Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/93MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, January 7, TruxtUn Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL .CALL COMMISSIONERS: 1993,-5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Present: Absent: STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate DARREN POWERS ADVISORY MEMBERSi Present: STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Assistant Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No one made any public statements at this time. Chailman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made .by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to. approve minutes of the regular meetings held October 15, November 5, and November 19, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 Page 2 4.1 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5084 4.2 Commissioner Andrew abstained on this item due to a conflict of interest because he has represented some of the property owners in the past. 'Staff report was given. pUblic Portion of the hea~ing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland represente'd the property owner. He stated his agreement with the staff report.- Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve a one,year extension of time to January 5, 1994, for Tentative Tract 5084 subject to the original conditions of approval outlined in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried.- Commissioner Andrew was absent due to an abstention. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5233 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearii~g was opened;' no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland represented the property owner, stating their agreement with the staff report. PUblic portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hardisty stated the last line of the amended motion should be changed to reference the date of Januhry 7, 1993. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked staff for reviewing concerns raised in the pre- meeting and revising the conditions. Responding to a question by Commissioner Frapwell regarding easements being provided at the northeast and northwest corners of the existing residential lots, Mr? Kloepper said it was_anticipated if this developed into a 3 parcel subdivision there would be a flag lot created. The easement would be required across to provide access to the middle lot: When the parcel map is drawn one drive would be able to be extended into the center portion. Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 Page 3 Motion was made 'by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approv6 a one-year ex.tension-of time to January 10, 1994, for Tentative Tract 5233 Revised subject to.the original conditions of approval with the two additional conditions from' the Parks Division as outlined in the Exhibit "A", and the three additional conditions °utlined in the Planning Department memorandum dated January 7, 1993. Motion carried. 4.3 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5416' 4.4 Commissioner Marino abstained from participating on this-item because he is employed by _the .applicant. Staff report was given.- Public Portion of the heiring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Greg Owens represented' the applicant. He stated their agreement with staff recommendation. ? Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5416 subject to the conditions set forth in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Commissioner Marino was absent due to an abstention. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5456 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bob-Smith represented .the applicant. He Stated their agreement with the staff report. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenl-ieb :commented on the letter by Daniel and Inge Kaplan which is on file, saying she felt it was an extreme no-growth letter. She said she considered this an in-fill project and is the type of growth she would like to see in the community. She stated she had no problem approving this extension-of time. Minutes, PC, 1/7/93. 5.i Page 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to approve the one-year extension of time to December 20, 1993, for Tentative Tract 5456 subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the Exhibit "A", including updatedPark~ Department conditions and the memorandum from Public Works dated December ~2, 1992. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5464 A request for continuan6e by the applicant was received on this item. Staff report was waived, i . Public Portion of the he'ring was-opened. Dr. Gopal asked if the public hearing would be conducted on this matter on January 21st, to which Mr. Messner stated it would. Dr. Gopal stated he would present his comments at ,that time. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to continue this item to the next regular meeting of January 21, 1993. Motion carried. - ' - ~ 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5505 CommiSsioner Marino a~stained from participating on this item due to a conflict of interest because-he is employed by the engineer for the subdivider. Staff report was given. Commissioner Cohn asked staff what lot sizes would be on the south side of the tract. -Mr. Hardisty stated the new lot sizes are in the 10,000 square foot range with some internal lots being less than 10,000 square feet and cul-de-sac lots being approximately 13,000. square feet. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question by Commissioner Messner saying he had been told that. the residents attended a meeting with the subdivider, in which they were agr6eable to the 62~ lot subdivision request with lot sizes as proposed by the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Rita Pierrucci, 5400 Lockhaven Court spoke saying she and her husband have great respect for the developer of this tract, however are unalterably opposed to -any revision to this tract .because of continued erosion of the master plan of the Minutes, PC, 1/7/93' Page 5 Polo Grounds, it is in contrast to assurances given to the current homeowners in the area concerning the ~haracter, short and long-term detriment to property owners, chilling effect on perspective buyers for their homes, stalling completion of the area and additional demands on municipal services. She stated they bought in the area based on the original master plan, and felt changes s. ignificantly affect them. Bruce Smith,- 10909. Polo! Drive, said he bought because of the large lot size. He felt the idea of shrinking, the lot sizes would cause economic detriment. He asked that this tract be denied.' Responding tO a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Smith said he was also opposed to the lots going from 69 to 62. Jim-Strong, 5505 DanburY Court, stated his opposition to the revision of this tract. He said' they .bOught their homes based on information Provided to them at the time and the expectations which they were given. He said if everY developer is allowed to make revisiOns to this master plan the master planned community will no longer exist. Marty Leetrick, spoke stating she also represented her husband. She said they felt the interest of the POlo Grounds community would best be served if the 49 lot original tract were maintained. The sizes in the Polo Grounds have consistently been doWn-sizEd, this pro, posed revision eliminating the last available section of land set aside for Estate-sized lots. Chester Neufeld, 11000 Polo'Drive, echoed sentiments of the previous speakers. He said they were assured' many times verbally and in writing of the master plan for their neighborhoOd. He said he would like this to be kept as originally planned. _ BOb Burdette, 5505 Bayshore Drive, stating he was representing Polo Grounds land owners adjacent to Tract 5505. He said their group was undeniably opposed to the original revision. He said they were informed that neighborhood groups do not win'these appeals and the best that could be expected would be a compromise 'with the developer. He said their group, though not unanimous approved of the compromise by a majority vote. In addition to the compromise he said Kurt Carter agreed not to build twO-storY homes surrounding the buffer zone of their tract and' agreed to build ;large homes of similar size as theirs if not larger along the buffer zone' and cul-de-sac lots. In addition he agreed not to build homes less than 1,500 square feet in size. He stated they appreciated the developer's cooperation, and again stated their approval of this revised tract. Minutes,. PC, 1/7/93 Page 6 Kevin LOomis, 5509 Bayshgre Drive, stated from the start of this project it has continually changed. He f~lt the Commission should stand by their original decision because a lot Of people spend their money based on the original decisions. He felt 'the lot ~izes in the city are becoming too small. Curt Carter, apPlicant, spoke on this project. He said he asked what kind of promises had been made on this property, at which time he was told there were no commitments made. :H~ bought the property subject to approval of the preliminary title' report, which would have shown any recorded restrictions or easements, and there were~none. He said this property is shown in the 2010 Plan to allow 3.2 lots per acre and the Rosedale Plan as 3.2 lots per acre. He said he wanted_to develop the property in a way in which the homeowners would be satisfied. :He cited lot sizes and values in the area, saying he did not feel he was creating any unusual circumstances on subject tract. He felt the 300-lot subdivision has not hurt the value of the area and did not feel his 62-1ot Subdivision would hurt thel value. He said. he has spoken with many residents in the area and has always been willing to do so. He felt in today's market there must be some flexibility. Greg Owens, Engineer representing Mr. Carter spoke stating regarding the engineering aspect of the ~act he agreed with the staff report and conditions. Public portion of ;the hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Carter said he was not involved in-the-briginal master plan for this area. He said he was told there were no promises made on this iproperty and nothing exists on the preliminary title report,. Rosedale Plan or 2010 General Plan. He said he was not aware of the graphics Of the fliers given to the adjacent property owners during the purchase of their properties.- Responding to 'a questioniby Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Carter stated he owns ' the property. Mr. Hardisty called the Commission's attention to the words "master plan" being generally used at this heating, saying to the extent plans have been adopted for this territory, the city 'has adopted a zoning plan and a general plan, but has not adopted a master plan for _this area. The term is at times used by developers to promote their 'developments. Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 Page 7 Mr. Carter responded to q~estions by Commissioner Cohn, saying he purchased the property from a company in which his nephew is a partner. Mr. Cohn said it seems as if whatever the zoning.or general plan is it continues to be changed, stating he did not see a stopping point. He cited comments by a previous speaker saying if he were making the same investments these people have made he would have made the same inquii~ies as to development of adjoining property. He said he_ has- had enough of-the ~hanges to properties in this Polo Grounds development, hOwever said he was torn because a majority of the homeowners have come to an agreement with Mr. Carter. What was originally intended as the Polo Grounds does not resemble what has been developed. He said he tended to sUpport the hOmeOWners who spoke previously. Commissioner Messner recogniZed Nick Dunn, 11009 Bannister Way, who spoke saying they met with Mr.'Carter and agreed with him on a compromise, howex~er said they were promised Certain things. Commissioner Messner recognized Mary Neufeld, 11000 Polo Drive, who spoke in opposition. She had a copy of the previous tract map, saying they were not aware that phase 2 was not already planned. She submitted photos of homes built in her neighborhood. She stated she was in opposition because she did not feel a nice home could be built cina less than 10,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Messner commented on the loss of Polo Grounds amenities, saying requests for reduction in' lot sizes are being considered. He stated the Commission has been informed by staff that within the framework of past agreements there is technically little wrong with this request, and felt perhaps the homeowners were prudent:~ in accepting a compromise. He felt this is a slow erosion' of a dream and did not know where it would end, stating he did not feel the commission' should go any further forward in eroding this dream. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she felt everyone knew the polo Grounds was a pipe dream. That there wOUld never be a stadium. She stated she voted against this project when it was approved. She said technically the developer is within his rights and is not asking roi anything more than what the E.I.R. allows, however she agreed with the other commission comments that the continuation of the erosion-is not right. She said 'she did not consider the Polo Grounds a master planned community. She felt it has always been a "bait and switch" project, and stated it has been a disappointment to her as a commissioner. She stated she ' tended to feel this tract shguld remain as it was when it was originally approved. Minute~, PC: 1/7/93 Page 8 Commissioner Andrew s~id the applicant is entitled to the densities which he has applied-for and felt it W~is admirable that Mr. Carter has tried to work with the neighbors. He cited the icomment from Mr. Burdette saying he felt the neighbors agr_eed to the compromige because they felt their backs were against the wall. He said he would not be in favor of this request. Commissioner Frapwell Stated he Was in favor of stafLrecommendation. He stated he cOuld see both isides of the issue, and could sympathize with the neighbors, however felt the compromise struck by both' parties is reasonable. Marty Leetrick said for the record that there are people who are interested in subject property who would maintain the status quo in the area. Commissioner Frapwell said in any subdivision, where the subdivider sells off lots there is a variety of hom6s being built. Regarding the comment that a quality home cannotbe placed an a 10,000 square foot lot he said he did not feelthis was true,- saying a qualityt home could be placed on a much smaller lot if it is properly designed. ~ Responding to a question, by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Ms. Marino, Attorney, gave a-'listing of findings which would have to be made in order to deny this tract, saying only One finding wOUld, have to be made. Commissioner Rosenlieb said. she would have trouble making any of these findings, being that the request is technically correct. Motion was made by commissioner Frapwell to make all findings set forth in the staff report and approve the proposed Tentative Tract 5505 Revised shown in Exhibit "B", subject _to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion died for lack of a lsecond. Commissioner.Frapwell felt if this request was denied it would be appealed and did not feel the Commission is 'treading on firm ground when it cannot find a reason to' deny the request. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to deny proposed Tentative Tract 5505 and find that the proposed tract is not consistent with the general plan based on the design before the Commission. Motion passed by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 Page 9 AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cohn, Hersh, Messner Commissioner Frapwell Commissioner Andrew, Rosenlieb ABSENT: Commissioner.Powers, Marino Responding toa question by Mr. Carter, Mr. Hardisty said the finding made by commission for denial of! this map was that it was inconsistent with the general plan. '- *5-minute recess was taken at this time. ~DiscussiOn ensued regarding reconsideration of this item. Commissioner Cohn - made a motion to reconsider his previous-motion, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb. Motion carritd. COmmissioner Cohn-explhined that his motion to deny may be technically improper, therefore'he suggested that this item be readvertised and continued to the meeting of February 4, 1993. 'He stated his concern being that if this item is appealed, the city attorney would have no alternative but to advise the Council that the motion is flawed !which would mean that the development as advertised Would be apprOVed, which he did not feel the neighbors would want. ~Responding to a questiOn! by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Carter said he would not be in favor of this item .being continued and sent to committee because of issue of time. - : Commissioner Rosenlieb Stated she would not support Commissioner Cohn's motion, saying she wanted to help stop further erosion in the Polo Grounds, however she is not. wi.lling to dO it if it means she will be breaking the law. There is no legal reason for-denial.of this map. She stated she saw no reason for denial which was-her reason for abstention on the previous motion. Ms. Marino stated this item is not subject to rehearing, but the motion for reconsideration was-a motion to rehear this item at a later time. Mr. Hardisty said the next appropriate motion should be for when this will be heard. Mr. Hardisty suggested a Short recess be taken so that he could consult with the attorney on this matter. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked Mr. Hardisty to strongly consider past actions in which the item has been allowed to .be heard during the same evening. Minuies,:PC,' 1/7/93 Chairman Messner declared a 5-minute recess. Page 10 Mr. Hardi'~y stated, the determination arrived at is that the commission may reconsider the motion which was voted upon, the motion may be debated to a point of voting on it agai~n, if it fails another motion may and should be made to bring the issue to conclusion, however additional testimony cannot be taken. The public hearing has been iflosed and there is no assurance that those who were presentwould be aware of these on-going deliberations.' Responding to'a questi0fl by Commissioner Messner regarding the option of moving to the next item, Mr. Hardisty said a vote has been made to reconsider, therefore the item at hafid must be dealt with before proceeding to the next agenda -item. ' Ms. Marino answered a ~uestion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, saying the commission should vote On the motion which was made for reconsideration. Roll was called on the reconsidered motion which was a motion by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to deny proposed Tentative Tract 5505 and find that the proposed tract' is not consistent with the general plan based on the design before the Commission. Motion failed by the following roll call vote:. -AYES: - NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioner Messner Commissioner Cohn, Frapwell, Commissioners Andrew, Hersh, Rosenlieb Commissioners Powers, Marino Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make all findings set forth in the staff report and approve the proposed Tentative Tract 5505 Revised, shoWn as Exhibit "B" subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A". Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified this was staff's recommendation and also the compromise reached with the property owners. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: · Commissioners Frapwell, Rosenlieb NOES~. - Commissioners Coh.n, Messner ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Hersh 'Commissioners Powers, Marino Minutes, PC,-1/7/93 Page 11 Commissidner Messner s~tated he felt it was appropriate to move to' the next item. Responding to a request!by the applicant he explained both motions failed to carry. Mr. Hardisty stated the map which was applied for, having had no action taken on it will proceed according to State Law and may be filed in accordance with the request on petition to the City Clerk. Mr. Hardisty clarified for Commissioner Rosenliebi the map would technically be approved as conditioned bY staff in-accordance with requirements, of the municipal and state codes. .Commissioner Andrew stated he did not want to deny the map without a legal finding and was hoping t9 continue the hearing, in order to try to come to a compromise. However, he did not see a way for this to happen and for this reason chose to abstain. - Commissioner Messner felt given the circumstances he would still like to see this map approved for 62 lots which is still an option available to the commission. Commissioner Rosenlieb~said she did not want to see this map approved, however there is not.a lega! reasofl for denial. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner -Frapwell to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Trac{ 5505 Revised shown as Exhibit "B", subject to the conditions outlined in th~ Exhibit "A". Commissioner-Messner said there has been no laws broken, but possibly a misinterpretation in findihg this map consistent with the general plan. Motion Carried by AYES: the folloWing roll call vote: Commissioners Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb NOES: None ABSTAINED: .Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh" ABSENT: Commissioner Powers, Marino Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5632 Page 12 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Shawna O'Brien, Elmer F. Karpe, Inc. spoke saying they are opposed to the block wall proposed in Tract 4824-B that will be facing the block wall along McKee Road. ' John Wilson, Engineer on the project stated his concurrence with findings. He stated in .regard to the cdmments made by Ms. O'Brien that the tract referenced does not lie north of the itheir tract but northeast. The reason they have no lots fronting on McKee.is because of the potential of 37 driveways going out in a right hand turn lane on McKee and there is only one opening onto McKee. Public portion Of the hea~ing was closed. Responding'to a questiofi by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said McKee Road is a 90-foot'collect0r, mid-section line road. The changeof language of the memo of January 7th, was because what was written before was'very restrictive and-would result in a'difficulty of solving the problems of sewering the area. He felt writingit in a more general way could lead to a simpler solution of providing municipal sewer service to each lot. Commissioner Rosenlieb isaid she is sorry-that the commission allows lots abutting collectors. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5632 subj~ect to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", incorporating the Janua~ 7, 1993 memo from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. 5.4 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5648 Staff report was-given. Public portion of the heating was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith spoke in favor~ He stated he Was in favor of the staff report and memorandum dated January 7, 1993 from the Public Works Department. Public portion of the hear~ing was closed. Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 Page 13 Motion Was made'by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make all findings set forth in-the staff report, and to approve Proposed TentatiVe Tract! 5648 Vesting subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the addition-of the January 7, 1993 memorandum from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. 5.5 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5762 A request was received 'from the-applicant asking for continuance until the February 18,. 1993 meeting. Staff report was waived. Public portion Of the hearing was opened; no one spoke on this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this! item to the regular meeting of February 18, 1993. Motion carried. PREZONING #5410 ' RiEQUEST BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO PREZONE TO CITY E (ESTATE) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE oF SAID PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HAGEMAN ROAD BETWEEN OLD FARM. ROAD AND JEWEITA AVENUE Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he has received commissions from; a property owner within the last year. Staff report_was given. . Public portion Of ~the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. public Portion 6f-the hearing was closed. Motion Was made by-Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings presented in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approving Prezoning No. 5410 to the City designation of E (Estate) 'on '39 +/- acres with conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 1/7/93 AYES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED:- Page 14' Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner Cominissioner Powers Commissioner Andrew 7.1 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS.- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-92, SEGMENT III AND ZONE CHANGE #5391 Commissioner Andrew ablstained due to a conflict of interest in that he has received commissions from property owners within 300 feet of subject property. Staff report Was given. Public portion of the-hearing was opened. Steve Hartsell spoke in opposition, representing Kern High School District, Panama-Buena Vista SchOol District and Greenfield School District saying all three ha~e submitted letters to the commission opposing this action based on their opinion that a negative declaration is not appropriate in light of the identified imPacts on school districts in the proposed negative declaration. He stated his advice to his clients was that Senate Bill 1287 does not have the effect on the city's power with respect to school impacts which has been represented. He said their position is sapported by a recent legislative council's opinion, which he provided copies of to the commission and 'staff. He said the opinion of legislative council is that this bill does not prohibit a city from considering the adequacy of a school facility in the course of adopting or implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy. The law does not contain .language that would-allow the city to conclude that all projects are categorically exempt With-~espect to school facilities. He said the opinion they have given the districts the~, represent is that CEQA prohibits the city from adopting the proposed negative declaration as written and prohibits the adoption of a negative declaration in the fact of unmitigated school facilities impacts. He cited the options he felt are available to the city being requirement of provision for' adequate-mitigation of impacts or the requirement of an environmental impact report. He asked that the commission decline to approve' this project on the basis that the negative declaration does not properly address school facilities issues and find that the proper action is to require that an EIR be prepared for this action to address schoOl facilities issues. Public_ portion of the hearing was closed. 'Minutes, PC,' 1/7/93 Respoflding to questions by Commissioner Messner, Ms. Marino said the legislative opinion is' very confusing. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to retain 0riginalstaff report findings and retain original staff report recommendation, to approve the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change subject to conditions of approval outlined in the January 7, 1993 memorandum from the Planning Director. Page 15 Commissioner Messner said SB 1287 allows for $3.65 per square foot mitigation, saying he felt this is homing close to meeting the mitigation requirement, and he did not have a problem with the mitigation findings. Mr. Hartsell was troubled with the legislative council's opinion being that the districts can collect no more than $2.65 per square, foot regardless of whether it is unified or non-unified district. Motion carhed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES:- ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Frapwell~ Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner None Commissioner Powers, Andrew C0mn~issioner Cohn Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb'to adopt'resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving-the Negative Declaration and approving Zone Change No. 5391 to the -City designation of Rzl .(One Family Dwelling) on 26 '.+/- acres and R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church) zone on 4 +/- acres with conditions as revised per the January 7, 1993 Planning Department memorandum and ~ecommend same to the City Council. MotiOn carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Frapwell, Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner None Commissioner Powers, Andrew ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cohn ' '" - - Minutes,. PC, 1/7/93. 7.2 o Page 16 PUBLIC'HEARiNG- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-92, SEGMENT IV CIRCULATION ELEMENT- BERKSHIRE ROAD. Request was received for;Continuance on this item. Public .portion Of the hearing was opened; no one spoke on this item. Staff report .Was waived. .Responding to a question by-Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. HardistY said time frame for continuance on. this item was at the discretion of the Commission, ' saying since ' this is the Circulation Element it is not tied to the Land Use Element amendments and would not hold those up. Motion was 'made. by ssloner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commission er Hersh to continue this to the next regular meeting of January 21; 1993. Motion -carried. COMMUNICATIONS ^-) None B) ' -Verbal None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb asked Mr. Hardisty for a new fee comparison chart, saying be distributed to the Commission in their next packet. She also asked for' clarification, of school fees. Responding to a question-by Commissloner. Rosenlieb regarding standard-for landscaping-sumps, Mr. Kloepper said they have been in the proceSs of working on this alongwith the Parks Department in .order to come up w/th an agreement on this. issue. ._- . - Minutes; PC, .1/7/93 Page 17 _Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that a meeting be scheduled of the General Plan Committee in order to discuss whether or not the general plan needs to be amended to tighten up language on municipal sewer service systems. She asked for both-Planning and Public Works input at this meeting and asked that this meeting be held within .one month. She said her reason for asking for this is because of the recent situ. ation in the northeast~ -Commissioner Rosenlieb also requested that at next week's subdivision committee meeting, if time allows, a second agenda item be added for discussion of a proposed standard for single-family lots against freeways and generally growth against freeways, stating her dissatisfaction of just erecting walls in this situation. Commissioner Andrew concurred with committee's lOoking into these issues, stating he would appreciate staff setting these meetings. Commissioner Manno referred to a letter he received from League of California ' Cities. He said he would deliver this to staff. 10.' ADJOURNMENT There.being no further business to come'before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. ~ Laurie Davis Recording. Secretary