Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/91MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, September 19, 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 C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Presenti LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Assistant Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. 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. 3. APPROVAL' OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve minutes of regular meetings held August I and August 15, 1991. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 2 4.1) WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TENTATIVE TRACT 5389 4.2) Staff report was given. Rob Cramer was present representing the applicant. He stated they have read the conditions and have n'o comment. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve wall and landscape Plans for Tentative Tract 5389, subject to conditions on attached Exhibit "A". Motion carried. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TENTATIVE TRACT 5417 Staff report was given. Gary Busby was p~e~ent representing the applicant. He stated they have a problem with Condition #2, Page 2 of 3. regarding the 4-fo°t maximum wall height. He said they propose to step it down at the northeast corner of Depetro · Drive and Brimhall to meet the requirement rather than apply for a modification. Mr. Grady, Assistant Planning Director, stated this would be acceptable to staff. Motion was made by .Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5417, subject to conditions on attached Exhibit "A", with the following change: page 2 of 3,. Condition #2 amended to read as follows: Neighborhood entry wall and monumentation shall be stepped down to a 4-foot height within the 25-foot front yard setback of R-1 lots. Motion carried. 'Minutes, PC, 9/19/91- 4.3) WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5156 Page 3 Chairman Marino disqualified himself due to a pOssible conflict of interest in that his firm has provided engineering on the project. Commissioner Anderson chaired this item. Staff report was given. Tim Nord was present to speak in favor. He gave a history of this project, which he submitted to the Commission. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Nord said he would like to address some of the conditions in the memo dated September 18, 1991. ToTM Roddy, DeWalt Corporation, said the owner felt he was making.an improvement in the area and intended to comply with the requirements. He said. in the section on Auburn Street there is a 13 foot setback in which the owner took an additional 5 feet out of the back yard to move this' back. He said the sight line distance meets the City's requirements. He felt the owner has made an improvement in the area with the elimination of a block wall, however he gave up'5 feet in the back yards for a greater sight distance. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Roddy said the setback is 18 feet on Auburn Street. It has been the applicant's intention to -- install landscaping. The applicant gave something up in the belief it would make for abetter project. Mr. Kloepper said, as indicated in Mr. Nord's oral presentation, that there was an agreement negotiated between the owner and City staff. He stated this was not the case, the Public Works Department did not have the opportunity to review the elimination of the wall and feasibility of doing so. He also pointed out the sight line on Eissler that a wall could be erected still maintaining the sight line, however it could not abut the back of the sidewalk. Mr. Grady said staff planners measured the setback which is 13 feet, however the as-built shows 15 feet which raises a question. Mr. Nord said there has not been. a reconstructed as-built plan. Mr. Anderson said where the erosion occurs there is less than a 2:1 slope where it is 18 feet back instead of 13 feet back. Minutes, PC, 9/i9/91 Page 4 4.3) 'WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5156 (continued) Commissioner Rosenlieb said it does not appear any improvements have been made to the neighborhood: She said she intends to support the staff report recommendation -which coincides with the original Planning Commission cOnditions. 'She questioned condition #3, Page 2 of 3 which would allow the · developerYt0 get those houses which are under construction finale& There was concern by'~the Commission that if this is allowed and the homes are occupied what would happen if the developer left. She asked what the situation is regarding the sale of-these homes. William L. Alexander, the owner of subject property, stated some of the people in the area are owner builders and are requesting finals, four homes are under construction, 12 lots have been sold. Commissioner Powers echoed Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments. He stated he would support the staff report. In respon'se to a question-by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Alexander said he is not developing the property, he is only selling the lots. He said he has put up a construction bond 'to assure 'the city of the completion of this project. Mr. Grady responded to a question saying Condition #3 could assure that the project is completed. In response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Roddy said he would take exception to Condition #4, Page 2 of 3 which would require the removal of six inches of top Soil. He said the existing soil is not the best, however if properly amended it will be appropriate for the ground cover and plant material specified. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Grady said the intent of Condition regarding removal of top soil was to provide a planting bed for the landscaping, if there is some amendment that could accomplish the same objective the removal of this Condition would be agreeable. CommissiOner Powers said he felt the revised condition was placed on this item to allow staff the flexibility of eliminating the concern. Regarding Condition # 3, Page 2 of 3, Mr: Bidwell said the wording would provide that permits could be issued but not finaled prior to the acceptance of the landscaping as it is determined to be completed. It looks as though the security for the completion of this.project will be in place. He responded to a question by Commissioner Powers saying he did not feel the issuance of building permits should be held until the landscaping requirement is met. The existing condition is appropriate. He said the owner submitted a letter in which he agreed to begin the work within 14 days and complete within 60. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 5 4.3) WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5156 (continued) In response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Movius, staff planner, stated, revised Condition #5 of the Planning Department memo dated September 18, 1991 was Written tO provide the applicant some flexibility as approaching site lines.- It is not the intent to move the wall back far behind the sidewalk. 'Commissioner Anderson said a 2:1 slope should be adequate if the right erosion control plants are planted. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5156, subject to conditions on Exhibit "A" of the' staff report, including the revision tO Condition #5 as written in the Planning Department memo dated September 18, 1991, with the provision that staff come back before the Commission within 60 days to advise the commission of the progress on this project. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained. - o SIGN PLAN ' PCD 3289 Staff report was given. Gary Olson was present representing the applicant. the condition_s of the staff_rePort. He stated he concurred with In response to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Brenda Shane President of Adair Engineering spoke saying they are the major tenant of this center. She said they are concerned-the signage will limit the visibility on Stine and the request for additional signage would be to eliminate the monument sign that contains the address of the building and erect 4 new signs with 3 slots for each tenants which would limit them to one-third of this area. She felt this should be negotiated with them. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she Shared Ms. Shane's concerns, however the applicant's request falls within the limits of the sign ordinance. This appears to he a private matter between Ms. Shane and her landlord. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by' Commissi°ner- Rosenlieb to make findings as set forth'in the staff report and approve the sign plan for 1601-New Stine Road as requested. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91' Page 6 6.1) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9542 6.2) Commissioner Anderson disqualified himself due to the fact his firm is providing services for the applicant: Staff report was given. Public portiOn of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh was present representing the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In'response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Bidwell said the intent of the deletion of this condition would be deleting the grading on individual pads within the parcel map. Drainage will still need to be addressed for the streets and they will need street plans and amenities that go along with the recordation of a tract map. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to amend conditions of approval on page 4 of 9 in Exhibit"A" for Tentative Parcel Map 9542 (Revised) as stated in the staff report dated September 19, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained. PUBLIC.HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP .7353 Chairman Marino abstained due to a possible conflict of interest because of the fact that ~the subdivider retained his employer regarding zoning issues. Staff report-was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Joseph Abramson was present to speak. He stated he had received the staff report and memo concerning this item. A representative of Tate and Associates, spoke saying they agree with the conditions of the staff report. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 7 6.2) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP' 7.1) 7.2) 7353 Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to delete Public Works Condition 9 from Page 2 of 5 in Exhibit "A" for Tentative Parcel Map 7353 and substitute the conditions in the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated September 19, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained. Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution accepting revocation of waiver of direct street access for Parcel Map 7353 except for the locations specified in the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated September 19, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9702 This item was withdrawn by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9554 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland was present to speak. He stated they are in concurrence with staff's recommendation, including the additional lot width. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she had expressed a concern about buffering on this project asking if the conditions of the Casa Loma Specific Plan would apply to the project. Mr. Grady said they would apply to this project. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Moreland said he is aware of these conditions and understood it has nothing to do with the conditions of this parcel map. He stated he hoped to resolve the buffering issue at the site plan review level. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see some buffering, however not to the extent outlined in the staff report. Minutes, PC,' 9/19/91 Page 8 7.2) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9554 (continued) In response to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Grady said it is staff's intent .to adhere to the conditions of the Casa Loma Specific Plan on implementation for this item. If there is not a provision for a modification from the development standards, the only relief would be amendment of the plan to delete the conditions. Discussion continued regarding possible change of the plan. In response to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Moreland said he understood the process by which he may change the plan. Mr. Grady responded to Commissioner Bjorn's question that the plan is a joint city/county plan and would require Board of Supervisor's approval as well. 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 Parcel Map 9554, subject to .the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A". Motion carried. MotiOn Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers, tO direct Staff to initiate general plan amendment, specific plan amendment and a zone change to accommodate 7.1 zoning. Motion carried. 7~3) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9679 Staff report was given. *Commissioner Messner left at this time. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Charles Cunningham, 5404 Panorama Drive, was concerned about the possibility of the development facing Charger Avenue. Mr. Grady said it is staff's understanding that the properties would face Panorama Drive, with possible fencing behind 'the front yard setback on Panorama Drive. Commissioner Powers stated he understood Mr. Cunningham's concern, however any resident can erect a fence as long as it is behind the front yard setback. CommissiOner Rosenlieb shared Mr. Cunningham's concerns, but stated the Commission is not considering the construction of homes at this hearing, however is only looking at.the subdivision. Mr. Grady said there is nothing that would ' prevent the homes from fronting on Charger Avenue. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 9 7.3) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9679 (continued) In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Attorney Marino said the Commission cannot condition this map forcing the houses to face on Charger Avenue. Commissioner Bjorn did not feel this was up to the Commission, since it. already exists in this area. Commissioner Powers fell possible home buyers would choose to buy a lot in a tract fronting on Panorama thereby Choosing to face Charger Avenue. Lance Rogers, 5204 Charger Avenue, said he is concerned with the back yard facing Charger Avenue their line of sight may be blocked down Charger Avenue and possibly~having a 6-foot fence on the side of their home from an adjacent back yard. Mr. Grady felt Condition #6 would address concerns about the setback requirements and no building within 25 feet of the. Charger, right-of-way line. Mr. Rogers questioned the type of fencing to be used as a buffer between the block wall and sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Grady said the fence materials would be determined by each builder on individual parcels. The setback area Would be required to be landscaped. Maurice Etchechury represented the applicant. He stated it is the applicant's intention for homes to face Panorama, although there is nothing they can do to guarantee this. He stated they have no problem with the setback of 25 feet on Charger Avenue. He stated they intend to ask for a waiver to allow fencing at the back of sidewalk along Charger Avenue, while meeting all sight distance requirements. He said they are making no c°mmitments at this time on fencing materials. Chairman Marino gave a copy of the September 19, 1991 memo from the Public Works Department with changes of conditions. Mr. Etchechury asked that the following be added to Public Works condition II-A: "or Panorama". Mr. Kloepper said the Public Works Department would not object 'to allowing this possibility. Regarding Item #8, Page 2 of 5, Mr. Etchechury asked that it be waived until certificate of occupancy. Mr. Kloepper clarified the condition'does not stipulate it be "prior to recordation", however he felt this was the intent. Mr-. Kloepper said he would agree to this, however the sidewalk should be installed on Panorama prior to: recordation, and Charger Avenue prior to occupancy. Minutes; PC, 9/19/91- Page 10 7.3) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9679 (continued) Mn Etchechury said concerning Page 2 of 5, Item 9 that they would remove the "no parking signs" along Panorama at certificate of occupancy stage. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this. Under miscellaneous, Item #il-C, Page 2 of 5 he asked that this be changed so that the construction plans can be incorporated into-the grading plans. Mr. Kloepper said this is a standard condition and if a block wall. is going to be erected it needs to be shown on a separate set of plans. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Messner was absent on this item, therefore Commissioner Frapwell would take part in the action on this item. lin response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Grady said the zoning ordinance provides for ~a 10-foot wide, 25-foot setback for cutoff. Commissioner Powers questioned Mr. Etchechury's request to have the sidewalk delayed, Mr. Kloepper said Condition #11-B covers the situation. He clarified the reason he is recommending that Condition #VIII be modified to state that it · be improved prior to recordation is that there is an existing condition which 'is potentially hazardous and in need for correction. Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report; and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map' 9679, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A", with changes reflected inthe Public Works memo dated September 18, 1991 and Planning DePartment memo dated September 19, 1991 with the following further revisions: Public Works Condition #II-B: add to the end of the sentence "or in Panorama Avenue if unfeasible to serve the lots from the Charger Avenue sewer." Public Works Condition #'VIII: add a sentence to the end to read: Construction of the sidewalks on Panorama Drive shall occur prior to recordation of the final map. Public Works Condition #IX: add a sentence to read: "No parking" signs on Panorama Drive shall be removed at time of occupancy on first parcel. Motion carried. Commissioner Messner was absent. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 8.I) PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 5528 Page 11 Staff reportwas given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Maurice Etchechury was present representing the applicant. He asked that Public Works Condition #I ---drainage be deleted because the location of the sump will be determined by the comprehensive drainage plan referred to in Item A.. Mr. Kloepper..wasagreeable to this. Page 2 of 12 Item #8-A-Ihe asked that the words "with the first phase to be recorded" be stricken with the following to be added after Akers Road "adjacent to the first phase. 'Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this condition. Regarding Item F he asked that the words "Jewetta Avenue" be replaced with "Panama Lane". Commissioner Rosenlieb asked, regarding Condition #VIII-A. 1 if it were the applicant's and Public Works intent that the Condition read: "The subdivider shall construct all.of Panama Lane and Akers Road, adjacent to the first phase including required paving transitions." Mr. Kloepper said this is correct. pUblic portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, 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 5528, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A" with changes to conditions outlined in the September 19, 1991, memo from the Planning Director, with the following changes: Public Works Condition #I: Strike item "B" Public Works Condition VIII-A: Delete "With the first phase to be recorded," conditiOn to read: "The subdivider shall construct all of Panama Lane and Akers Road, adjacent to first phase including the required paving transitions." Public'Works Condition F: "Panama Lane". "Jewetta Avenue" shallbe replaced with Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91. Page 12 8.2) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5536 Chairman Marino abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his employer owns property within 300 feet of' the site. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Brian Batey was present to speak in favor. He was aware of the conditions and revised conditions..He said regarding Page 8 of 12, Item 4 that they have met this condition. Mr. Grady, Assistant Planning Director recommended this item be deleted. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5536, subject to the condition outlined in the attached Exhibit "A", with changes to conditions outlined in the September 19, 1991, memo from the Planning Director and September 19,- 1991 memo from Public Works, with the following changes: Page 8 of 12, Fire Safe _ty Control: Item #4 delete everything after the first sentence. Motion carried. *A 20:minute break was taken at this time. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 13 9.1) PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE AND 385.84 FEET SOUTH OF HAGEMAN ROAD. (ZONE CHANGE #5219) (Negative Declaration previously approved for-Tentative Tract 5068~Revised) Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his firm is providing services to an adjacent property owner. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was-opened; no one spoke in opposition. Chairman Marino said the applicant's representative had approached him before the break stating there are no conditions he has a problem with and therefore would not be present. The policy is not to approve an item without the applicant being present, however he did not feel there would be a problem with this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the zone change as proposed and advertised and recommend adoption of same-to the City Council, and direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan for the December general plan cycle to depict an LR designation on the project site. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, pOWers, Rosenlieb, Marino NoEs: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner ABSTAINED: Commissioner Anderson Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 14 9.2 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN A-20-A (-AGRICULTURE - 20 ACRE.MINIMUM) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PANAMA LANE AND AKERS ROAD. (ZONE CHANGE #5222) (Negative Declaration on file) Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Norman Walters spoke saying he was opposed to any agricultural land being changed to residential or commercial. Maurice Etchechury was present representing the applicantl He stated they -concurred with the staff report and traffic mitigation condition. He said he had read the memo dated September 19, 1991. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the zone change .as prOposed and advertised and recommend adoption of same to the City Council, subject to' the conditions included in the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated September 12, 1991. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 15 10.1 a~d PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT I, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5213 & WIBLE NO. 11 ANNEXATION (Negative Declaration on file) Staff report Was given.- Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Herb Hull was present to speak in favor. He said they have a problem with condition numbers 5 and 6 regarding signalization and widening of State Route 119 overcrossing respectively. He felt both conditions would kill the project. He felt the area of benefit would be much larger than just his development. Mr. Kloepper said the conditions are based on the proportionate share of traffic to this project. Mr. Hull asked if the area, of benefit for these conditions had been defined.. Mr. Kloepper outlined the definition of these calculations being based on the amount of traffic generated and based in proportion to the capacity of the structures. In response to comments by Mr. Hull, Chairman Marino said what is being applied to this project is less than 70 percent of the cost of one signal. Mr. Kloepper said he would accept the fees based on a per lot basis. Mr. Hull said he could be agreeable to a per lot payment on the signalization. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hull said he was aware of all conditions required. Mr. Kloepper outlined the changes to cOnditions of memo from Public Works ~ Department. Public portion of the heating was closed. Commissioner Bjorn questioned about the issues raised in the letter from the Kern High School District. Ms. Marino said the High School District is saying the project wOUld have a slight effect on public schools, however they are not specific about the impact. Nothing they have raised would overcome the initial evaluation. Regarding Condition #5 Chairman Marino felt the condition may be excessive. Condition #6 he felt this was rather excessive on a project this size. Commissioner pOWers said he was not in agreement with deleting Condition # 1 of Planning ConditiOns. Mr. Grady said this condition was inadvertently placed on this project, there is no information showing it is necessary, however the Commission may include it. Minutes,. PC,' 9/19/91 Page 16 10.1 a-d PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT I, ZONE' CHANGE AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5213 & WIBLE NO.. 11 ANNEXATION (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued) Motion was'made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report, approving the -Negative Declaration with mitigation measure listed in Exhibit "B", and approving the requested LR (Low Density Residential, 7.26 DU/net acre) subject to the -conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit "A", with the following changes to Exhibit "A": conditions #1 and 4 deleted, Condition #9 to be changed per the memo from the Public Works Department dated September 19, 1991 and condition #7 'to add additional language as provided in the memo .dated September 19, 1991 from:the Public Works Department and reCommend same to the City CoUncil. in response to a question' by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Kloepper said rather than require Condition #6 possibly the applicant may come back with another General Plan Amendment' if it shows the fee is excessive then it could be modified to read as follows: As-presented in the traffic study performed by Ronald F. Ruettgers the volume of project traffic using this overcrossing results in an estimated proportionate share cost of $100,000. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb,. Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 17 10.1 a,d PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT I, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5213 & WIBLE NO. 11 ANNEXATION (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued) Motion was made_ by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution 'making findings as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration with mitigation measure listed in Exhibit "B", and approving City R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and R~I and C-2 (Commercial) annexation prezoningssubject to the conditions shown on Exhibit "A" and as amended in' the previous motion and as shown on the zone change map and zoning upon annexation map. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Commissioner Cohn directed the City Attorney to contact Kern High School District to advise them with respect to their letter if they have concerns of mitigation not being adequately met, it is their responsibility to provide the Commission-with some guidance as to their oppositions. Attorney Marino said this is a standard procedu,re. Commissioner Anderson requested a copy of the standard response to the School District. Commissioner Bjorn 'said there ' should _be another effort by the City to show good faith in attempting to address these issues raised by the school district since the. Commission is working with a task force regarding school issues. Mr. Grady stated two motions were inadvertently omitted on this item and muSt be prepared for approval: Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by COmmissioner Cohn to reopen the public portion of the hearing and continue .this item until after the hearing on Item #10.4). Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 18 10.2) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT II Staff report was waive& Public portion of the hearing was opened. 'Martha Walters, 3301 Dwight Street, spoke. In response to a request, Chairman Marino clarified this item for her. She was concerned that there would not be a public hearing on the items listed. Chairman Marino said there was some opposition to this item previOusly and it was sent to committee. The Commission met with groups from the community to discuss the wording on this item, therefore there has been a lot of input on it. Commissioner Rosenlieb told Ms. Walters that her concerns were previously expressed by other community groups. She said this change is to eliminate double reviews by removing the Planning Commission from the Redevelopment Agency's purview. This was discussed with the interest groups who were satisfied with the change. 'Ms. Walters Was of the opinion that the public should be involved in the process of hearing the items listed in this amendment. She asked that the decision either be delayed or that the process continue as it is. Chairman Marino clarified General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes will be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with a subdivision map. However review of development plans will not require a public hearing. Commissioner Bjorn asked if a public hearing will be removed with this change. Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified a double review process is being removed, in that these items will no longer require CDDA and Planning Commission review within the redevelopment agency. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt, resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report and approving General Plan Amendment 3-91, Segment II consisting of text revision to Land Use Element Implementation Measure 6(a), and recommend same to the City Council. Motion-carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 19 10.3 a,b) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT III & ZONE CHANGE #5173 .Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. No one spoke in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. 'Commissioner Rosenlieb was concerned that the staff report was incomplete. She felt questions were unanswered. She said there was an agreement when the 2010 Plan was adopted that the City and County would not tread on each other's jurisdictions, however when the county makes changes it must come to the Commission. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Chairman Marino said the Commission has no jurisdiction over the plans that are brought before them for conformance with the 2010. He asked why the Commission is reviewing this if there is no annexation on this item. He felt this property has been conditioned so much so'that he did not feel it is developeable. He asked if the supervisors would be hearing city general plan amendments. Mr. Gauthier said they have not as of yet and he did not feel they would be doing so because they do not annex city property. Chairman Marino felt the zoning could be adjusted at the time of annexation. Mr. Gauthier said there are two ways of keeping the city and county general plans consistent either by being brought before the Commission showing annual changes or changing text to recognize the current method being used. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her.concern being the county does not have a planning commission and if a developer gets a greater entitlement than what he has under the 2010 Plan and the county does not condition it the way the city does the applicant may offer to annex if they are given the same deal. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Gauthier said he did not know how the purchaser of land would meet the transportation needs under a congestion management plan. Commissioner Anderson asked if he were to purchase property would he be required as part of the restrictions on the property to provide a transportation management program that would involve his participation in paying-for ridesharing or alternate transportation for his employees, Mr. 'Gauthier responded this would be a requirement. It is a mitigation measure that the transportation control plan be developed and Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 20 't0.3 a,b) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT III & ZONE CHANGE #5173 (continued) approved by CalTrans and, Kern County Public Works. The exact measures and implementation have not been decided, however once it is any purchaser of property within the Plan area would have to comply with it. DiscusSion continued regarding transportation. Commissioner Cohn asked why the Commission can't take a line of dealing with this issue Only when dealing with an annexation. He stated he Shared Commissioner Rosenlieb's concerns that the commission not simply rubber stamp what the county has done and have a developer come in to try tO get the same with the c!ty as he has received from the County. He felt it takes the commission's options away and he does not feel comfortable with it especially in light of the fact that the county does not have a Planning Commission. Mr. Grady said at' some point.during-the development of the 2010 Plan there was a decision made that changes could be handled routinely by staff this was changed by the Planning Director because he felt since it is an official map it should be brought before the COmmission and Council for approval. He recognizes the dilemma of the commission tonight. It was felt by the Planning Director that this was significant enough to be brought b~fore the Commission. He suggested that the Commission ask Staff to research the issue or hold a workshop or discuss it within a committee. ~ Commissioner Cohn said he would only be comfortable continuing to do this on a regular basis if the Commission could change the language of the 2010 Plan to say if this is done it is in no way to be viewed by a property owner within the area as setting anY type of precedent. Chairman Marino observed that this property was designated P. Under the County land use matrix any zone is consistent with this zoning. They came back to change the general plan to make it more consistent with zoning because the .- intent is that it will never be developed. A difference between the city and county is that the county cannot condition zoning. The county gets their control through the Precise Development zoning designation, however the city does not have this designation and cannot implement mitigation measures. If the city zones this area upon annexation without conditioning it and cannot implement the PD Zone the refinement of control will be lost. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 21 10,3 a,b) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT III & ZONE CHANGE #5173 (continued) Commissioner Powers said the land use designations have been developed through meetings with property owners and he is confident that the property owners in the area have nothing to fear because of the conditioning of the property. Marc Gauthier responded to questions by Commissioner Powers saying this particular R-1 zoning is restricted to 10,000 square foot minimum lot size making it consistent with the area to the north and west. Commissioner Bj0rn said since there is not an eminent annexation being looked at for this property and for this reason she did not feel a decision was necessary at this hearing. She felt it would be appropriate to refer this item to the General Plan Committee:with staff to prepare a report to the Committee giving the options. Commissioner Frapwell agreed with Commissioner Bjorn's comments feeling the entire :commission should conduct a workshop to inform them on how best to handle this situation, which could be done before the next general plan cycle.' Chairman Marino agreed there was no rush on this item and woUld not have a · problem with sending it t° the General Plan Committee. He said he did not see a problem with the general plan amendment since nothing is being lost, where there is a loss is in. the difference in zoning. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to send this item to the general plan committee in order that a policy may be fOrmed and continue it to 'the next General Plan Amendment Cycle. Commissioner Bj0rn said She did not have a problem with this item being heard by either the committee ·or as a workshop, however she would like staff to give the commission.a range of options. Motion was amended that staff look at the options to send it back to ~the Commission at a workshop in order to form a policy of how to handle this in the future. Motion carried. Commissioner Messner was absent. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 22 10.1 a~d PUBLIC HEARING' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT I, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5213 & WIBLE NO'. 11 ANNEXATION (Negative Declaration on file) This item was continued previously on the agenda. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by .Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings set forth in the staff report approving the negative declaration with mitigation listed in Exhibit "B" and approving. 'Zoning.Upon Annexation request #5213 consisting of a change from County A (Exclusive Agriculture - 20 gross acres minimum lot size) to City R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone on 106 +/- acres and from County C-2-PD (General Commercial Precise Development combining district) to City C:2 on 9 +/- acres subject to the conditions in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and conditionS amended as per previous motion and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Motion' was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings and approving the negative declaration with mitigation listed in Exhibit "B" and approving Wible No. 11 Annexation and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 - Page 23 10.4) :.PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, 'SEGMENT V Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest due to the fact his firm is providing services to adjoining land owners. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Lee Siglar spoke in opposition stating his concerns being the possibility of drug use at this large park. If ~a school were going to be constructed he felt the larger park would compliment it, however he felt it would be a great distance for most people' in' the area to travel to the park. Kim Haerter stated she is a resident of the Silver Creek area and is concerned about lumping these parks together which would require children to travel a greater distance to use it. She felt it would be more beneficial to the residents to have smaller parks located closer to the high density areas. She was' also concerned about-the use and type of developments planned for this larger park as opposed to those that would be contained in smaller parks. She stated.her opposition-to this request: Raberta Rous, Superintendent of Lakeside School District, spoke saying she needed a clarification on the condition of approval regarding the 2.05 acres being secured for public recreation from the school site. The school needs 10 acres for a 500-600 student school and she wanted to assure this would be left available. She said she is also Concerned because when her district met with the city the' school site drawn as part of the plan was not set in concrete to be decided on at a later date. She expressed thoughts that the school w°Uld.prefer a different format on the site. She showed to the commission a chart of a plan by their architect. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Grady.said the 2.05 acres proposed to be obtained from the school site refers to a joint use agreement. If they could Secure it with the school it could satisfy the shortage, however it was not referring to a straight'acquisition. r '-Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 10.'4) Page 24 PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT V (continued) Ms. Rous said from the classrooms it is quite a way.out to the playground and another difficulty is that 'increasing the size of the school it was unclear where more buildings would be placed. It was recommended by the architect that the Site be changed to provide a more rectangular shape. Chairman Marino said what is before the Commission at this hearing does not affect this consideration. Ms. Rous said_she was confident that they could work with the developer on this' problem. Attorney Marino responded to a question by Ms. Rous saying the only impact that can be addressed at this time is the impact of the general plan amendment and not the entire area shown. Patricia si'gler, resident-of Silver Creek, felt the larger park will bring about more crime to the area along with gangs. She felt the bigger the .area the more crime there would be~ She submitted signatures in opposition to this request. David Milazzo was present representing Castle & Cooke who are a major land owner in the area. He-said this was brought about during a discussion about putting together land for-an enhanced neighborhood park. Small parks are limited in providing park activities. There are some secondary monetary benefits of maintaining 1' large park rather than 3 smaller parks. He felt the 2 acre deficiency could be addressed by fencing off a couple of ball fields with low fencing. During the daytime the gates would be closed for exclusive use by the -school which would reverse after school and on weekends. In response .to a question ~by Chairman Marino, Mr. Milazzo said there has not been a line drawn as to the configuration of the school site and they do not have a problem with looking at a variety of alternatives. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Cohn said it has been a while since a community park has been built in the'city, let alone a park of this size. The city has been focusing on small neighborhood parks and-he is intrigued by this proposal, however the commission has heard from the neighbors who would favor 3 neighborhood parks. There may be some benefit to haVing a larger park. He was concerned about the access ~between the park and school. He felt because of these issues raised he would like to propose that this matter be referred to the Parks subcommittee in order that the commission may study some of these issues to try to come up with a workable plan. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 25 10~4) PUBLIC HEARING , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT V (continued) Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would support this being referred to the Parks committee and being continued to the next meeting. She asked what is the potential for a joint .use agreement. Ms. Rous said they have not addressed this with the Board; however she has checked it out with the insurance and taking into consideration the heights of fences, etc. they could enter into an agreement. In response to a queStion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Milazzo said the City is the applicant On this project because it is part of their Parks and Recreation Plan and is in their interest and a way to contribute without providing direct payment. Commissioner Rosenlieb said the two issues being looked at is the diminishing of a school site and changing parks from the multiple park site situation to one park site. She gave a history of parks for this area. She said she is concerned about the maintenance costs and asked for an estimate of these for the parks committee meeting on the existing parks to be developed versus the new proposal. She als° wanted to know where the park and school would be. ' Chairman Marino said the representatives for the school and park should come back before the Commission with a concrete proposal. Mr. Milazzo said-he spoke to Mr. Hull, applicant on Segment I who was of the opinion he could delay his item for a 4 week period. Commissioner Rosenlieb .was concerned about the remaining 2.05 acre parcel that has not been provided. Commissioner Powers fell in light of the opposition it is a good idea that this item be referred to committee. $ Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 26 10.4) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-91, SEGMENT-V (continued) Chairman Marino said he agreed that a one month delay would be best in order -to give more time to adequately address the issues. He asked that Castle & Cooke and the school district get together to figure out the configuration of the school site. Regarding the issue of consolidation of the parks he said he agrees with the neighbors that in respect to distance a smaller park would be more convenient and.that larger ~parks tend to draw people from outside the area. He also felt the city has had a difficult time putting together a park of a large enough size that would allow for baseball diamonds. He felt this was a good opportunity to provide a park with unique amenities and have a good expanse of land for the community. He agreed that this should be referred to committee. He asked that the applicant and school district representatives meet before the committee meeting. Regarding a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Trone, Parks Division, said the applicant was to supply the city with a fully developed park developed to neighborhood type Standards with tot lots and no restrooms under the original agreement:..Mr. Mflazzo said with the large park the applicant would provide restroom facilities, with the potential for covered basketball, tennis courts, indoor facilities, baseball diamonds. Mr.- Cohn directed staff to notify Ms. Sigler, who brought in the petition and Ms. Harter so that the neighborhood may be represented. Commissioner Frapwell said he was in favor of sending this item to committee' and was interested to-know what percentage of people are representative of the area who signed the petition. He also wanted information regarding the future parks for the area. Commissioner Rosenlieb commented on Commissioner Frapwell's question saying from 1987 to the end of 1990 there were 470 single family building permits issued, therefore there are probably, approximately 600 homes in the area. Motion was made by COmmissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to refer this item to the parks Committee to be brought back before the Commission at the regular meeting of October 17, 1991. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 27 11. PUBLIC HEARING - PARK ELEMENT 1-91 - SEGMENT I Staff report was waived. - · Chairman Marino felt in the first line of the requested change it seems to lock the commission into locating community parks near arterials. He encouraged a revision to read as follows: "Encourage community parks near arterials or Community Parks may be located near arterials." Commissioner Bjorn recommended the wording "should be" and "adjacent to or near arterials." Chairman Marino was agreeable to this wording. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings set forth in staff report, and approve Park Element Amendment 1-9L Segment I consisting of a text revision to Policy Number 47, with the first sentence revised to read: "Community parks should be located adjacent to or near arterials.", with the second sentence to remain as it is in the staff report, and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by' the following roll call vote: AYESi Commissioners Anderson,. Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, MatinG NOESi None ABSENT: Commissioner Messner 12. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING Government Code) (Section 65402 of the Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that her employer may have an ownership interest in property within 300 feet. Staff report was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to find acquisition of the school site consistent with the general plan. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained. Commissioner Messner was absent. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 28 PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Wil Garner made a presentation on this item, saying with the passing of Propositions 108 and 111-in June of 1990, State law began requiring a congestion management plan for all urbanized counties in the State of California. He outlined the mandatory elements of this program. He stated they have proposed that' the Cities and Counties, on a quarterly basis, submit general plan amendments and zone. changes to the congestion management agency. A model run will be ~prepar~d annually using a computerized traffic model to determine impacts and whether or not cities and counties are in compliance with the level of service standards. This program satisfies the minimum of State law. It will be monitored and prepared by the congestion management agency, however' the- implementation responsibility lies with the cities and county within the agency's jurisdiction. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Chairman Marino requested that Mr. Garner answer questions of the commission and Public on this item. Roy Weygand, Director of Kern County Tax Payers Association, was present asking the Commission not to adopt this plan at this time. He asked the Commission to take an action similar to the County's action which was to refer the Plan to a citizen's advisory group for evaluation to bring back a ' recommendation to the Board as to what should be added or removed. He said their concerns are that rideshare and transit implementation are being required, however there is no provision in the plan for the revenue. There is no provision to address the clean fuel program offset against rideshare for industry. He felt these items should be addressed. It appears to his organization that this plan is a mandating.~equ!rement identical to the State's requirement without providing revenue. He'felt it would .be in the best interest of the citizens that this item be referred to the TAC committee. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Weygand said the TAC committee consists of County staff, City staff, private industry and architects. A grouping of all elements representing the industry. In response to a question by Mr. Cohn, Mr. Weygand said there are no environmental groups represented on the committee, however they could be added. MinUtes, PC, 9/19/91 Pagd 29 13. PUBLIC-HEARING- CONGESTION MANAGEMENT. PLAN (Continued) Barbara Don Carlos was present representing the Building Industry Association ' of Kern County. She stated a letter had been delivered to the Commission which contained questions they wished to be answered. She read this letter into the record which is on file.- Sh~ was concerned about the short review period and the lack of public input. In response to a question by Ms. Don Carlos regarding level of serVice for the road network provided for in the plan, Mr. Garner said they have preliminary t~affic model service runs that show level of service for the entire network, however it has not been approved by any agency~ It has been discussed among their staff and staff of the city and county. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, .Mr. Garner said he could attach a preliminary copy.of this for TAC meeting to be held the following Thursday. Mr. Garner said all standards mentioned for GET are currently being met and are within the 25 percent transfer-ratio. Ms. Don Carlos said they were concerned about starting out with mandates that were unachievable. She said regarding the mandate for cities and counties to endorse and adopt an air quality rule, there are no specifics of what is meant by air quality rule. Mr. Garner said it refers to the eventual rule that will be approved by the air resources board for both basins within the county, and agreed it Should be clarified in the document. Chairman Marino said in approximately a year. a plan will' come before the commission on which a resolUtion will need to be adopted. Tonight the commission is looking, at a .requirement that a year from now they will be voting affirmatively on an action that will be presented to them in a public hearing, saying he has a problem with this. Attorney Marino agreed it would be difficult for the Commission to commit to voting affirmatively on something they have not seen. Chairman Marino said the document says if the resolution is not endorsed the congestion management plan is not in compliance. He felt it would be inappropriate for-the commission to commit to voting a certain way when they have not reviewed the document. Commissioner Powers felt the Commission would be remiss in their duties by approving a document with this type of language in it. Mr. Garner said he failed to mention that the city or county may adopt a trip reduction travel demand Ordinance if it is equal to or more stringent than the .transportation control measures. The air districts have proposed air quality transportation control measures that will soon be adopted.- He asked that instead of adopting a whole new ordinance endorse what is required of the Commission. Chairman Marino said it appears there is a law that will be adopted and endorsed by the Government and that he is concerned about the concept that a government ~agency will put something in front of the legislative body, such as the Board of Minutes, PC, 9/19/9i Page 30 13. PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) Supervisors, which does not have the authority or the option to turn it down. He objected to the commission being made to commit to a document a year in advance. Mr. Garner said it is his understanding that the air quality rule_ will be mandatory of all cities and counties. Mr. Grady said the Air Pollution Control District may adopt a rule to regulate transportation, trips and vehicle usage and the plan is saying that the commission does not have the authority to change .the rule, but as part of the plan there is going to be an implementation measure allowing the city and county to endorse the rule. They are saying as a body the commission has an option. If the plan is approved, it says a resolution shall be adopted to show endorsement of the rule. The district has some broader authority with respect to transportation measures. Chairman Marino said if the district is going to adopt and enforce their rule without respect to the commission opinion, why does it need to be brought before a public hearing and a voting body, telling the body how to vote. Mr. Grady stated this would not be a public hearing. Mr. Grady said the commission has an option and suggested that if the commission does not want to commit to approving this a year from now he recommends taking the word "shall" out of the plan. Chairman Marino suggested that Item A be taken out of the plan. He said_ he cannot endorse this plan with the concept of committing to voting a certain way a year from nowl Commissioner Powers said the Board of Supervisors referred this issue to the committee because Kern COG was not an open enough forum to gain public input into the plan through public testimony. He stated he understood there were some very strong comments toward Kern COG in regard to their approach to preparing this plan and leaving public input out of it. He said he took great issue with being asked to rush this through the use of a complimentary public hearing. He stated there would have to be substantial deletions to the document before he -would feel comfortable approving it. Commissioner Cohn asked if this is not adopted does this give the State the option of taking 'away the gas tax monies. Mr. Garner said it does. Attorney Marino said if this is not approved by the Planning Commission at this hearing it will still be taken to the City Council on October 2, 1991. Chairman Marino said it is his understanding that this is a courtesy and that the Commission does not have the authorization to change it. He asked how long Kern COG has been working on this issue, Mr. Garner responded saying they have been working on it since they were designated in March, 1991. There were no non-government personnel working on this issue, because State law requires that it be developed Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 31 13. .PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) in close, coordination with governments, transit provider, air pollution control district and Caltrans. State law requires that the Congestion Management Program be adopted by the Congestion Management agency. This particular agency has added an additional requirement not being done anywhere else in the State.. A majority of the incorporated cities must approve it along, with the County Board of Supervisors. They are going an extra step beyond other counties in the State. Barbara Don Carlos said they have concern regarding the transportation control measures attached to this plan in that it references on Page 8 of the document the proposed language of the two adopted transportation control measures, the employer-based trip reduction and parking management, however the documents attached are taken from a consultant's report and not an adopted air quality attainment plan. If they are taken from a consultant's report they request that rather than taking that type of verbiage which is more restrictive than what has been included in the Southeast Desert. Air Quality Attainment Plan, that the attainment plan be the guide for transportation control measures. Commissioner Anderson asked if the State law specifically mandates employer participation With regard to transportation control. Mr. Garner said State law - does not mandate any specific transportation control measures. Mr. Anderson asked why would something that is not being mandated by the State, however places such a burden on employers be adopted. Mr. Garner deferred to the Air Pollution Control District on this issue since the approach has been to use the transportation control measures developed by this entity. Mr. Mooneyham was Present to answer questions regarding Congestion Management Program and Trip Generation ordinances as they relate to the Clear Air Act. He said the trip reduction and travel demand element of the Congestion Management agency requirement is a specific requirement. The CMP does have to address this issue. It also requires that the CMP be very closely tied to the Air Quality Attainment Plan as well. It is the goal to balance these so that they are incorporated. Chairman Marino pointed out that the Commission does not have an adopted Air Quality Attainment Plan. Mr. Mooneyham said the Appendix A - 'Transportation Control Measures referred to were developed 'early on as an input into the Air Quality Attainment Plan and were included in the CMP as a draft. He recommended that the transportation section of the Air Quality Attainment Plan be included as the Appendix A as they are adopted. The intent is to insure that the transportation control measures called for in the Air Quality Attainment Plan are the same measures called for in the CMP. Regarding the Trip Reduction Travel Demand Ordinance item 4-3 of the CMP and the discussion 13. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 32 PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) -. over the Air Quali~ rule what is required by the CMP legislation is that the cities and counties adopt and implement a trip reduction and travel demand ordinance. Their goal was to find a way that would allow the cities to endorse what is being done by the Air Pollution Control District rather than reinventing what is being done by them. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Air Quality Attainment Plan is pr°Posing adoption of Appendix A as it refers to transportation control measures specifically with regard to the employer based trip reduction programs. Mr. Mooneyham responded saying both of the air quality attainment plans will have some aspect of employer based trip reduction. The exact nature is not specific. The southeast' desert plan breaks it down to small, medium and large employers and gives a tentative implementation schedule. The Valley Attainment Plan has a trip reduction section which is. a little more nebulous with the idea being to give employers a lot of options. Commissioner Anderson was concerned with the fact that anyone employing 100 or more per 1992 standards and 25 employees or more for 1994 standards is subjected to the employee-based trip reduction program. A company such as the one that he owns would immediately be affected by this. He was also concerned that shopping center owners would be subjected to this program. He felt it was ludicrous that an attempt is being made to place the burden on the employer and did not feel this is the appropriate place. If the State is not mandating this extreme position to be taken why is it being proposed? Mr. Mooneyham said the attempt is not to dictate this within the CMP, the CMP is simply to reiterate what is determined by the Air Pollution Control District. The process of establishing the employer-based rule will be followed by the Air Pollution Control District. Commissioner Anderson was concerned that whatever is adopted will in time become more stringent and 'felt the least offensive program should be adopted initiallY still meeting the mandate of the State. Mr. Mooneyham said this is what is being attempted and he felt the Appendix A should be removed and replaced with whatever is' produced by the Air Quality Attainment District. Commissioner Anderson felt this would have been addressed if public input had been received all along and felt the private groups should have been included. Mr. Mooneyham said the report put into this was 3 years in the making and did have extensive participation by the public through review and comment. The air quality portion has been worked extensively in this area. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 33 13. PUBLIC HEARING -'CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) Chairman. Marino said one of the problems he sees with the CMP is that it moves from congestion management into air quality dealing with issues that are unadopted and have not been addressed in public hearings. Ms. Don Carlos said there are, unfortunately, employer-based requirements within this air quality attainment plan, however they do not get as specific as those outlined in the CMP. When this plan is adopted along with the Valley-wide plan there will be a time table for an actual rule to be developed. When the rule is developed the BIA will be there looking for the instances in which it may be impossible for an employer with more than 100 employees to create a rideshare program because employees are too dispersed to implement this. She recommended that the parking management plan within the CMP be reviewed and put more in line with the Southeast Desert Kern County Air Quality Attainment Plan. They are concerned about the city's and county's ability to report to the CMP their general plan amendments and those types of mandates, however it is better left to the cities and counties to determine their compliance. She asked about the list of projects in Table 6-1 having to do with transit projects asking if those projects were based on quantitative air quality improvements. Mr. Garner said the reason for the inclusion of these is that they are required to be on the regional transportation improvement program. They must be in the CMP in order to be in the RTIP. Ms. Don Carlos questioned Page 16, Paragraph 7-1 which requires cities' and counties to conform to levels of service standards asking if this means they are to comply with level E. Mr. Garner said E is the minimum required by law. Regarding Paragraph 7-1 regarding mandating endorsement of the Air Pollution Control District air quality rule by cities and counties she felt the wording of "rule" is vague, and some clarification would be necessary. They are concerned that this document should make reference that the county is subject to review by two air pollution control districts and 2 attainment plans. She urged the commission not to give blanket approval to this plan until they have had time to work through some of the problems. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Mooneyham said their recommendation is that Appendix A be replaced with the Chapter OUt of the Southeast Desert Attainment Plan. Kern County is under the jurisdiction of two air qufility boards. One of the plans have been 'adopted and submitted to the State for approval. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Mooneyham said he is adding the draft plans for the purpose of indicating intent of adoption. Chairman Marino asked that a statement be added to indicate that upon adoption these policies will be put into effect. Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 34 13. PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) Commissioner Powers said there is nothing in the plan which would indicate the replacement. He felt the first 16 pages should be approved, removing everything thereafter as the plan and the agency coming back later to make amendments. He said-he takes great issue with Page 18 drawing a correlation between an employer and landlord. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Mooneyham said this is a project covered under CEQA, in which a negative declaration will be processed. A fiscal impact-analysis was not required. Martha Walters was concerned that no public transportation was available to' 'large public buildings asking if anything has been added to these plans to encourage this type of transportation. Mr. Garner said these sort of issues are covered under transportation development act laws and are not covered specifically in this program. Public portion of the-hearing was closed. Commissioner Cohn questioned the adoption of these types of plans by other cities. Mr. Garner said it was brought upon so quickly that the only agency he knows of that has adopted a CMP is Sacramento County Transit Authority, and possibly Contra Costa COUnty. The 'plans are all the same. Commissioner Cohn asked if the city is being asked to do something that. is above and beyond what other governmental entities are going to adopt. Mr. Garner said it is not. Chairman Marino was concerned about the requirement for residential parking stickers. Mr. Mooneyham said the deletion of the appendix has already been agreed to. Chairman Marino said this plan is very confusing because it is incomplete and not easy to follow because there are typos. It has had to be explained that what is being looked at is a piece here and there and there are contradicting statements. Chairman Marino felt what is being presented is not the minimum standards asking if it could be approved with the minimum adding additional measures if necessary. Mr. Garner said this could be done as long as it complies to State law. In response to question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Garner said he did not feel Appendix A, which would be removed, is part of the congestion management program as required. This portion of the program would be developed, by a completely separate entity. _ Minutes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 35- 13. PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) :.Mr. Mo0neyham clarified what is being dealt with is not a plan but a program to be implemented tiy the local jurisdictions. The Congestion Management Agency and local jurisdictions did not write the legislation mandating this and there is not a lot of latitude in how it can be organized and made clear..It is unclear because of'how the legislation requiring it is written. Essentially it is just a reiteration of that legislation with little or no embellishment. Commissioner Frapwe!l said the public hearing does not tell the commission about what the action or motion should be and stated he was not sure it should be acted upon. He said he saw no reason why it could not be forwarded to the Council without the Commission making a decision. He recommended that no action be taken and that a presentation be made at the City Council at a later date. Commissioner Powers said he took the opportunity to go through the plan and was prepared to go through the plan tonight line by line making insertions and deletions and makinga recommendation to the Council. Since the Commission was given such short notice there was no time to conduct a workshop, committee meeting etc. :Commissioner Anderson asked if .the Commission is being asked to do anything on this item in-terms of taking an action. Mr. Grady said input should be taken and transferred to the City Council who will make their decision. From there it will move onto the congestion management agency, and Caltrans. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Grady said it.would not be inappropriate for a vote to be taken to pass along to the Council the concerns of the program as presently presented. Commissioner Bjorn said she has not had time to study this program as she would like and absorb the comments of the public. She stated she would like to see .some committees meet on this item. She said if she is being asked to act on this item tonight she would vote no or abstain passing it'on with the recommendation to the Council that they strongly consider this testimony. She did not feel comfortable doing anything but passing it along. She felt it is unfortunate that the Commission must operate under this type of time 'deadline. Chairman .Marino felt this is very confusing and is not like a congestion management plan because of the linkage of the air quality plan and the confusion over the fact-that there is not an air quality plan for this area.. He said he would like to-see the. minutes of this meeting and the minutes of next thursday's TAC meeting forwarded to the City Council as soon as possible. He felt the Council -MinUtes, PC, 9/19/91 Page 36 13.~' - PUBLIC HEARING - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) 14. 15. -wanted the Commission to h°ld this hearing in order to look at the plan and pags on to them public input and not necessarily a recommendation, but to give them some insight as to what shape the plan is in. He asked that it be clearly stated in the.record that the plan that the Commission is sending to them has had one- third removed, which he felt would send them a message as to what type of plan went before the Board of Supervisors. He said he is disappointed that this document was done without any public input, then hitting the streets like a freight train. Commissioner Powers suggested that the Commission take no action on this item, passing along the minutes and the minutes of next thursday's meeting be sent to the Council as well. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn that the CommisSion take no action on this item, recommending the minutes of this hearing and the minutes from the TAC meeting to be held next thursday be forwarded to the ~City COuncil for their review. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written There were no written communications to be presented to the commission. B) Verbal There Was no verba~l communication to be presented. COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no commission comments. MinUtes, PC, 9/19/91' Page 37 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary ~~retary Assistant Planning Director