Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/92 MINUTES OF -THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE .... pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY .OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, 'December 17, 1992,. 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 ~Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL .... COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS,Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson. JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS' LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building DirectOr 'STANLEY GRADY, Assistant 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. Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 3-92 Page 2 staff, report was given. Pete--Ramirez represented the applicant. He outlined language in Section B, Paragraph 6'and the addition of Paragraph 7 of Section B, saying the mall has, in ihe past, not allowed requests which have been brought directly to the City. He said'during:expansion it became apparent to them that they could soften the block walI entrances by using awnings and pop-outs. He said regarding. Table 1, he understood concerns ~from the sign committee that if the language is broadened:to include occupants adjacent to public entrances others might Want these types of signs and it may get out of control. He recommended the word "immediately" be added after occupants in order to control this. Regarding Table 2, .he said'the sign. for Pier 1 Imports is 14 inches long with 19-inch lettering, but the overall area _is only-8.32 percent. He said because of the Wording to the effect that signS shall be removed if a sign is damaged he did ~not feel the tenant should have to totally remove the sign in this event. He asked for reconsideration of this~ He said the' awning signage for Jolly Roger waS installed prior to 1986, asking/hat the Commission reconsider removal of this. -Exhibit "A", Paragraph 10 he said-he would like to-maintain the language but possibly specify the existing signs that are "in place. to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Ramirez said .the Plaza has a manual containing construction criteria which is given to new tenants, however --because they already had the greenhouse for McDonald's and Taco Bell they did not consider 'the awning .to be something that would, not be perm!tted. Rosenlieb cited a call she had received from Dr. Ratty stating his concerns: Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Commissioner Cohn said nothing Would stop a tenant.from knocking a hole out of the back wall and placing a door to the 'outside and allowing an external sign. Regarding loss of the right to repair a sign due to damage Commissioner Cohn said he was persuaded, that if a sign is. damaged'through no fault of the tenant it shOuld be allowed to be repaired..He felt signage within the mall does not fall within the same criteria of need as with a business in a strip center along Ming Avenue. Mr. Ramirez said they are .not going to permit something in the mall Which will reflect badly..They revieW the drawings very carefully and sign off on them in order to maintain control. Commissioner Andrew-said he would like to stick with what was recommended in the committee meeting. He asked if there should be a time frame given for re ' of damaged-signs.- Mr. Ramirez said their lease requires that any repairs 'be made within 30_ days or the mall has the right to make repairs and charge the tenant for it. Minutes, 'PC; 12/17/92 Page 3 commissioner R0senlieb. recognized Dr. Ratty who Spoke saying restricting tenants next to the 'entrance, would not be opening a can of worms as previously stated. He said it would-not affect him, however he felt it should be fair for - everyone-within the mall:. CommiSsioner M~rino agreed with the blanket removal, of the statement "or damaged~"-'He agreed with the applicant regarding stores adjacent to the entrances.. Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, regarding the remo~,al of signs in violation, Mr. Ramirez requested that the language be ~:einstated but specify the' existing signs and conditions so that it is documented. Commissione~ Andrew r~sponded to Dr. Ratty that ~he felt the wording regarding .immediately adjacent to entrances should remain as it was proposed by the -committee:' Mr. Ramirez responded to questions by Commissioner Andrew saying there are controls placed on where-walls could be opened. Motion was made by.Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by COmmissioner Cohn to make findings set' forth in the Sign Committee Report, and approve the request fOr revised Comprehensive Sign. Plan for Valley Plaza, subject to the conditions of apprisval listed in Exhibit "A" of the Sign Committee Report, with the:rews~'ons as listed in the Planning Director's memo dated December 17, 1992; the change of' the wording "or damaged" as it appears in the conditions shall be removed. 'She stated the intent is that a tenant's sign which 'is damaged in which the sign does not change, has the right to repair the damaged sign. Motion 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - TENT. TRACT 5623 ' Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing-was opened; no one spoke-in opposition. - Roger McIntosh represented the property owner, Castle & COoke Development Corporation. He:Ci.ted their reason for requesting this revision to conditions is that requested a homeOWners asSociation to be-set up for the maintenance of the:P.G.&E, easement. Since the approval of'the map ithas been revealed that it is P.G.&E.'s responsibility to maintain the easement. He cited the wording to this' effect as outlined in their letter of December 10, 1992. He said they concur with staff's recommendations and asked for approval. Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 4 Dominic Colletta, Attorney, represented the applicant. He added that he felt the homeowner's association 'to be a very clumsy method of attemPting to ensure that the easements will be .maintained. He felt possibly the property owners who would be the association members would be non-residents of the area and potentially have little interest in operating the association .with some difficulty forcing them to undertake the appropriate maintenance r.equired. Public portion of the-hearing was closed. .Commissioner Ro~'enlieb .stated she had no problem with creating a special maintenance assessment-district for this tract, however is concerned with language which would leave the easements with the subdivider. Responding to a question -by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said a consideration in lumping the entire area to. be. assessed is uncertain as to the potential liability on the zone of Pbenefit for the homeowners, that Will eventually own those lots. Uncertainty. of the' total cost 'Would also be a big consideration. Discussion continued regarding the easement. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was not convinced by the language Of #12, Page 4 of the staff report, which she felt simply states they will maintain their towerline. Commissioner Messner concurred with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments regarding the toweiline easement being taken literally so that is all they will -maintain. _ Commissioner Marino agreed with comments by Commissioners Messner and Rosenlieb, saying'he did not feel either of these items necessarily say what is being implied. · Motion wa~ made 'by-Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve, the_ proposed amendments to Planning Department conditions 10 an d 12 of Tentative Tract 5623 Exhibit "A", Page 8 of 8 as recommended in the . December. 15, ~1992 memorandum from the Planning Director. Motion carried. 'PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5310 Commissioner Powers abstained :due to a conflict of interest in that his employer owns property in the vicinity of subject site. Commissioner Messner chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. .. - -- Minutes, PC, 12/.17/92~ Page 5 Dana'Gammel.rep~esented the applicant. She stated their agreement with conditiOns of approval. Public pOrtion of the hearing was closed. MOtion was made by CommissionerRosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner FrapWell to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5310 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A". Commissioner Powers was absent due to an abstention. -PUBLIC HEARING-- EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5432 Staff report was given. Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he has sold and received.commissions on property in the area within the last year. Staff report-was givem - Public portion of. the hearing was opened. William Skaggs SpOke saying he lives in the area. He said a road.is shown to go through their home, howeverthe city has agreed that the road' could be shifted to the south. He is concerned that this will 'not happen and asked for assurance. Mr. KlOepper Said the city does not have any lever to require the acquisition of the right-of-way prior to. the time it is needed for the phase of the map in which the road would.be built. The acquisition will probably be done during development of the phase which needs the road for access which-will most likely be the last phase.' Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers,. Ms. Marino stated this is her interpretation as' well. Dana Ganimel represented the applicant. She stated they are currently looking at' transitioning the road to the south of Mr. Skaggs property and are trying to obtain an easement' from the property owners to the south. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb spoke to Mr. Skaggs saying she did not feel anyone wants to see a road go through his property, however at this point there are no guarantees,- Commissioner Marino cited Condition #SB.1 of Public Works Conditions, Page 2 of 10 which requires-a minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet saying there was extensive disCussiOn that this width could be installed thereby missing the existing -structure. Mr. Kloepper recollected the condition referred to was a condition Minutes,. PC, 12t17/92 6.1 Page 6 Which resulted from much discussion and is written ina way which allows an option of it being on the section line, mid-section line or shifted to the south to allow 'flexibility. He felt the developer and engineer on this tract would take the path of least resistance which is undeveloped land to the south which will allow' for quicker construction.- He als0 pointed out Condition XI.D regarding phased maps~ that determines the improvements for each phase. MOtion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve a One-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5432 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" and the Parks Department memo dated December 10, I99Z Motion carried. Commissioner Andrew was absent due to an abstention. · 'PUBLIC HEARING- TENTATivE TRACT 5597 6.2 Request for continuance had been received. Staff rePort was waived. .- Public portion-of Lthe hearing was opened; no one spoke in'oppOsition or favOr. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino lo contimie'this item to the regular meeting of February 4, 1993. CommiSsioner Rosenlieb stated for the applicant that it is getting to the point' in which this tract has' been:continUed almost one year. Motion carried. PuBLIC-HEARING- TENTATIVE TRACT 5327 staff report was giVen.-- i - _ ' Public portion of/he hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Cart Moreland repre, gented the applicant. He stated their agreement with staff recommendations. - Public PortiOn of the hearing was closed. Mr.-Kloepper recommended Condition #26, Page 4 be deleted. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino tO approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5327 (Revised) subject to the conditiohs outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the deletion of Condition #26, Page 4. Motion carried. Minutes, PC,-12/17/92 -' 6.4 Page 7 Public portion Of the hearings was opened; no one spoke. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue these items to the regular meeting of February 4, 1993. 'Motion carried. 6.3 puBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5642 Staff report was given. Public-portion Of the' heatingwas opened; no one spoke in-opposition. Mike Callagy-represented the subd{vider. He stated their agreement With the staff and asked for approval. Motion was ma-de by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner -- Messner to approve Proposed Tentative. Tract 5642 subject to the conditions in the Exhibit ,A". Motion fiarried. PUBLIC HEARING- TENTATIVE TRACT 5734 ' Request Was received fOr~continuance on this item because of inadequacy of the traffic siudy Which was submitted. Mr. Lee, staff planner said it was recommended by staff that this item be Continued to the January 21, 1993 meeting in Order to allow~ staff time to review traffic study and prepare a staff - 'report. · Staff report was waived. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to continue this 'item to the regular meeting of January 21, 1993. Motion carried... -~ ~ '-7. ' PUBLIC' HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5341 8.~ PUBLIC HEARING -' PREZONING #5300 A r.equest for.continuance was received on this item. Staff report Was waiVed. Commissioner-Rogenlieb made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to hear this item concurrently with agenda item #8.1. Motion carried. Minutes, PC} 512~17/92~ 9.'1 a&b · -PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ GPA 4~92, SEGMENT I & ZONE CHANGE #5392 Staff report was gi'~en. ' Public portion of the-hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Page 8 Mel Minney,-stated he is a homeowner next to subject property. He stated he is '-:in favOr of this because promises have been Previously made for maintenance of ' ' - the property which has'not been done, therefore he said he would like to see it return.to the previgus zoning. Darlene Duncan stated .she-is a resident in the area. She .stated she was in 'favor of this property returning to' the original zoning of R-1 as it was When she PurChased her home: Public portion Of-the heating was closed. Respondingio questions by. Commissioner Cohn, Mr~ Minney said the property is not being maintained at the presenttime. Mr. Cohn asked that city staff check into the situation and possibly cite the property owner so that the problem can be alleviated.- Mr. Quon responded that personnel from the building department would make a site check of the property and possibly cite the owner. Commissioner Rosenlieb ~hanked those who spoke for coming to this hearing. She said the problems will not be Over until the site is developed: Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and_ approving Zone Change 5392 from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone (#4709) to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 14.1 acres, a R-2 (Limited Multiple Fatally'Dwelling) zone on 2.2 acres, and a R-3 (Multiple F~/mily Dwelling) zone on ~2.9 acres. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NoEs: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh, Marino, Messner~ Rosenlieb, Powers None None- Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 9 Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded'by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution .making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving GPA. 4-92, Segment I, consisting of an-amendment to the Land Use Element from a HR (High DensitY Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) land use on 14.1 acres. MotiOn carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 9.2 ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ GPA 4-92, SEGMENT II Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest because his _company is listed as the .applicant. Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers None .None Commissioner Marino abstained dUe to a perceived conflict of interest in that his emploYer. has~ Provided services to a property owner of subject Property within the last.year..- Staff report was given. Public portion of-the hca.ring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Brian-Haupt represented the applicant. He gave a history on this Project. He said the general plan portion only, is before the commission at this time because -it was recommended by staff that the zoning issue be dropped, which will be brought up at a .later date.. He asked that this request' be approved at this hearing. Pauline Pascoe Stated her-agreement with the proposal, however stated she is trusting that her water rights will be protected as she has been assured of. She asked about the width of Panama Lane.. Mr. Kloepper said it would be 110 feet in width and provide a right, of'way for a 6-lane arterial-street. Old River Road-is also an 'arterial alignmentwhich, according to the general plan, would be a 6-lane arterial road. Regarding questions by-Ms. Pascoe concerning Protection of water .rights, Mr. Kloepper felt this is not directly related to the general plan amendment proposed, nor does staff have answers to her questions at this hearing: Mr. _Kioepper-said at the time of development answers to questions regarding covering of-the canal or the possibility of a pipeline would be available. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC; 12/17/92- Page 10 Responding to queStions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said answers to questions regarding water percolation would be available at time of development_, however are not problems the Public Works Department would be well-equipped to deal with. Mr. Kloepper 'requested;.that any action taken on this item include in the Exhibit '.'A"'the Public-Works memo dated December 4, 1992. Commissioner Rosenlieb eXPressed Concerns to Mr. Hardisty, Planning Director, regarding the previous staff report suggesting that the commercial portion in the northwest corner of the section be designed so that frontage be along Pacheco because of the gas line. She stated her concern that staff is requesting that properties be-designed arOund the gas line. She did not know if it was. appropriate to do -this citing the'furthest south commercial portion being moved because of staff'S concerns. She said-a large portion of residential has been allow6d'over the gas line. with 50-foot setbacks at the north portion, however it seems as if now staff' is-saying it is not safe to have residential surrounding this gas' line. She also-said she felt because of the request for addition and expansion of commercial .sites in-this application, some negotiation should have taken place- on the. city's part Which would have resulted in the applicant giving up the mid- ' block 5 acre portion. She said she felt this project is like placing the "cart before. the-horse" and she would very reluctantly support it. She requested that the commission-not handle any more requests with the cart before the hOrse approach by splitting the applications. ResPonding to .a.qUestion by Commissioner Messne~, Commissioner Rosenlieb Said she would like'to See finding #4 changed to add the word "interim" in place of the word_"holding." Commissioner Messner stated he would support this. He also agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments regarding this application being the "cart before the horse." He said regarding Ms. PaScoe's questions that she may need.to consult legal counsel regarding the water issues. The commission's purview is' the mitigation of environmental impacts. If the ground water loss'could be shown to be an environmental impact it could be dealt with by this commisSion, however at this time 'it appears to be more of an economic -impact.. He cited a letter from SimPson-VanCuren pointing out one of the general commercial denotations would be in violation of the general plan requiring a 1/2 mile buffer between commercial designations, however did not feel it was material to .this project, Commissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comment saying he did not feel a precedent should be set for anyone. He said he would support this project 'because he felt the applicant acted under the direction of staff. Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 11 Commissioner Powers felt it would be preferable to have a complete project, however he saw the reasbning behind this project being submitted as it was. He stated he had a conversation with Michelle Lamoine of Simpson VanCuren regarding.the letter she submitted, stating he appreciated the effort to make 'sure a conflict did not exist. He stated he would support this project. Motion was-made'by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the_Negative Declaration and approving GPA .4-92, Segment II, Consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from LR (Low Density. Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 7.0 acres on the southeast corner of Buena Vista Road and .Pacheco. Road,~and on 17.5 acres at the northwest corner of Old River Road and Panama ~Lane, subject to' mitigation measures and conditions of approval listed in.Exhibit-"A" andhsted in the PUblic Works memo dated December 4, 1992, and the change to Finding #4, Page7 of the staff report by replacing the word "hOlding" with the word "interim" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the' following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Hersh, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers - NOES: None ABSENT: 9.3 a&b Commissioners Andrew, Marino PUBLIC HEARINGS , GPA 4-92, SEGMENT III AND ZONE CHANGE #5391 Mr. Grady stated staff initiated this. application under the direction of the Planning Commission. ,,,Because of changes in legislation relative to school fees there will be a new method of calculating it at the beginning of 1993. He requested that the staff report, be waived, public portion of the hearing opened, comments taken, and that this item be continued to the January 7, 1993 meeting in order to give staff the opportunity to amend the negative declaration to reflect new changes in law-relative to school fees. Publi~ portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition Or in favor. MOtion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to cOntinue this item to the January 7, 1993 meeting. ~Motion carried. Minutes~ PC, 12/17/92 Page 12 9.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS -~GPA 4-92, SEGMENT IV Staff report was given. Public' portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opPosition. Maurice Etche~hury.rep/esented the owner of Tract 5335. He stated' the collectors in-this area' ~xisted prior to construction of the freeways which severed existing neighborhoods, in this instance they are in an area which is newly developing in Which subdivisions can be constructed in a manner which.would not . required-'tying neighborhoods together on each side of the freeway. Commercial is a,~ailable to:the subdivision on the west side of Freeway 99, at Berkshire and South "H"-Street and HoSking and South "H" Street. The development would not hamper'the ability to. 'transport children to school. They are not eliminating collectors completely,-but a limited collector which will gather the bulk of the traffic from their subdivision. There; are no through streets in the layout of the tract. 'To the south, the extension of Hughes Lane, this collector is brought into the-subdivision, in which this traffic will be gathered and moved to the south to -Hosking Road. He felt_ there are many examples in the city .in which collectors are not continuous. He felt consideration needs to be given to whether traffic should be-mOVing extended distances on collector streets. He said the cost needs to'be Considered if this is added .to the regional traffic impact fee list, asking if -the doliar figure.for th:e cost would equal the amount of service gained. Carl Morelanti represented the owner of subject property. He agreed with the comments madeby Mr. Etchechury saying he felt their subdivisions are designed to fiow easily. _ --' -- - John: Guimarra spoke-saying he is the developer of the proposed subdivision on the east side of Highway 99 which would be impacted because Berkshire runs through his-prOperty. He gave history of his development site, .saying the costs of designating B6rkshire through to his property will have a financial impact on his 'developmentin- the form of lost lots, paving and grading. He also felt it would have a negative-aesthetic impact on his subdivision because of the overpass coming 'into ~his subdivision. He cited points raised in the staff report at arriving at staff's position in:not supporting the proposal, saying staff questions the validity of the traffic reports which they presented. The issues raised he said were not researched With his traffic engineer, at which time they found that things which were felt to be left out were included. This traffic indicates there is a minuscule amount of traffic inCrease.on South "H" Street, Panama, Hosking and Wible Roads. Regarding the staff report comment that the proposal is inconsistent with goals and policies of the 'Circulation Element of the 2010 'Plan he said these are conclusions which are not based on specifics. He felt their proposal is not an unreasonable development, is consistent with the Circulation` Element and he did not feel the additional circulation mitigation is necessary. Minutes/PC, 12/i7/92 Page 13 - Pflblic portion of the hearing was closed. . Commissioner Powers stated since the traffic document was received at such a late time he would not feel comfortable taking any action on this item, but would like additional time to rek, iew it. Commissioner Marino agreed with th ese commen ts. ResPonding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Moreland said during the time-they have. been working with this property, Berkshire being a collector with an 0v~rcrossing Was ~never discussed. He felt possibly' the collector status could' be past the commercial zone. He said the advantage to them for apPlication of this-removal is a dollar figure of about $80,000 in the loss of 4-6 Maurice'Etchechury addressed-Commissioner Marino's questions giving history on their-tract 5535, s~iying at i:the time of design they never looked at br_inging the collector across the freeway. He said they are trying to save the financial impacts of redesigning. Commissioner Marino felt the numbers are not significant nor the cost of engineering Or cC~st of improvements. Impact to the major arterials are insignificant, however the' impact to Berkshire would be significant. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Kloepper gave an example of a variation of collector street in the Riverlakes Ranch area. The crossing of Berkshire and other improvements are nOt on the transportation -impact fee funding list, but are proposed to be added. He said because this area is a long-term project and if the Commission is considering dropping the collector to the area where there is no crossing the opportunity for this to happen at any time. in the-future is being-blocked. Discussion continued regarding other same type situationsin-which collector status has been dropped. Commissioner Marin° agreed with the applicants that there would not be a long. term significant impact' if there is not going to be an overpass here. He stated he would not oppose this request. Commissioner' Rosenlieb stated she would support staff's recommendation, saying -she did-not-feel there was any need to continue this item.. Mr. Guimarra stated there -is no certainty that an overpass would financially be provided for and they' may end up building a wider street which dead ends into the freeway, .having Jo-reserve land for an overpass which would not be develoPed.- In the process they would incur 'additional costs of paving, grading and Sidewalks. . Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 14 Commissioner Messner said he would not be ready to act on this item at this- - hearing. 'He was. troubled by the traffic report which shows no impact, however staff is adamant in needing an overcrossing. Commissioner Marino asked about continuance of this item to the January 7th meeting. The applicant was' in concurrence with this. Motion was 'made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the regular meeting of January 7, 1993. Motion- carried.. _ ~- ' Responding'to by Mr..Guimarra, Mr. Kloepper said staff challenges the accuracy of their traffic saying they have found some deficiencies and information has been received from CalTrans which also' questions the adequacy of the report. · ._ Commission er Messner Stated he would like further elaboration of the challenges to the traffic re at the next.hearing. Mr; Kloepper felt Mr. Gauthier's introductory statements stated-the traffic report issues very well. The report .covers ground floor issues. If it shows that the impacts of the proposal do not result in degradation ofnnpacts below level of service "c" then something can be considered~ however it should'not be the sole criteria in choosing to delete-or not delete the coll~/ctor rOad~ - *Break was taken at this time PUBLIC HEARING - GPA 4-92, SEGMENT V - Staff report was given, -Roger Mclntosh was present representing the property owner. He Stated agreement with staff report' and conditions of approval. Mr. Kloepper asked that their memorandum of December 9, 1992 be included in the Exhibit "A" conditions. Mr McIntosh stated his agreement with these 'cOnditions. - 9.5 a&b Public portion of the' hearing was closed. ~Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 15 wasmade by cOmmissioner Cohn, secOnded by Commissioner Messner to resolution making findings as set forth in staff report, approving the- Negative Declaration and approving the requested LR (Low Density Residential) land use .designation'subjeCt to conditions shown on Exhibit 'A", with the the_pUblic Works memo dated December 9, 1992. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh,' Marino, Messner, - Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resOlutitn-making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zoning district subject to conditions shown on Exhibit "A", and subject to Public Works memo-dated December 9, 1992. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None 'None( 9.6) PI~BLIC HEARING - GPA 4-92, SEGMENT VI Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by:Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to resolution making findings approving GPA 4-92, Segment VI authorizing staff to amend City 2010 Land Use Map consistent with County changes as ihdicated in Table 1, and recommend same to the City Council.-~ Motion carried by the g roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 AYES: Page 16 Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None 10. ABSENT: Nont.. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - TO FIND A PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL SITE CONSISTENT' WITH THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN Staff report was given .... No in oppositiOn or ~n favor of this item: Commissionei~- Messner felt the County addressed the pockets of hazardous very well with ~osed mitigatiOn. He asked why a condition of mitigation was not placed on this item. Mr. Grady responded saying this is simply a consistency finding; the decision is limited to a decision of whether this item is consistent with the general plan.. The State would place requirements on this site regarding' the school site. 'Commissioner Messner asked if a finding can be made for'mitigation in this case. Mr: Grady said some language could be included in the motion .that the commission would find this consistent as long as the mitigation recommended was- of the project. Commissioner Messner felt this was- a Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Gauthier said all old land use sites must go th¥ough a'process to be closed. Commissioner Hersh said his concern was that after the school is constructed that the asphalt would have to be torn. out placing a great deal of dust in the air. 'Commissioner Marino said-the report states there will be an insignificant risk if the county performs the Work recommended which is either two feet of natural dirt imported to the 'top of the site or asphalt. Dennis Scott, Kern High School District, spoke saying the Commission should have received-correspondence from the County which stated they would perform all mitigation prior to construction. Commissioner Marino stated the letter indicated the writer would recommend to the Board of Supervisor's that they appropriate funds for mitigation, the Commission nor the high school 'district is in control of this. · Mr. Scott said if the mitigation was not performed they would not begin construction. Messner felt the asphalt cap was the appropriate mitigation, stating he was satisfied that public health would be protected with this route. Minutes, PC, 12/17/92 Page 17 ' Commissioner Rosenlieb asked if a provision of mitigation, could be added to the motion, Ms. Marino stated it could be stated that this item' is consistent with the general plan as long as mitigation is provided. Motion-was made by-Commissioner Rosenlieb to find the proposed high school #4-site consistent with the: Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010-General Plan as to its location, purpose and extent as required by Government Code Section 65402 (c), the soilcontamination from adjoining site is~fully mitigated prior to the -- school site becoming occupied. Messner asked if Commissioner Rosenlieb Would 'be comfortable referencing the December 14, 1992 letter by the County. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked_if his intent was to limit this to an asphalt cap. Commissioner Messner felt-it shouldbe clear that fully mitigated means in accordance with the December.-14, 1992 memo. r Rosenlieb amended her motion to include a definition of fully. mitigated ~being per the December 14; 1992 letter from the County Waste Management De' C0mmiss~oner Messner seconded the motion which carried~ lIa) COMMISSION RECONSIDERATION OF REFERRAL OF DRIVF; THROUGH SERVICES ORDINANCE TO COMMITTEE Commissioner Powers stated he had decided to abstain from any further discussion on this issue-and would not vote on it. He said 'this item will be heard when it comes back-from committee review with the neighbors and the industry- by the-zoning committee. 'He appointed Commissioner Cohn as the chair of this committee' for this issue only. Commissioner Cohn stated his concern over this issue is that there be an' element of fairne,, ' however he did' not suggest there was not fairness in how the previous committee looked at it. He stated he appreciated Chairman Powers appointing him-to the d agreed with his intent of trying to avoid any appearance of impropriety on the commission's part. He stated his concern that the public feel thattheir views Would begiven consideration. He said he wished to dispel the possible feeling that he felt there was some impropriety. He felt there may have been a mlsperception by some, however felt that the necessary steps have been taken:to clear that up. Commissioner Messner stated he felt the appointment and Chairman Powers abstention was the right .thing to do. Minutes; PC,-12/17/92 Page 18 Commissioner Marino stated he was on the previous committee which looked at this ordinance, he said the intent was to bring forth an ordinance that would make it difficult to circumvent the conditional use permit process. He said he was. not comfortable with the perceived conflict which has been raised by'those who have not even seen the ordinance. He felt this issue has been blown out of proportiom He.' req Chairman Powers remove him from the committee and replace him with someone else, stat. lng he would rather not deal with it at this time and would-like to determine before the next hearing whether he has a conflict of interest. He said in grey areas it has been left to the individual commissioner to make their own judgement call, stating his disappointment in the handling of this situation. He again asked that he be replaced on the committee with another commissioner. Commissioner Powers stated Commissioner Andrew is the :alternate for the committee. Commissioner Hersh said what needs to be considered is service-to the Public and that'.their - should be strongly taken into account. He welcomed the change that came about in this situation, because he felt the public's perception was tainted and felt it was-up to the commission to change this perception. He stated he felt the-suggested moves are appropriate. 12. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Chairman Powers stated the Zoning be made up of Commissioners cohn, Hersh and Andrew. . COMMUNICATIONS ^) Written . Mr.' Grady cited a litter received by Mr. Nickels, which was distributed to Commission, asking for direction by the commission.' Chairman Powers stated it would be appropriate to refer this item to staff for response. B) Verbal None. COMMISSION COMMENTS None MinuteS; PC, 12/~7/92 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjOurned at 9:00 p.m. Laurie' Davis Recording Secretary