cannot be added 'that the owners of the Commercial site remove the wood fencing
when constructing a block wall because the wood fence is ownedby the residential
property owners, however it is not uncommon for it to be removed by the residential
property owners when the wall is constructed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, '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 5372 (Revised) subject to the
conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the addition of the revisions outlined in
the October 16, 1991 memorandum from the Planning Department and October 17,
.1991 Public Works Department memorandum, with the following change to the
Condition #VIII-C of Public Works Department memo as follows:
· The subdivider shall provide secondary access acceptable to the City Engineer
andFire Department.
Page 4 of 12, Condition #XI.B. to read as follows:
This tract shall not 'be recorded prior to abandonment of the existing canal
right-of-way.
Motion carried. Commissioners Marino and Anderson were absent due to a possible
conflict of interest. -
6.4 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5540 (ALEXANDRA J. PAOLA)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance on this item.
Commissioner Bjorn abstained from hearing this item due to the fact the applicant
is a client of her law firm.'
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition.
Motion was made byCommissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
to continue this item to the next regular meeting of November 7, 1991. Motion
carried. Commissioner Bj°rn was absent due to a possible conflict of interest.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 13
6.5 PUBLIC HEARING - - TENTATIVE TRACT 5556 (CORNERSTONE
ENGINEERING)
staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in Opposition.
Chris ConWay was present representing the applicant. He read into the record the
requirements of Government Code Section 66452.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr.
Conway .responded to.this requirement saying he did 'not feel they should be
receiving memoranda changing conditions at this late a date since the code requires
that the recommendation be received by the applicant more than 72 hours' before the
hearing. Mr. Hardisty responded to these comments saying he felt in order to give
Mr. Conway enough time to take these changes into consideration and comply with
Section 66452.3 the' hearing should be continued to the next-regular meeting, of
November 7, 1991.
Mr. Conway said regarding Page 3 of 12, Condition VIII.5 the median in Oswell
currently exists and their frontage on the street is only about 225 'feet of which 120
feet is turn island, they would prefer to pay a fee in lieu of the condition.
In-response to a question by Mr. Conway, Mr. Kloepper said credit would be given
for the fact that median curbs are in, however the need for a contribution would
remain. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Conway agreed the
conditions as revised by the October 17, 1991 memo are accePtable.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty restated his
recommendation that the propoSed action be changed to continued this item to the
regular meeting-of November 7, 1991. In response to a question by Commissioner
Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said this application was taken in after the deadline for
submittal and he did not want the Commission to be in violation of the government
code.
In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. ConWay said he would be willing
to waive his noticing rights allowing the commission to act on this'item. Attorney
Marino responded to a question by Chairman Marino regarding this, saying she felt
-it Would be best. to continue this item, however Commission could proceed with it.
In 'response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. HardistY clarified one of the
last-minute memos was a result of the applicant's request to change a condition.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91 Page 14
Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers
to continue this.item to the next regular meeting of November 7, 1991. Motion
carried.
An il-minute break was taken at this time.
7.1 FI!,E 5230 - PUBLIC HEARING -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES
FROM AN R-l-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE TO A C-2
(COMMERCIAL), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4821 MiNG AVENUE (Negative Declaration on file)
Chairman Marino abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of
interest in that he-is the trustee for the property owner.
Vice-Chairman Anderson chaired this item:
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Hardisty 'said the-applicant has submitted a letter asking that C-1 zoning be
considered rather than C-2. He said if some time were allowed to work out details
in terms of a' site design and conditions of approval, staff and the applicant may be
able to come to an agreement on this. He recommended that this item be continued
to 'the next regular meeting of November 7, 1991.
In response to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said due to the
sensitivity of the site P.U.D. zoning has consistently been approved which has not
worked out. 'At this time staff is looking at a C-1 zone designation with special
conditions that address the relationship of the property to the residential site to the
south and entry Way being focused on Ming Avenue through the Taco Bell parking
lot. Mr. Cohn urged staff to keep a tight rein on this project because of the intensity
of the development that has occurred in this area, with particular respect to traffic
impacts. Mr. Hardisty said this was the concern of staff, he does not want to see the
extension of commercial development westerly along Ming Avenue which was the
basis of protesting any changes to this property for the last 10 years. He felt after
discussing with the applicant their proposal for the property if it can be made
specific,~ as well as creating the entry way at Valhalla and creating the right turn
pockets minimizing the conflicts of traffic he felt the Commission will be able to
accomplish what would have been accomplished with a P.C.D.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 15
commissioner RoSenlieb said she would be somewhat reticent to approve a C- 1 zone
instead of a P.C.D. zone because of the discussion that occurred during the 2010
Plan on.this parcel, at which time it was agreed that this could work only under the
P.C.D. zoning.
Mr. Hardisty said it is the prerogative of the Commission to direct him to pursue
whatever 'path they wish on this item.
Steve Moore, minister of the church, gave a history of this site. He felt Karpe would
Create a quality project for the area.
Tom Teagarden spoke saying they have no intention of doing any speculative
building. Their. goal at this time is to get the zoning. They also intend to dehl with
Taco Bell to have the wall removed where their parking lot is because of the
congestion and to widen the entry off Ming Avenue.
In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Teagarden said he is
presently talking with Taco Bell on this issue. Commissioner Anderson said he
would like consideration to be given to conditioning this appr°Val on a definite
agreement that the entrance on Ming Avenue is suitable to pull traffic off Canter
Way. Mr. Teagarden said the project will not be purchased unless this can be
accomplished. Mr. Teagarden said he will agree to a continuance on this item.
In response to a qUestion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Teagarden said they
woUld prefer C-1. zoning instead of P.C.D. zoning, which he.felt would work because
.they are not planning any speculative building. Commissioner Rosenlieb said when
she voted for a change in land use designation she voted with the idea that this
would be a P.C.D. which is what she would like to see proposed.
pUblic portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Messner said C-1 projects have come to the Commission in the past
which he felt have been designed with the sensitivity of the surrounding residential
properties in mind. -There is a lack of neighborhood type services in the area, which
Would be allowed by the C-1 zoning. Staff should be given flexibility to comeup with
a C-1 plan to be brought back to the Commission. When it was zoned it could not
have-been anticipated that Valhalla and Ming could have ~been a four-way.
intersection and. felt control of traffic through this intersection could accommodate
a neighborhood commercial site. Mr. Hardisty said he felt a -continuance would
allow enOugh time to deal with issues raised.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91 Page 16
Commissioner Cohn echoed Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments. He felt a motiOn
-to direct staff to deal with this item as a P.C.D. would be appropriate.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cobh, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to
continue this item to the next regular meeting of November 7, 1991, and direct staff
to see that a P.C.D: is placed on the project. Motion carried. Commissioner
Messner voted no.' Commissioner Marino was absent due to a possible conflict of
interest.
7.2 FILE'5233 -- PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES
FROM M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) AND M-2 (GENERAL
MANUFACTURING) ZONES TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), C-2
(COMMERCIAL) AND OS (OPEN SPACE), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF COFFEE ROAD, EAST OF
CALLOWAY DRIVE, SOUTH OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD AND NORTH
8.1
OF BRIMHALL ROAD. (Negative Declaration on file)
Commissioner Powers abstained on hearing this item due to a possible conflict of
interest-in that his employer has interest in property in the vicinity.
Mr. Hardisty broUght to the attention of the commission a memo asking for
continuance on this item.
-Public portion of the hearing was-opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
to continue this item .tO the regular meeting of November 21, 1991. Motion carried.
Commissi6ner Powers was absent due to a possible conflict of interest.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT 1-91 - PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
EXPAND .THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY BY 12.5
8.1
SQUARE MILES.
FILE 5235 -- PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INITIATED ACTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO A
(AGRICULTURE)' OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE; OF SAID PROPERTY
LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF BUENA VISTA ROAD TO 4 MILES WEST
OF BUENA VISTA ROAD NORTH OF PANAMA LANE KNOWN AS THE
KERN RIVER NO 10 ANNEXATION. (Negative Declaration. on file)
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
8.1
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
INITIATED
Page 17
ACTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANNEX 2,070 +/- ACRES OF THOSE
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED ONE MILE
WEST OF BUENA VISTA ROAD TO 4 MILES WEST OF-BUENA VISTA
ROAD NORTH .OF PANAMA LANE KNOWN AS THE KERN RIVER NO. 10
ANNEXATION. (Negative Declaration on file)
Items 8.la - c. were heard concurrently.
- Commissioner Anderson said he felt he had a conflict of interest on Item 8.1.b,
however not on the rbmainder of items and felt if they are heard concurrently he
should abstain from hearing these items.
Chairman Marino abstained from hearing these items due to a possible-conflict of
interest because his employer is providing services to the applicant.
Commissioner Rosenlieb chaired these items. She waived reading'of the staff report.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no. one spoke in' opposition or favor.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Messner to
continue this item tO-the next regular meeting of November 7, 1991. Motion carried.
Commissioners Marino and Anderson were absent due to a possible conflict of
interest.
PUBLIC HEARING-~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT V
Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a possible
conflict
of interest.
Commissioner Cohn gave the committee report on this item. He said the residents
were concerned about the increase of maintenance feeS for a larger park as opposed
to 4 smaller parks. It is the committee's recommendation that if this park is
approved with the ~amenities of the swimming pool and pavilion, the maintenance
should not be borne by the residents within the Silver Creek Maintenance District,
however it should come out of the City's general fund.
,In response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Commissioner Cohn said the costs
outlined in. the staff rePort include all maintenance costs, however it does nOt
presume any subsidy. Commissioner Cohn said it does not include any presumed
revenues that would be derived from gate fees.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 18
In response to questions by Commissioner Bjorn, Lee Anderson, Community ServiceS
'Manager, said the annual costs to the property owners would decrease by
approximately $20 if the maintenance for pool and pavilion were paid out of the
general fund.
Commissioner Powers.clarified it was specifically said in the Committee meeting that
the recreational programs would in no case be covered under the maintenance
district. ~
Public portion of th~ hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Don Lindsay was present saying the petition submitted in opposition to this it said
.-'the Combination 'of this large park instead of 4 neighborhood parks was being done
to save costs, this is far from the intent. The development of the large park
proposed:is in excess of the cost of 4 smaller parks. He felt Condition 4 should be
clarified so-that if the maintenance district does not provide the funds for the park,
it should be stated it.would be paid out of the general fund. If the council disagrees
with the funding of the maintenance costs, the facility will be eliminated and reverted
back to 4 smaller parks as previously planned.
Kim Haerter, 'resident of Silver Creek, spoke saying she was originally in opposition
to this park, however she would like to express her agreement with it at this time.
She felt it would be a good idea. Regarding Condition #4 she felt the City should
cover the costs of the pool and pavilion. She did not feel. the residents should have
to pay.for the maintenance of these amenities if this is to be considered a city park
with admittance to. it by any city resident.
Don Wilson, resident of'Silver Creek, stated he was originally against this proposal,
however after further review of the facts is now in favor of it. He was in agreement
with Ms. Haerter's comments that they should not have to pay for maintenance of
amenities that people outside the area Will be able to use.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Hardisty pointed out a new exhibit showing the new configuration of the park.
Chairman Marinosaid he felt the parks department did a good job on this proposal.
Regarding Condition #4, Exhibit "A" he felt the following wording may be
appropriatei "The maintenance of the pool and pavilion facility shall be paid through
the city general fund until such time as a city-wide park maintenance district is in
effeet."
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 19
Commissioner Rosenlieb concurred with statements by Chairman Marino, saying she
was thrilled with what has been brought before the commission. -She wanted the
recommendation to council to be that of the committee report. She felt maintenance
should be paid for out of the general fund.
Commissioner Powers commended Castle & 'Cooke for their response to residents
concerns.
Commissioner Messner thanked the developer and park designer for' the effort they
expended in developing the type of park which has not been constructed in
Bakersfield for over 20 years. The committee felt very strongly that the costs should
be borne out of thegeneral fund. He said he concurs with the language as it stands
and would support the recommended motion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
adopt resolution making-findings set forth in Parks Committee Report Approving the
Negative Declaration' and Approving General Plan amendment 3-91, Segment V
consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from OS-P to LR on. 12.86
acres, and from PS to OS-P on' 14.17 acres, subject to the conditions of approval
listed in the Exhibit "A", and recommend same to the City Council, with 'the
Suggestion to the CounCil that maintenance costs for the swimming pool and pavilion
shall be paid from the general fund until such time as a city-wide park maintenance
district is in place. Motion carried by_ the following roll Call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, PowerS, R0senlieb, Marino
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson
10. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Chester M°land represented Golden Empire Transit District. He pointed out that
the district is not opposed to a transportation impact fee per se. What the district
is opposed to is the exclusion of transportation funding for transit capital projects.
He stated h6 had distributed a letter to the commission, outlining his concerns. He
asked the commission to'Ponder the question of whether transit capital projects are
a legally alloWed use of these funds. This question was answered in the Kern COG
Omni-Means study which concluded that it is permissible to finance transit capital
Minutes, PC, .10/17/91 Page 20
projects which result from new growth and development. He asked the Commission
to ask themselves if new growth and development has a significant impact on transit
service~ in the Bakersfield'area. He felt the answer to this question is yes. A recent
example of this is .construction of Stockdale High School area. A community was
developed with a high school knowing there was no transit service 'to the facilities.
Once the neighborhoods began to develop there was a telephone and letter writing
campaign to the district demanding that those residents as citizens of the community
are entitled to 'public transit service. He posed the question to the Commission if
the inclusion of transit will result in an undue financial burden or inhibitor to growth
in the 'metropolitan area. In the initial proposals including public transit it showed
the transit portion of the fee to be 3.5 'percent. The impact of adding transit to the
growth fee and impact on median housing cost would be an insignificant impact on
the homeowner, .however it would allow the district to provide a tremendous amount
'of service to the new growing and developing areas. He asked the Commission to
question whether there is a logical and compelling reason to exclude public transit
from this fee. During the initial meetings he attended regarding this fee he did not
hear any. He urged the Commission to restore funding for transit capital
improvement to the level contained in the initia! plan.
Mr. Barnhill, representative of County Planning responded saying there are a number
of projects identified in the 2010 Plan which are not listed on the project list, transit
being one. It is a worthy project, however it was felt it was more important to try
to maintain the mandated, level of service C specified in the 2010 when it came-down
to priorities. He said it was felt a realistic fee needed to be proposed which meant
not including everything originally planned.
Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association of Kern County.
One of the members, Mr. Roger McIntosh, served on the Technical Advisory
Committee and provided: her with comments he would like included.in tonight's
testimony. He wanted to convey that while it is understood that this fee is not the
entire answer to the congestion problem, it is understood the generation of traffic
created by new developments. In some regard they feel this fee goes beyond the
reasonable nexus in that a project list which tries to correct deficiencies that already
exist in the community is being used to calculate-the impact fee by a deductive
approach. She outlined an inductive approach. Mr. McIntosh points out that when
the inductive method is used to calculate the fee it works out to be less than whfit
was originally developed. They have concerns about the calculation of the fee. They
hope to have further opportunity to discuss this in detail. With the adoption of any
fee ordinance it is imperative that the city and county continue to pursue other
sources of revenue to fund the existing deficiencies and to acquire much needed
revenue that will be collected as a result of Proposition 111, which should be done
through 1/2 'cent sales tax or other revenue sources..She expressed their concerns
over the level of service "C", stating their opposition to it and recommended it' be
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 21
changed to level c~f service "D". ' Level of service "C" is more conservative than the
level of service'mandatedin the Proposition 111 COngestion Management Program
which requires level of service "E". Level of service "C" places a very restrictive
growth control if applied at a peak hour. There may be several projects that cannot
-meet'this requi.rement because of right-of-way restrictions or Other physical barriers
that preclude construction of facilities to meet the level of service "C". They are
concerned that existing deficiencies are being calculated in the fee. Mr. MClntosh
had problems with the .way the computation of the-fee is based, being it is based on
grOss square footage of each floor and not usable interior, ~entable, non-common
square footage. Thid contradicts the methodology used to Calculate parking Space
requirements. If parking is based on the actual amount of employees or people in
the' bUilding, the 'transportation impact fee should be related to the same type of
calculation. Mr. Mclntosh recommends in Section 16.41.080 regarding the refund
of fee paid, that the interest of the fee be included in a refund if a building permit
expires, is revoked Or ~,oluntarily surrendered. In SectiOn 16.41.090 Exemptions and
Credits this paragraPh leaves the right to determine whether capital improvements
will be approved for credit purposes which lies exclusively with the administrator.
There would, need to be clear guidelines as to the criteria for credits.. In paragraph
3, sub-paragraph C Mr. Mclntosh felt an appraisal should be used to determine the
value of dedicated right-of-way. She questioned when the ordinance would go into
effect. Regarding the recommendation of this Ordinance being reviewed'on a yearlY
basis she recommended' that there be a cap incorporated into the review. They want
to see some type of controls put on the expansion of this. She felt some wording
Should be added to require that there be some kind of action by city and county
government that other means of funding will be explored. Regarding the new
amendments'shOwing various trip generation fees for heavy industrial and
commercial they felt .using the calculation it could be argued that heavy service
industrial trip is 10 times as long as a retail commercial trip. She expressed concern
regarding the 'inclusion of any transit monies for the expansion of transit facilities or
purchase of buses for expanding the facility. It is their positi°n that funding these
costs is. not the function of new home buyers. She asked that the Commission not
take action °n-this, sending it to an appropriate committee for further discussion
because the development community should feel comfortable with the projects on
the list and the nexus in which it was demonstrated.
Lloyd NOrton gave a review of the Omni-Means study. He felt that the issues raised
by Ms. Don Carlos were addressed in the TAC. He said the study was
commissioned by. Kern COG at the request of the City and County to address the
2010 mitigation measures2 He referred to the nexus report and' findings which was
given to the cOmmission, Page 1 item #2. The 2010 Plan identified impacts 'created
by hpproved land uses, and Level "C" as the adopted level of service. Number 111-5.
of Circulation ~Plan allows for mitigation for the congestion to be realized from the
approved ~land use. Policy #36 noted that the mitigation plan provided for Level "C"
7-'_
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
page 22
or if below C no further degradation. The Omni-Means did not create a new needs
list, but started with what was identified in the 2010 Plan. The list took into
consideration every existing funding sources present in the city and county, such as
gas tax etc. The fee as it exists wOuld only cover approximately 19 percent of the
entire'list. The per trip fee is a recalculation of the numbers already existing in the
fee program. Regarding the varying per-trip rate Page 51, of the Omni-Means report
goes into detail discussing how traffic models were run directly related to the metro
general plan area to determine the actual trip length of.the varying types of land
uses.~ He outlined the varying trip generation fees of the study. It could b~
appropriate to charge hew development $6,800 per lot. It was discussed that if'
development ceased toda)~ and there were no more building permits issued there is
enough funding in place that the roadway and transportation system could be.
maintained. 'The problem, is directly related to new growth. The argument that new
growth stimulates the economy developing other funds to help balance' the fee and
other-reasons is why staff has recommended only $1,342 for each single family
residential lot.
Bob Devereaux, representing the Bakersfield Association of Realtors, spoke saying
they support the concept of this transportation fee. However, they would like to
make it-clear that they are very concerned about its impact On affordable housing.
While they support the concept of the proposed ordinance they have a serious
Concern that the solution to the problem should not rest solely on the back of the
new home buyer or .developer. This proposal will raise the' cost of property for
everyone. The fee will diminish affordability. It should be required by the city and-
county to prove a direct impact. The fee should not escalate every year. He asked
that this ordinance be sent to the appropriate committee and that only those projects
impacted by development be included in the ordinance.
David Gay spoke saying he was invOlved in the technical advisory committee on this
issue and through the process it was apparent that new development should pay 'their
pro-rata share to ~mitigate traffic impacts. However, he felt implementation of this
fee will-continue to erode the affordability of housing in the community. He asked
that the Commission review level of service "C", prior to approval of this item. He
felt it would .considerably impact the area, consideration should be given to level of
service '!D" or an average of level Of service "C". He had a problem with the list of
projects being proposed, in that there were some inconsistencies and it may be
picking up the cost of some previous or existing impacts. He said he Would like to
see .some exact guidelines prioritizing the project list. Regarding public transit he
said he was opposed to a fee to generate rolling stock and other items. By reviewing
this proposal through committee he felt the future homeowners would be reassured
that their contribution to growth is not excessive and they will only being paying their
pro-rata share.
Minutes, PC~ 10/17/91
Page 23
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said she felt the Commission has not had time to digest the
material received at this-hearing. In response to a question, Mr. Gauthier said staff
has been in contact With CalTrans and has been able to answer all of their technical
questions,_ except the amount of fee, which is not set by the city. Commissioner
Rosenlieb was concerned there may be a shortfall in collected fees. Mr. Norton
clarified the 19 percent of fees is 19 percent of the otherwise unfUnded fees and does
not count other impacts that could be fUnded through other sources.
In response to a qUestionby Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said under the
capital improvement program during _the first five years $30,546,000 would be
collected, based on last years history and expanding through the 5 years at a 3
percent increase per year. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt if it is continued at this rate
only about 11 percent of the need would be satisfied. She asked about Page 6 of the
staff report; Finding # 10.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said this fee program is predicated upon the entire buildout
of the 2010 Plan. Full buildout has not been projected in the 2010 Plan. Mr.
Gauthier:said .the' needs list within the Circulation Element Would be necessary if
land use was b_uilt out. In response to a question, by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mrl
Gauthier responded regarding the request from the Economic Development
Department for exemption of the incentive area, that trip generation rates impact the
circulation like any other industry and should not be exempted.
Commissioner Powers said he is confident that if the amounts needed had been
made public at the time the half cent sales tax was able to be placed on the ballot
that the general public wOUld have seen the necessity and would have approved it.
He said he supported the necessity to collect a fee, however felt th'ere Was several
elements he was concerned With beginning With level of service. This document and
the CMP do not coincide and felt some consistency should be shown as far as the
level of service goes. He did not feel rolling stock for transit should be included in
the plan. He said he would like more time to review the document before taking a
vote on it.
Mr. Norton said_ the level of "C" .is not Optional at this time since it is adopted in the
2010 Plan. The CMP issues were argued at length With concern about the level of
"C", hoWever it was felt this should be the goal. This plan is a far cry from beginning
to assess all needs.' Commissioner Powers said he saw the need for a fee, however
he felt more t'tme should be taken to evaluate.
Commissioner Anderson asked for comment by Mr. Moland. Mr. Moland responded
to staff's comments that the initial study was a giant Wish list that cannot be funded.
Minutes, PC, 10/i7/91 Page 24
· He said-he Was not talking about funding a giant wish list, but a $12 Million transit
capital improvement program over 20 years which probably would mean adding
approximately $45-$50 on-the proposed fee to provide transit capital projects that are
the direct result of new growth. They are not projects being proposed to serve
Current areas or current-deficiencies. He asked if there is a logical and compelling
reason not to inclUde.public transit, when it is clear that it is directly impacted by the
decision of the city: county and this commission to continue to approve development
and-growing areas outside the district boundaries. He felt that at some point
responsibility needs to be taken for the development impacts of projects approved
by' the city and county, This could be- the first step.
Chairman Marino said he supported staff on this position because he felt when the
Clean Air Act. is implemented public transit will have adequate funding and as jobs
flee Californla to escape the consequences of this act there'will be more than
adequate ride~ship. Mr. Moland said future funding sources are continuing to be
discussed, in-each discussion they are being told that public transit will receive their
funding in the future and he felt the future may not arrive.
Discussion continued regarding Table 1 about the way in which fees were arrived.
Commissioner Anderson responded to the memorandum from the Economic
Devel°Pment Department, saying it was suggested that in the 'case of Light Industrial
with instances of large buildings there be consideration given for the fact that in
warehouse situations there are very few employees. Mr. Gauthier said the ordinance
makes provisions for special studies to-be .done in the case that the particular use
does not match ~the ITE-rates, so that it may be brought down to the actual trip
generation rate. --
Mr. Barnhill said is very clear on impact fees only going toward impacts caused by
new development. Regarding Page 2 of the staff report, Mr. Messner said he had
a problem with the word "bandaged" being used and asked for clarification..Mr.
Barnhill said the intent was that the existing circulation system could be made to
work if no furtherbhilding permits were issued. Existing funding could be used in
such a Way to make the existing situation work. Regarding the issue raised by the
Department of Transportation about on-site improvements and the possible legal
issue of fees being-used for other services, he asked if this was addressed to their
satisfaction. Mr. Gauthier said what is being discussed is regional transportation
impacts. In response to a question by Commissioner_ Messner, Mr. Barnhill said
CEQA only deals with projects on a one project at-a time basis, which is more
expensive for the deyeloper. Commissioner Messner said this is a product of a very
delicate balance of concerns. He said he has sympathy for the argument that GET
has been treated as somewhat of a stepchild. He was concerned about the level of
service being appropriate. Mr. Gauthier responded to a question saying there were
9 full TAC meetings and uncounted individual contacts during the consideration of
Minutes, PC, 10/t7/9I
Page 25
this item.
Chairman Marino said he was interested in continuing this matter, however not for
a very long period of .time. He felt this was critical to the basic survival of the
community. He said he did not .through his comments wish to diminish the need for
mass transit. Ms. Don Carlos responded to a question, saying they have specific
comments to bring to a meeting on this item, their concerns being what would
qualify for credits and specific 'recommended wording changes.
Mr.-Barnhill responded 'to questions regarding the effective date, saying 'the
government provides that this type of ordinance for impact fee would not take effect
for 60 days, with their intent being that the city and county's ordinance take effect
at the same time so tha~. there will not be an unfair advantage for development,
therefore it will probably, be more than 60 days. Regarding using other forms of
revenue, Mr. Norton said a point made at the TAC meeting was that this is the first
phase and the concensus was that a short recess would be taken and start all over.
and build this from the ground up which would include investigating other revenue
sources and making recommendations.
Chairman Marino responded to a comment by Mr.' Devereaux regarding the fee
increasing the price of the home, but not the value, saying the lack of infrastructure
to carry transportation immensely devalues the quality of life, therefore devaluing the
home.
Mr. Hardisty gave history on the present trip generation fee.
Chairman Matin0 complimented staff on getting this item to hearing. In response
to a question regarding annual review, Mr. Barnhill said' city and county staff along
with the TAC Would take' this item through public hearing. Mr. Hardisty said this
annual review must be conducted by the City Council.
Commissioner Powers felt a fee is necessary, however it needed to be fine tuned.
He felt possibly a workshop setting would be appropriate. Mr. Norton said time
lines have begun and he reqUested on behalf of the county that a time specific be set
in order to act on this item. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt this could be referred
back to staff for-fine tuning to be brought back to the next regularly scheduled
meeting rather than being referred to committee or workshop.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to
continue this item-to the next regularly scheduled meeting. She instructed staff to
meet with those who .have concerns.
.Commissioner Bjorn said she would prefer 'to see this go to a committee or
Minutes; PC, 10/17/91
Page 26
workshop because-there has been a lot of material and felt in a more informal
setting she would bebetter able to discuss and possibly come up with solutions. She
was concerned about the total exclusion of transit projects. She stated her
opposition to the previous motion. Chairman Marino stated he was in favor of a
workshop or committee meeting, he asked that those speaking at this hearing be
informed of the workshop.
Commissioner Rosenlieb withdrew her previous motion.
Cfiairman Marino reiterated his opposition to delaying this' for a long period of time.
Commissioner Messner questioned the usefulness of a full workshop and'leaned
more toward a committee resulting in a committee report with more. specific
changes. It was discussed this would be sent to the joint City Council/Planning
Commission committee.
Mr. Hardisty Outlined other options to the Commission.
Motion was made by Commissioner pOwers, seconded by.Commissioner Anderson
to schedule a~ workshop on this issue and continue this item to the next regular
meeting of November 7, 1991. Motion was amended per Commissioner Anderson's
request that it include an invitation to the City Council. Motion carried. Workshop
was scheduled for October 24, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.
11.
-GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - REQUEST FROM THE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR VACATION OF 11.25 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF
JEWETI' AVENUE BETWEEN 36TH STREET AND 38TH STREET.
Staff report was given..
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers
pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the vacation of the East 11.25
feet of Jewett Avenue between 36th Street and 38th Street consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and report the same to the City Council
subject to the recommendation as follows:
1. A public, utilities easement shall be reserved over the entire 11.25 foot strip.
2. The vacation shall be by summary procedure pursuant t° State Street and
Highway Code Section 8334.
Motion carried. -
Minutes, PC, 10/17/91
Page 27
12. COMMUNICATIoNs
A)
Written
None
-B) Verbal
None
13.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Rosenlieb asked about the update of the comparison of the building
permit fee schedule of the :.City and County to other areas of the State. Mr. Hardisty
said he would look into the completion of this. In regard to a question about
minimum lot size ordinance, Mr. Hardisty said the proposed ordinance is being
processed in conjunction with the revision of the Subdivision Map Act ordinance.
All comments have been received, and are being finalized for presentation to the
Commission which he stated will be back in 'approximately 1 to 1-1/2 months.
Commissioner ROsenlieb said she was looking forward to hearing the update on the
development of school impact fees on school districts from the member of this task
force. Regarding the previous block wall conversations she stated she was chagrined.
It appears-they have been requested between residential and commercial in the
recent past~in which developers did not know they had the option of saying no. If
this is something that the city wants to be consistent in she felt possibly an ordinance
should, be adopted that requires this. She asked staff to give some thought to
addressing this issue.
Chairman Marino asked Mr. Kloepper about the report on the Fastrip on the
southeast corner of Gosford and White Lane. Mr. Kloepper said Jaco Oil has been
given notice to take the drive approach out. However, there has been no official
word from them. The money to close this will only be used if they refuse to do it,
which they have not officially done. Mr. Hardisty said they have chosen to apply for
an amendment to the conditions of approval on the map which requires the bonding
'and closure of the' driveway, which the commission will hear at the next regular
meeting.
Minutes, PC, 10/17/9I-
Page 28
14.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further
adjourned ~ at 1.1:12 p.m.-
business to come before the Commission, meeting was
Laurie Davis
Recording Secretary