Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/91MINUTES :OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held .Thursday, August 15, 1991,~5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL e COMMISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson TERI BJORN DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate Absent: STEVE ANDERSON ADVISORY MEMBERS~ Present: STAFF:. Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED 'KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 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 Minutes of the regular meetings held June 20, and July 18, 1991 were approved with noted corrections to the minutes of June 20, 1991. Motion .by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers. Minutes, pC, 8/1'5/91 Page 2 WORKSHOP - DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS' Mr2 Hardisty, Planning DireCtor gave an introduction of this item. Steve Hartsell, an attorney'with school's legal services, represented Dr. Kelly 'Blanton, Kern County SUPerintendent of Schools. He introduced representatives from Kern High School, Bakersfield City School, Lakeside, Panama-Buena Vista and Rosedale School Districts. He related the need for the city's help because of the growth of the city, Legislation was passed allowing school districts to collect school facility fees, with the State to provide the balance needed. The State, however, is not holding uP its end. The State is not funding education as they have in the past. It has been indicated by the State Director of Finance that the 'State may pull out entirely from school facilities construction. The State has estimated they will allow most of the school funding need to be taken care of by the local school districts and development community. The bond resource is being tapped but those issues are not easy to pass through the voters. Because of recent court cases a city or county can refuse to grant a zone change or general plan amendment based on inadequate school facilities. It has become clear through meetings that this is a process that must become community-based, and that the city and county need to take some affirmative action. He felt the County's general plan which contains strong language in this regard could possibly provide a model for the city. Gary Mulhoffer, Rosedale-SchOol District, submitted an informational sheet which is on file. He said they are a kindergarten through 8th grade school district. with '3 schools. He outlined the facts of-the sheet he submitted, saying enrollment is continUing to grow, and outlined their shortfall of funds. -He asked that the city and county help in solving their problem. Tom Valez, Director of Facilities for County Superintendent of Schools, spoke saying-his concern is with the state construction program. He outlined the criteria for this program, saying school construction costs are higher than residential. The program is a very slow process Which is complicated and time-consuming. There is-n° money available thrOugh the program. He estimated Kern County's anticipated yearly growth :of students to be 9.4 percent, which is 15,000. The AB 87 law is based on priority level-funding used as a vehicle to pressure districts to provide' year round education. The State estimates a 20 percent savings by using sites on a year-round basis, however they do not consider repair and maintenance, growing operational cOSts,. staffing, transportation, climates and energy costs, seasonal migrant populations, and the fact that this county has 48 separate school districts. He felt school construction laws were developed with. Los Angeles unified School District in' mind which is one large K-12 district. The school Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 4. Workshop - Development ~Impacts on School Districts (continued) page 3 districts will lose 20 percent of their funding if they do not provide year-round .... education... He outlined the priority levels for funding, saying there is only one district in' Kern County which qualifies for priority level one. He also stated if there were money available' it would only be enough to fund levels one and two out of-the total 8 levels. 'He felt local governments must recognize the _- seriousness of the Situation and assist school districts in developing a funding mechanism. In response to a questiOn by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Valez said there are still coUnties with several School districts. To unify all of Kern County's districts with remote Outlying sites would-be very difficult. There is a possibility of . unifying some districts, however he did not feel there would be any savings. 'Steven Hartsell said the process of unification is sOmething that must be approved by vote of th~ public. Unification is possible in some instances, however that will cause the loss of local Control of each district in the K-8 area. This will cause a forced uniformity in educational philosophy, which the voters would Probably not be in.favor_of: In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hartsell said the State h'as tried to promote year-round education as a way to cut · construction costs, however there are excessive local costs which have not been figured 'into the process. Glen Barnhill, Kern County Planning and Development Services Department, spoke saying they have a policy of the County General Plan to address this issue. The policy says that in evaluating a development application th.ey will consider -both physical· and fiscal impacts on local school districts. If it is found that the district involved will ~require additional facilities or incur costs requiring additional · local revtnues 'the development project will be required as a condition of approval to contribute funds to the district for the cost directly attributable to the project. Mr. Barnhill cited an example of where this policy has been applied. At this point they have onlY been applying it on legislative projects, general plan amendments, zone changes, etc. becauseit is their understanding as a result of court decisions: that these projects are the only ones this can be applied to. Gary Mulhoffer, R0sedale School District, spoke regarding year-round education, saying 15 years previOUsly.they conducted a study on this issue. He stated he is in favor of-year-rOUnd schooling, however the savings on construction will be spent on additional costs and is a trade,off. The school district will benefit more from having community support which is used to the traditional way of dOing things. If the people are not in supPort of year-round schooling it will not pass a vote. 'Minutes, pc, 8)15/9i. Page 4 .W0rksh0p'c DevelOpment Impacts on SChool Districts (continued) Barbara~Don CarlOs was Present representing the Building Industry Association of Kern.County. ShOe read a policy statement which she submitted fOr the file, her concerns being-that the commUnity should join in sharing the burden of school funding. She also'said they would welcome the formation of a working group to work toWard SolUtions. 'In response to a questiOn by Commissioner Cobh, Mr. Hardisty cited approximately 10 other communities saying they are charging development fees which range from abOut $4,000 to $13,000 per home. This problem-has been addressed as far back as the early 70's when a moratorium was placed on. . · conStruction in San Diego. There must be a calculated relationship.between the burden and impact. In response to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty responded saying a possible lawsuit could be filed on a project basis which woUld be directed toward the. impact of a development on the district, the suit-cOuld result from inadequate review and mitigatiOn. Mr. Hartsell said this is not something that is being contemplated at this time but the feeling of the sch ool community is that the matter can be worked out with jurisdictions involved. One of the problems of using CEQA to take care of the .prOblem is that it must be-done on a Case-by-case basis, which is very inefficient. He cited Several mitigation options and asked that whatever decisiOn is made that it be flexible to respond to local needs of school district and something, that is appropriate for the developer. Beverly Davis, Vice President Bakersfield Association of Realtors spoke saying they-understand the-school district's problem, however believe the solution to the shortfall of money should not rest solely on the developer and. potential home buyer. She suggested that the school district's spending practices be looked into in order to see where alterations could be made to make 'the most of current funding~ 'She felt the amount of fees already being collected from developers and new fees prol~osed from other projects such as transportation should be looked at. Additional fees would be a major impact on affordable housing. She felt the institution of Mello-Roos would not allow for accurate representation in that potential home buyers would not have the opportunity to vote. They support a ._ more broad based solution to this project such as local bond measures. She stated they would be willing to work with the districts and city to find an equitable solution. Minutes, PC, 8/1'5/91 4. Page 5 Workshop - Development Impacts on School Districts (continued) In response to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Barnhill felt it would be reasonable for the city and county to meet to work out a solution for the Metropolitan 2010 Plan area. Mr. Hardisty stated he agreed and felt the task force approach to developing a solution to this problem would be better represen_tative of the diverse concerns. In response to request by Chairman Marino,. Mr. Hardisty said he felt the school diStricts should be represented, City Planning staff, County Planning staff, Planning Commissioner, Building Industry Association, Board of Realtors, Councilperson and County Board of Supervisor. Chairman Marino felt this group could solve the problem. Commissioner Messner felt any option will have impacts on housing, however he supports the idea of this being put before a panel for further discussion before action is taken: He cited ,the Kemp Commission's report saying this type of mitigation is contrary to that report which directly targets high mitigation and impact fees being placed on development in California. Housing affordability - needs to be factored into any decision. He felt Kern County has an inordinate amount of school districts'and felt unifying is the direction the County should be proceeding in, with the ultimate goal of saving administration costs. He felt reluctant to go in the direction of year-round education. In response to a question by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Hardisty felt the Commission is under the obligation to consider' the impacts of any proposed projects on the school district and resolve appropriate mitigation to address them. As a general 'principal he suggested that a more comprehensive approach- is worked 'out. Mr. Hardisty said the Planning Commission needs to work out a solution, however the school districts must be relied upon to create the equation which will tell the-City the extent of the problem and the effect of it on them. CommiSsioner Rosenlieb was concerned that a task force would take years to create solutions to the problems, however in the meantime the school district will -create a nexus on one project and not a comprehensive approach. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty felt it would be reasonable to.ask the task force' to give a recommendation within a limited time period. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated in speaking with different people in the school system at various levels she heard over and over that there was a need for a combining of districts. Other areas have been able to do this. In response to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hartsell said he did not feel it would take long fOr him to develop a basic proposal for the commission to begin discussion. Chairman Marino felt the problem is magnified by the variety of needs, different school districts and variety of options and the fact that a comprehensive approach is necessary. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 4. Workshop - Development'Impacts on .School Districts (continued) Page6 Commissioner Powers recommended that the task f°rte look into a generic school facility that can be constructed rather than making a new architectural statement every time a school facility is constructed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue'this item to the next regular meeting of September 5, 1991. COMPREHENSIVE'SIGN PLAN 1-91 (CENTERCAL pROPERTIES) Commissioner Bjorn abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Staff' report was given. Committee report was summarized along with options by Commissioner Messnerl He said it was unanimously agreed by the committee to support staff's limitation of seasonal text for the banners, because it was felt it would be an unmanageable precedent. The second item being an option before the commission on the signage along fronting streets. There was consensus between the .applicant and committee regarding limitation on the sign.age on the side and rear of the buildings. He said the committee agreed inflatable balloons should be prohibited, stating he felt it could be optional because it is allowed under temporary use permits: ." Jim Carstensen was present stating he does not agree with the Conditions of approval. He felt in lOOking at the C-1 zoning as the allowable level the comprehensive sign plan equals only 55 percent of that level.- He outlined his proposal to the commission. In response to discussion, Chairman Marino stated he would like to give the applicant the opportunity to withdraw this application before actiOn is taken. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she understood the committee's concern . regarding a precedent setting effect of the light pole banners, however she was not sure about the prohibition of inflatable balloons. Mr. Bidwell stated a committee of the commission is currently working on revisions to the sign Ordinance. At the preliminary meeting concerns were expressed about the use of balloons being undesirable., This is why the condition was 'applied to the application and was agreed to by the applicant. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated- there is no change to the sign ordinance at this time which would allow for this. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 5. Comprehensive Sign Plan 1-91 (CenterCal Properties) (continued) Page 7 Commissioner Cohn thought staff and committee made a determined effort to try to make a compromise on this project. It is clear with the C-1 zoning that the applicant can have certain signs that the commission may object to, however he felt the balloons would not be conducive to the applicant's stated goal of having a nice looki_ng project. He also felt the banners advertising sales or other events would set a very dangerous precedent. Mr. Hardisty answered a previous question saying a decision of the Commission' regarding signs is not appealable. Mr. Carstensen said they .are not asking for inflatable balloons, but are asking for banners 50 square feet in-lieu of 30 square feet. The only item they are inflexible on is the 67 lineal foot frontage sign allowance. Continuity is lost in size of letters on signs because of this~ If inflatable balloons arc eliminated the capability of identifying a sale is prohibited. He feels the tenants, should at least be allowed 50 percent of what is alloWed under the C-1 Zone.' Commissioner Powers commented on the pictures submitted by Mr. Carstensen saying he is in favor of these banners if they are only seasonal. He objects to the advertisement on the banners. Mr. Carstensen felt the banners help draw attention-to the Center. In response to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Bidwell said the ordinance allows one freestanding identification sign per street frontage, however the applicant is asking that each side of the entrance contain lettering identifying the shopping center which .would make it two signs classified as free-standing -identification signs.. Staff, however is recommending that these be permitted. Chairman Marino'stated he liked the seasonal banners, however felt what can be placed on them would not be adequately controlled, along with the deterioration and maintenance of them. 'He said he is in agreement with staff as to not allowing street frontage signage. Commissioner Messner felt the commission should move forWard on this item and therefo~:e made-the motion; seconded by Commissioner Cohn to make all findings set forth in staff report and to approve proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan 1-91, subject-to the. conditions outlined in the staff report with the following changes: Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 5. Comprehensive Sign Plan 1-91 (CenterCal Properties) Page 8 (continued) Condition #3: The words "shall be a maximum length of 67% of the occupied building frontage with a maximum height of 24 inches" .be stricken and replaced with "a minimum of 32 square feet" which would placed it in conformance with the existing sign ordinance. One of. the applicant's concerns was that he might have to remove signs and felt this wOuld remove that burden. Condition #8: Item-"c) by August 1, 1994,.whichever occurs first, at the owner's and/or tenant's expense." be stricken. This was agreed to in the committee meeting. Commissioner Frapwell stated he is in favor of adding to Condition #3, but said it-was discussed previously that tenant spaces of less than 32 lineal square foot frontage shall be limited to a maximum of 32 square feet in signage. He questioned the use of the word "minimum" of Commissioner Messner's amendment to Condition #3. Commissioner Messner said this is out of the ordinance. Chairman Marino felt it was the intent to be 32 square feet minimum .in order that it may be consistent and able to be read at a distance. Commissioner FrapWell clarified his concern regarding this. Mr. Carstensen withdrew his application. 7. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - (WALMART SITE PHASE II) Staff report was given. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said it was .suggested by the Sanitation Department that a trash compactor as required in Condition #1 may not be necessary for Major "A" and is restrictive. Therefore he recommended that after trash compactor the following wording be added: "or refuse container''. Debbie Hanks was present representing the applicant. She stated she agreed with the conditions stated and the amendment to Condition # 1 as previously stated. Regarding Condition #2 Commissioner Messner noted on the north slope there are dead trees and grass and asked if it would be addressed with the revised landscape plan. Ms. Hanks said she believed' it would be addressed before Phase 2 is developed. ~ Minutes, ~PC, '8/15/91 - . Page 9 Final Development Plans - (Walmart Site Phase II) (continued). Commissioner-Bjorn questioned a sidewalk being constructed on the west side of the site, saying it appears there is a sharp drop off on the northwest comer. She asked if there are plans to add a safety feature to 'it. Mr. Kloepper said it is not under the jurisdiction of the City and .they would not allow it to exist on a public street.- Mr. Hardisty said .the previous condition did not require railings. Ms. Hanks said this is something that needs to be worked out with the mall association. In response.to a question by 'Commissioner Rosenlieb, Commissioner Bjorn recommended to the applicant that the association look at the need for railings. Mr. Kloepper recommended clarification of Condition #3 that "City" be inserted before traffic engineer. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve the Final De~,elopment Plans for PCD 4975 Phase II and find them consistent with Preliminary Plans, subject to the following conditions: '1. A-trash compactor or refuse container shall be required for Major "A" as determined adequate by Sanitation Division. Submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval with construction Plans.' Said landscape plan shall be consistent with previous approvals. The applicant shall pay trip generation fees prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase II. The amount shall be determined by the City traffic engineer. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 Page 10 8. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - TENTATIVE TRACT 5271 (ADAVCO, INC.) Commissioner Bjorn 'abstained 'due to a possible conflict, of interest. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hea. ring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Annette Davis represented the applicant. She outlined their proposal. When originally submitting the plah they asked for two-story townhouses and would like to amend the plan to build some triplexes. All buildings will have a single-story unit facing a wall. She said at the previous' hearing on this item it was suggested that the overlook issue on the south side-be mitigated by landscaping only. Public p~fion of the hearing was closed. In respon'se to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said staff's rationale for the chainlink fence with slats is not a trade off for lower density. Staff feels the chainlink fence with slats will achieve the same effect in terms of Safetyl separation and visual screening. The difference will be that there will not be the 'continuity of a block wall along the length of the canal, which he did not feel is essential. Commissioner Powers felt it is necessary to have the block wall from a noise mitigation standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she concurred with Commissioner Powers comments and is not in favor, of changing the requirement. She said she is concerned with the south property line in that landscaping will not mitigate the separation issue for backyard areas, and said she would suPport a six-foot wooden fence along the south property line as well. Commissioner Messner said in visiting the site the northwesi corner was. quite noisy and several unit~ backed up to this corner, therefore he did not feel a chain link fence would adequately mitigate the noise. Chairman Marino'felt the barrier against the canal should be permanent of meeting the need of a chainlink fence with slats. He said he Would support a · chainlink fence with slats :On the west side and a 6-foot wood fence-on the south, however not .against the carports. : Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 8. Public Hearing - Condition Change TT #5271 (Adavco, Inc.) Page 11 (continued) Motion was made' by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn -to amend Condition #5 on Page 5 of 5 of Exhibit A of Tentative Tract 5271 as approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1990, to read as folloWs: Subdivider shall raise existing concrete block wall along the west property lines, to six feet high. The additional wall materials shall_ match the existing. In addition a six-foot high wooden fence shall be constructed along the south property line. All fence heights shall -be measured at highest grade. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn abstained. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5524 (ALTA/HUGHES) Staff report was given. . Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Tim Collins was present representing the applicant. He asked that item #I-C under drainage be deleted. They are proposing to have a driveway. Within a one mile radius there is only one set of curb returns that exit onto a public street, La Salle Street. The way the drainage is flowing on the south flow line it will flow by their project, the project to the west and onto.La Salle Street to a catch basin in the City jurisdiction. They feel this would encumber this project constructing curb returns. They would like to have a standard residential driveway for the entrance and provide one near the northeast corner of the project for a firelane. Mr. Kloepper said he would agree to the-deletion of this Condition feeling the details could be worked out with Condition # 1-B. Mr. Kloepper also recommended a rewording of Condition #IX-A as follows: -A. Twenty-foot radius curb returns or standard residential drive shall be constructed at the intersection of the private drive with Auburn Street in-accordance with approved drainage plan. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve proposed Tentative -Tract 5524 subject to the ,conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" on file, with the follOwing changes: Minutes, PC,. 8/15/91 Page 12 Public Hearing - Tentative Tract 5524 (Alta/Hughes) (continued) 10.1 a&b) Public Works ConditiOn I-~C - shall be deleted. Traffic Condition #IX-A - reworded as follows: A. Twenty-foot radius curb returns or standard residential drive shall be constructed at the intersection of' the private drive with Auburn Street_in accordance with approved drainage plan. -. Motion carried. *An 8-minute recess was taken at this time. ZUA #5181 - COLUMBUS NO. 1 ANNEXATION Staff report was given. Commissioner Power~ abstained due to possible conflict of interest. Publi~ portion of the .hear.ing was opened. Helen Valencia, 2609 Lomita Verde Drive, stated she would like to remain in the county. She felt the residents should have a vote on this item. Mr. Hardisty outlined the procedure fo? this annexation, Ms. Valencia felt there would not be that manY benefits gained. B.-R. Fitzgerald asked that the Commission withdraw this annexation. He felt because of taxes it will cost him more money to'be in the City. In response to a concern from' Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Kloepper said the. City replaces maintenance equipment every year. Scott Hair .was present rePresenting the owners of the Green Frog Market and surrounding parcels~ He was concerned about the down zoning of property from C-2 to C-1 and the effect ~this will have on the property. He asked'that this hearing be readvertised to zone this C-1 designated property back to C-2. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 Page 13 10.1 a&b) ZUA #5181 - Columbus No. 1 Annexation (continued) In response.to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said there would be some differences,between the C-1 and .County C-2 zone. The Pizza Parlor would have to have a conditional use permit because of the serving of alcohol. The predOminant'zoning is C-1 in the County and would be C-1 in the City. Mrl Hardisty said he':would like the opportunity to look at readvertising this' item to-give the commissioh the opportunity to approve either C-1 or C-2. Brad Barbea~u, 3201 Alta Vista Drive, spoke saying he is concerned about having to go through a conditional use permit process on these properties that do not meet the C-1 zoning r. equirements. He was also opposed to annexation because they would have to-obtain a business license if they are in the City. Mr: Hardisty responded to 'a question by Commissioner Bjorn that the'City does impose a business tax, and -the county is now authorized to impose the same. Ms. Marino said it is based on. gross receipts. Zane Thomas said all of the businesses have been in this area since about 1948. They opposed annexation in the past and are happy with the County. Dorothy Wright stated she has lived at 2350 Lomita Verde Drive for 51 years saying they have voted .against annexation more than once. She felt the city was inefficient and did not want to annex. Fred Caspari,' resident, of Thelma Drive, said he has lived in the area for 40 years: He-said .the first time this annexation was introduced, 25 years ago, it was voted dOwn. The reasons the city had for .annexation were nonsensical. He felt the reason for annexation is that the city wants the money from it. He was concerned about police protection.. He felt it was a matter of time until the city raises garbage collection fees. Regarding street sweeping he said the county is already appropriately meeting this need. He did not feel the residents would benefit from- annexation. Delmar-Lynch, 2400.. AltUras Drive, said he has' not heard anything they would gain from this annexatiOn. Mr. Kloepper outlined the differences in services. In response t°-a question by Mr. Lynch, Mr. Hardisty said both the City and County operate under similar building codes. If there is a hazardous structure it would be made to conformS, to safety standards. There is not a requirement that would make it conform tO today's standards. The city has a litter ordinance which -would require 'yards to be cleaned and a fire. code that would require the removal of weeds and trash. Mr. Hardisty commented on the ambulance rates being Minutes, PC,, 8/15/91. 10.1 a&b) ZUA #5181 - ColUmbus No. 1 Annexation (continued) - Page. 14 'regulated in the city as opPosed to the county. The police force is being added to with the city's growth ratel 'The city does not charge fOr lighting. Mr. Lynch said for the record he is opposed' to this annexation. Jeff Roney stated, he'is a resident of Alturas Drive. He said he is not necessarily in favor or opposition but~is undecided. He said he could see why t~he city is proceeding in this direction. Mr. Hardisty said it was due to a group of neighbors from this area concerned about the perception of a higher crime rate. There will' be better police prOtection in the area because the ratio is higher than the County Sheriffs Department. Ron Ruettgers-said he wanted to encourage the reevaluation of the "C'! zoned property. Norire Sobonjian, 2417 AltUras Drive asked what would be the benefit to them from annexation. He was concerned about the city not providing sidewalks. He Was also concerned about the lack of police protection in the La Cresta area. He felt' sidewalks and other amenities should be provided to the residents to entice them tO annex. Brian· Hamilton, La Siesta Drive, spoke saying he recently moved to this area. .He felt 'the county serves them well. He can see the benefit of annexation, hOwever he did not feel' it was enough to compensate for what they are enjoying now. He was concerned about fire protection with the city. Public pOrtion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner RoSenlieb asked for a comparison of county and city fire protection.' Mr. Kloepper. said the county does have larger pumper trucks and carries more water, however it is necessary because of lack of fire hydrants in the county. Commissioner Rosenlieb said the Planning Commission's decision must reflect what is best for the City from a planning standpoint and felt this annexation would be best2 She felt since there is a question regarding the appropriateness of the down zoning of C-1 to C-2 this item should be continued and readvertised. She felt the City had done a good job of showing the residents that annexation is not going to cost them anything. She felt the opposition to this is due to the fact that .residents are afraid of change. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 10.1 a&b) Page 15 ZUA #5181 - Columbus'No. 1 Annexation (continued) Commissioner Messner felt outsiders would be judging a community by numbers, which is what encourages outside investment. Those present are part of the city~ The city h~as grown and he felt it is time that these areas are taken in. He felt there are benefits .to those-annexing. 'Chairman Marino said this annexation should be continued so that nothing is taken away from property owners concerning zoning. He. felt there was little difference between living in the city or county as far as regulations go. The introduction of this annexation would create logical boundaries which would make it easierfor police protection. Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the next regular meeting of September 5, 1991 in order that it may be readvertised. Motion carried. 11. COMMUNICATIONS A) B) Written There were not written communications. Verbal Mr. Kloepper commented on commitment to the Commission for a report from the Public Works Department regarding the impact of development- and response to CalTrans comments. He stated they have not been able to provide this due to time constraints, and would try to get back to the commission on this item in the near future. 12~ COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb asked whether the General Plan Committee should again begin meeting on transportation fee for freeway right-of-way acquisition, stating she would check into the appropriateness of this. Mr. Hardisty said August 26, 1991 has ~been the date set for the Technical Advisory committee to again meet on this item. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the setting of mitigation measures for development adjacent to freeways, Mr. Hardisty said-it has not made much progress beyond his own Conceptual direction, however he would check with staff on this item. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated if staff does not come up with something on this item she would be ready.tO send it to committee. Minutes, PC, 8/15/91 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 16 -There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. LAURIE DAVIS Recording Secretary ~~~irecto_~