Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, July 16, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun AVenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEVEN ANDERSON, Chairperson DARREN POWERS, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN JIM MARINO STEVE MESSNER KATE ROSENLIEB ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ROBERT SHERFY, 'Assistant City Attorney ALLEN SHAW, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Assistant Building Director STAFF: 'Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Fred Starrh, Trustee of Kern High School District, spoke regarding mitigation of environmental impacts on new development for the Kern High School District. He said the trustees have authorized staff to work on this matter and move forward .in an expeditious manner. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Chairman Anderson encouraged the commission not to place a limit on time allowed for speakers, however he asked for those wishing to speak to be brief as possible as it relates to their comments. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve, minutes of June 4, 1992 as presented. Motion carried. 4. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS - TENTATIVE TRACT 5623 Page 2 Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is providing services to the applicant. Commissioner Powers chaired this hearing. Staff report was waived. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner 'Messner to continue this item to the next regular meeting of August 6, I992. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained. Commissioner Powers chaired this hearing. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 2-92 Chairman Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in that Castle & Cooke Development owns property adjoining subject property and the fact he has provided services-to them. Commissioner Powers abstained due to a perceived conflict of interest. Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a perceived conflict of interest in that he markets property for the applicant. Commissioner Cohn chaired this hearing. He stated a letter had been received from the applicant requesting this item be continued to the August 6, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked staff for report on question of landscaping on Stockdale Highway. She made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to continue this item to the' regular meeting of August 6, 1992. Motion carried. c Minutes, pC, 7/!6/92. 6.1 Page 3 puBLIC HEARING- EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6.2 9277 CommisSioner Andrew abStained due to a perceived conflict of interest in that he markets property, within 300 'feet of the prOposed project. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Maurice Etchechury represented the property owner. He stated all plans have been reviewed by the city engineer and approved for construction, therefore he felt the condition limiting access would be inappropriate. PubliC portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said his .recollection of the approval was that it did not include any specific driveway locations. He recommended for conformance purposes that the conditions be adopted as proposed. Commissioner Rosenlieb was in agreement with this _ recommendation. Motion-was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded.by Commissioner Cohn to approve a one-year extension of Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9277 as approved by the COunty with added conditions outlined in the Public Works memo dated July 9, 1992. MotiOn carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5369 Staff report was .given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Lee stated the applicant's reason for request for continuance being that the property owner has not had time to thoroughly review conditions of approval. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question regarding the slope condition, saying curb, gutter and sidewalk will provide a safe pedestrian way for those on Monitor. She asked that Condition #3 be rewritten for the next hearing in the case of continuance to the next hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 20, 1992. Motion carried..-~ - Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9798 Page 4 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was OPened; no one spoke in opposition. Maurice Etchechuryrepresented the applicants. He said in taking conditions into account regarding the extension of Northwind Court the cost would be great and the intent: of this map is to provide a lot for the applicant's daughter to build a home in order to care for her aging parents. In order to leave options open and to accomplish the applicant's desire he proposed that this Parcel map be two parcels only, parcel 4 as shown on the map with all other parcels being combined into one lot. They would then provide an offer of dedication or some type of easement for the future Northwind Drive. He felt it would be appropriate to eliminate Condition #4'of Public Works conditions and item #6. Mr. Kloepper felt it would be awkward to try to negotiate conditions since this is the first he has heard of this Proposal. He stated his willingness to meet with the applicant to work out these proposed changes, however his initial response to the removal of · condition #4 is that it would result in continuation and perpetuation of access 'onto Panama Lanewhich is an on-going problem. Mr. Etchechury stated vehicular access would be eliminated on Panama Lane, however he would like it to be done in such a way in which the applicant who has lived in the residence for 72 years would be able to maintain his address on Panama Lane, with the drive approach on Panama Lane being eliminated. Access to the property would be through an easement off subject lot. Conditions 6, 15, I6 and 18 and Planning Department's conditions to be changed to combine parcels 1, 2 and 3 and elimination of condition #7. Mr. Hardisty ~equested that staff be allowed to work with the applicant in redesigning the map in .order for staff to develop applicable conditions. Responding to a qUestiOn by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Etchechury was agreeable to a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August. 6, 1992. - Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner pOWers to continue this item to the next regular meeting of August 6, 1992. Motion carrie& Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 5 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5544 9.1 FiLE 5259 -- APPLICATION BY MARTIN-MCINTOSH TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A-20-A (AGRICULTURE~20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE-) TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR 46 +/- ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE, WEST OF CALLOWAY' DRIVE, NORTH OF THrE CROSS VALLEY CANAL. Chairman Anderson abstained due to a conflict 0f interest. Vice-Chairman Powers chaired this hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner .to hear thisitem concurrently with agenda item #9.1. Motion carried. Staff report was given. Mr. Hardisty pointed out that a letter had been received requesting two-week continuance of both of these items signed by the applicant and school district to allow time to work Out an agreement. Public portion of the hearing remained' opened since this was a continue public hearing; no one spoke 'in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the owner of subject property. He stated the purpose of request for continuance being a possible resolution of the school issue which he 'felt was close. He stated the tract has been designed for double- frontage 10ts the purpose being to allow for a landscaping median and landscaping along the sides. He felt it can be justified by definition in the subdivision ordinance which allows a finding to be made based on appearance asking for feedback from the commission on 'this issue. He felt the Situation would alleviate conflicts from people backing out of driveways on-this entrance to the subdivision. Responding to a question by Commissioner Cobh, Mr. McIntosh said he would be agreeable' to meeting in a committee setting on this issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to continue these items to the August 6, 1992 Planning Commission meeting-referring the tract map to the subdivision committee. Motion carried. MinuteS, PC, 7/16/92 Page 6 8.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5559 Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest. A continuance was'receiVed from the applicant on this item. Public Portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Maurice Etchechury stated they had submitted a traffic study in which CalTrans asked for revisions. Revisions have been made and CalTrans has accepted it, however a memo was not prepared for staff to provide a staff report. He therefore requested that continuance to August 6, 1992 be approved. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 6, 1992. carried. Motion 8.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5758 Request was received for continuance on this item. Staff report was waived. Commissioner Marino abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. EtcheChUry said a continuance was requested because staff has pointed out a discrepancy in the density being inconsistent with the Polo Grounds Specific Plan. He felt the issue could be resolved by the August 6, 1992 meeting. Motion was made by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to continue this item to the next regular meeting of August 6, 1992. MotiOn carried. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 7 9.2 FILE 5326 :- REQUEST BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) ZONE TO 'AN Rd1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OVER 10~4 +/- ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF THE CROSS VALLEY CANAL, .SOUTH OF SAND FOX COURT, EAST OF HARVEST CREEK ROAD, WEST OF RIVER RANCH DRIVE. Commissioner Anders°n was absent due to a conflict of interest. Staff report was. given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mike Roadcap, homeowner north of this project asked what type of impact this project would have in the distant future regarding proposed freeway. Mr. Hardisty said the specific plan line goes over this property which is presently zoned for industrial development. This proposal is to rezone it for residential development to match the existing general plan and subdivisions. Mr. Hardisty outlined the need for rezoning this property to residential. Public portion Of the hearing was closed. Motion was made bY cOmmissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and aPproving Zone Change No. 5326, consisting of an amendment to Chapter 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code from M-2 (General Manufacturing)t° R-1 (Single Family Dwelling). on 10.4 acres, subject to mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "A", and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call Vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb ' NOEs: -None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 8 10.FILE 5300 -- APPLICATION BY TELSTAR ENGINEERING TO PREZONE TO R-1 18,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-MINIMUM LOT SIZE 18,000 SQUARE FEET), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OF SAID PROPERTY LCOATED EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD KNOWN AS THE BRIMHALL NO. 3 ANNEXATION. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Neil Olson represented Kern High School District, stating in assessing the language' of Condition #2 he would prefer to work out wording specific to Kern High School District. John Kind represented the 'applicant asking for a continuance in order to give them time to work it out with the high school district. Mr. Hardisty said staff would try to fashion the condition similar to Fire Department condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 6, 1992. Motion carried. 11.1 a&b. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT III-A AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5320 Chairman Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice-chairman Powers chaired this hearing. He stated Zone Change #5320 had been withdrawn. Staff report was given. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave a summary of the general plan committee meeting on this item, stating the recommendation as outlined in memo dated July 10, 1992. Public portion of the hearing was opened.' .Mark Ashley resident of Haggin Oaks spoke reading a statement which is on file. He stated the Southwest Community Action Committee requested that the Commission vote to decline the request from the applicant, citing inadequacy of the phone surVey performed by the applicant. He also cited traffic increases -Minutes, 'PC, 7/16/92' Page 9 outlined in the staff report, saying he did not feel it included additional traffic to' be added as already zoned commercial areas are developed. Increased noise will disrupt the quiet'residential ne.ighborhoods. Twenty-four hour deliveries from commercial vehicles 'together with "project" noise from construction, regular business traffic and promotional activities will contribute to the noise problem. Economic disaster will occur in surrounding commercial projects because of so many other existing shopping centers in the area. Property values will be negative impacted due to the zone change and failure of existing shopping centers. Property owners purchased knowing the current zoning of residential. The proposed change violates the confidence placed in the Stockdale Master Plan and 2010 General. Plan. A 40-acre commercially zoned property exists less than one- half mile from this site with 180 acres zoned C-2 existing west of Old River Road. The project is Sized as a regional shopping center with the main tenant drawing from a 15-mile radius. This project will add more crime. He cited a petition containing 1,700 signatures which he stated he would submit. He felt this would add to the high-concentration of grocery stores. He felt in the' future there may not be enough business to support the existing stores. He asked the commission to consider what is best for the residents and community. He asked those opposed to stand, he estimated there to be 100 to 150 people standing. Jill Cleef, resident of Haggin Oaks, spoke addressed the'sound survey. She stated the mathematical approximation for sound pressure levels completed by the consultant was incomplete. It is merely the result of a mechanical formula and is not based on any field measurements. Contrary to the statements in the report, 3 dBA is not insignificant as it relates to sound pressure. She stated Table 2 of their survey is measured in sound intensity while the accompanying discussion revolves around so{ind pressure-measurements. She said some speed limits in the noise study were'listed incorrectly. The study did not address increased air pollution or the effect of vibration as the result of increased traffic. She stated she and a registered safety engineer, environmental assessor and engineering consultant meaSUred noise at the site instead of using mathematical apprOximations. The actual noise levels were measured at 85 dBA which varied sigMficantly from the applicant's low end figures. She said they are trying to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. She asked that zone change, P.C.D. or continuance be denied. Tom Lingo spoke in opposition.. He felt this would allow too much commercial development in'Such close proximity to up-scale neighborhoods and would adversely affect these neighborhoods. He stated his concern with increased traffic, congestion, noise, pollution and over-commercialization of the neighborhood. He felt the issue has been debated sufficiently and needed to be denied. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 10 Carey Ryan, owner of Action Sports located in the Town and Country Center, :spoke in opposition. He stated he pays a premium price for his business location and would be affected by competing stores in the area. This shopping center would cause conflicts for other businesses in the area also and is unnecessary. Gary. Eck spoke saying he felt this is a tenant-driven zone change. He felt a continuance would be for the purpose of separating and dividing those in opposition. He stated his opposition to commercial on subject property. Carol Burrell spoke on behalf of the Southwest Action Committee and residential property owners in the area of Ming and Gosford. She felt the' economic and aesthetic impacts on the existing merchants would be serious and felt the possibility of vacant shopping centers would be increased. She also was concerned about the precedent setting effect. She requested that action be taken at this hearing. Doug Eberts spoke saying he is a resident of Stockdale Estates. He said he and his neighbors are in OppOsition to commercial use of this corner. He felt the telephone survey was intentionally misleading, saying the action committee phoned residents who -felt they had been misled, changed their positions on the issue and are at this hearing to register their opposition. He felt the applicant's request for continuance is based on their opinion that the residents will tire and give up, which he said will not happen. He strongly urged the commission to deny a continuance so that the process may move forward. Mary Jo Eck, Southwest Community Action Committee, spoke saying she had met with the applicant Who did not listen to what the residents want. Caiol Miranda spoke saying she is a resident of New Stine Road. She stated her opposition to the zone change and growth in Bakersfield. She felt the proposed project does in fact create a significant effect on the environment as it relates to the increase in traffic. She felt this is the time to make a decision. Ruth Galman, 6633 Caine Way, represented her daughter who is a resident of the Oaks and stated her daughter's opposition to this proposal. She felt an environmental-impact report was necessary. She questioned why the applicant needs a continuance~ Roger McInt°sh represented the owner of the property. He said they have begun development of the P.C.D. plan which was agreed to at the committee meeting. He outlined issues which would be covered by the P.C.D. plan. Regarding ~previous testimony given he said the 2010 Plan addressed traffic impacts throughout the city saying the roads in the area were constructed for an increase in traffic. He said-they offered to work with the neighbors regarding the size of Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 11 the project and have agreed to submit a P.C.D. plan. Regarding the sound survey he said they plan to provide an indepth sound study and mitigation to meet standards addressed in the noise element of the 2010 Plan. Regarding the air pollution issue he said trips generated off a multi-family site would create longer trips than the proposed commercial site. He said their request is for a continuance of the:general plan cycle to the September cycle which would allow time to provide a-P,C.D, plan to be heard at the same time. He requested continuance of the general plan amendment and stated they withdraw the zone change: Judy 'Salamaka, Community RelationS, Castle & Cooke Development Corporation 'spoke saYing she has spent much time speaking with the residents of the area regarding their feelings on this project. She said she was convinced that by their survey of the neighborhood that a majority of the neighbors support this development. She cited a .random sampling telephone survey conducted by an independent company representing approximately 20,000 residents, saying 84 percent of the respondents were in favor of a market in the area, 94 percent saying they would like to see a restaurant, 98 percent saying they would shop in the proposed center. She commented on two community meetings being conducted saying representatives in opposition, in favor and those people who were unsure of their. Opinion were present. She said a representative of Smith's was present-to asSure those people that they will provide an upscale shopping -center. She.stated they had received 125 letters in support which she submitted to the Commission. She 'stated they have documentation which shows they have received an equal amount of 1,700 letters and phone calls in supPort of their project which she submitted. She asked that the Commissioners allow a continuance in order that they may meet with the neighbors to develop a P.C.D. p jan. Brenda Moscove and Robert Fletcher spoke saying they are independent researchers and Conducted two telephone polls for the applicant. She said the total adults surveyed were 1,335 total of those 45 percent preferred the quality shopping center, 32 percent preferred the apartment complex, 20 percent had no opinion, 2.7 percent suggested the use be something else. She submitted the survey information and results to the commission. Dale Caldwell, Director of Store Location Research for Smith's Food and Drug Centers'explained the proposal of their store. He said they are classified as a high-end supermarket in the industry. He said they are called a super-combo market by the industry in that it combines a full service grocery store, pharmacy '-and convenience-oriented departments within .one operation. He said convenience is a primary reason for people when shopping and felt this area is a very-convenient location. · Minutes, PC, 7/16/92- Page 12 Duane Keathley, CB Commercial Real Estate, stated his firm represents the applicant in the marketing of the project. He cited vacancy rates in the area being very loTM. David Milazzo spoke-in favor of the project. He felt this project would well exceed the quality of any project in the area. Phil.Turner, Senior Vice President, Castle & Cooke, spoke saying they have asked the neighborhood to join with them in planning the project. He said they have identified a need for this type of project in the area using every approach that they could within the. time frame given. Kathy Hayworth stated she is a resident of Laurelglen as well as maintaining a business in the area. She reiterated the comment that a great deal of misinformation was given. She felt a continuance would be reasonable. Public portion of .the hearing was closed. Commissioner Marino stated his concerns about the lack of control if this property is zoned commercially. He stated his inclination to grant the continuance bringing this project back in September. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked those present for appearing at this hearing. She stated regarding traffic that the applicant is using the 14-acre site to off-set impacts from the 30-acre :site. She questioned the rationale of this. Mr. Walker, City Traffic Division, said in reviewing this project these sites were separated as two separate reviews in regard to conditions. The traffic study showed change in traffic patterns with some streets receiving more and some less traffic. He felt they were too far apart to consider them as one change. He outlined the review of cumulative effects. Regarding apartment units for this site, Commissioner Rosenlieb said from her calculations only between 300-400 units could be constructed and not over 500 as stated by the applicant. Regarding the applicant's request for continuance based on school impact fees she stated there are no impact fees on this project. She stated she was not in favor of a continuance nor in favor of this project at this location. She felt the neighborhood made purchases in this area based on the master plan for this area, which this project is not a part. She questioned the need for more commercial in this area. She felt the environmental document is flawed. She stated her concurrence with the neighbor's feelings that a continuance be denied and that this project be denied. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 13 Commissioner Cohn felt both sides had presented good arguments. He concurred with a great deal of Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments. He said he felt that he had not heard a good reason to approve a general plan amendment which would change the property to commercial regardless of the size or the degree of control placed on it.. He stated he would not be in favor of a continuance because of his opposition to any commercial designation because of traffic and commercial development in the surrounding areas. Commissioner Andrew felt both sides presented good arguments. He stated his concern about the size of the proposed project. He felt there may be a need for a grocery store in this area, however he is also concerned about the amount of additional shop space given the fact that Smith's proposes many services within their store. He felt outstanding iSsues such as traffic could be minimized if this shopping center were 'down-sized. He was in favor of continuance on this item. Roger McIntosh said regarding the issue of cumulative impacts, that they are proceeding with a traffic study to address this which they propose to submit along with a P.C.D. plan in the event a continuance is granted. Regarding the school impact issue, he said a letter was submitted by the high school district requesting 42 cents per square foot above and beyond the State fees for the shopping center. Doug Eberts said it was his understanding the hearing was Closed for public comment asking if they could expect to hear the Commission's view of the project. Commissioner Messner said it was his understanding the school district's position on a zone change of this kind was different than the June 3rd letter submitted. He asked a representative of the high school district to address this issue. Neil Olson, Kern High School District said their position was and will be in the future that it is their desire not to increase commercial rates for development, but to leave it at its existing rate. Commissioner Messner felt a negative declaration for this project is appropriate. He felt this is the wrong site for this project stating he would support a motion for denial. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested GC (General Commercial) land use designation. Commissioner Frapwell stated his appreciation for audience participation and comments from the proponents, however felt this is the wrong location for this type of project. Minutes, PC, ?/16/92 Page 14 Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the motions covering the project and the motion for the negative declaration maY be segregated and voted on individually. She asked Commissioner Messner to divide his motion. Commissioner Messner amended the motion to read as follows: MOtion to .adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration. Motion died for lack of second. Motion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by CommissiOner Frapwell to adopt.resolution making findings as set forth in staff report disapproving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested GC land use designation. COmmiSsioner Rosenlieb responded to a question by Commissioner Cohn stating she woutd be agreeable to breaking up her motion. 'She asked if a finding needed to be added supporting denial of the negative declaration. Mr. Hardisty said the finding would be that the negative declaration failed to address significant impacts raised in public testimony. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by COmmissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report, disapproving the negatiVe declaration. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYEs: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb NOES: .Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Powers ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell t° adopt resolution:making findings as set forth in the staff report and disapproving the requested GC (General Commercial) land use designation. Motion carried by the-following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb Commissioners Andrew, Powers Commissioner Anderson Commissioner Marino Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 15 11.2 a&b PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT III-B AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5329 Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest. Staff report was given. Public portion Of the hea?ing was ~opened. Mr. Hartsell said the applicant and school district have jointly requested a continuance on this matter. Roger McIntosh rePresented the property owner. He stated a letter had been transmitted to the Commission signed by Phil'Turner representing Castle and Cooke and Steven Hartsell on behalf of Panama-Buena Vista School District and Kern County High School District. The reason for the continuance to the next cycle being to allow the developer and school district to work out an agreement. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to continue this item to the. next General Plan .Amendment Cycle. Motion carried. 11.3 a&b PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT VIII AND ASSOCIATED ZONE-CHANGE #5321 Staff-report was giVen. - Public portion of the' hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Neil Olsonl Kern High School District, said they have reached an-agreement with the applicant on this item. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner regarding bond funds he said he had submitted information in a document which he passed .out to the Commission previously. RespOnding to questions by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Olson said the fees agreed upon for each applicant will be for the same amount. He said issues still remain which need to be resolved and when this happens it is their intent to treat each develoPment equally. Dr. Williams, Panama-Buena Vista School District, said they have reached an agreement with the developer on this issue which reflects a square footage cost. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 16 Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Williams said he wOuld have-no objection to the deletion of specific conditions and findings that relate to the dollar amount of fees.: Steven Hartsell, Schools Legal Service, represented both districts saying both agreements contain a paragraph that states the approval is conditioned on full compliance with the memorandum of understanding. He requested this language replace those conditions which specify a particular dollar amount. He submitted this language to staff.: Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Williams said the $3.91 fee includes the $L65 fee for the State. The fee would not be assessed until the -281st house. Jim Delmarter represented-the applicant stating they are in support of all agreements made. -He said a traffic study was prepared for this project in combination with two-other projects. Regarding costs for traffic signals he stated they agree with the necesSity of them, however he felt the traffic signal portion identified in the condition as $117,480 should be $75,000 which would be $750 per acre. 'Mr. Kloepper said this flat rate of $750 per acre has been discussed and is felt to have merit. He felt the only way of pursuing it is by allowing developers to have an option which would be to prepare a traffic impact report and mitigate impacts identified or in-lieu mitigation for traffic signals of $750 per acre and a traffic impact report for exceptional items which this fee would not cover such as freeway widenings, freeway ramps, railroad crossings, canal crossings, etc. Discussion continued regarding a flat fee for traffic impacts caused by development. Mr. Kloepper said the fee of $750 per acre plus a $10,200 contribution would meet the traffic signal portion of the impact on this project. Mr~ Delmarter questioned the signal cost because it is listed as $150,000 when other signals have been listed at $120. Mr. Kloepper said this reflects an adjustment in the traffic report. He said he would be agreeable to the $750 per acre fee plus the $10,200 fee outlined earlier. Responding to questions by Mr. Delmarter, Mr. Hardisty said the condition regarding a fee for construction of a fire station has been deleted. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers, ' to adopt 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 as shown on Exhibit "A", with the following changes: Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 " ' Page 17 Use of findings frOm July 16, 1992 memo from the Planning Director instead of .those- from staff report _Condition #2 of Exhibit "A" to be changed to read as follows: -This apProval is exPressly conditioned on full compliancewith the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and Kern High School District dated July 15, 1992 and the Panama-Buena Vista School District dated July 16, 1992. Memo from Public Works Department dated July 15, 1992 shall be incorporated as conditions of approval with the changed that the proportionate shares and dollar amounts shown on condition #1 shall be deleted and at the option of the developer he may pay $750 per acre in- lieu of the amount shown with the exception of $10,200 as shown for the Panama Lane at Southbound 99 on-ramp. Finding #6 to read as follows: The agreement dated July 16, 1992 regarding school facility fees will mitigate impacts of the Panama-Buena Vista School District created by additional elementary and middle-school students. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: - AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson NOES: None Motion was made by COmmissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolutiOn making findings as set forth in staff report approving the 'Negative Declaration and approving the requested R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-l-CH (One Family Dwelling-Church)Zones subject to conditions shown on Exhibit "A", with changes made to the general plan amendment and with finding' #6 of the zone change, changed to read as amended for the general plan amendment approval. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Marino, Messner, Powers, _ Rosenlieb, Anderson NOES: None MinuteS, 'PC; 7/16/92 Page 18 11.4 a&b ~PUBLIC HEARING -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT X 'AND ASSOCIATED REZONING #5323 Commissioner Anderson declared a conflict of interest in that this property is within 300 feet of an app~cant's property that he has provided services for. CommissiOner Marino declared a conflict of interest because he is employed by the applicant. Commissioner Andrew declared a conflict of interest because he provides marketing services for a property owner within 300 feet of subject property. Commissioner Powers Chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. PUblic portion of-the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Steve DeBranch represented the property owner. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosen!ieb, Mr. DeBranch said they have reached agreement with the schOOl district. He alSo stated they would like to suggest that with the conditions in Exhibit ~'A" which read with respect to construction of improvements that a condition #16 be added as follows: "Construction of improvements listed in conditions #3~ 6, 7, 9,. 10 and 11 above shall be phased as approved by the City Engineer." ' Regarding Condition #10 concerning construction of a wall he said walls-exist in the area which separate R-1 and commercial zones which are plain gray block walls and he reqUested this condition be written to be consistent with what is existing rather, than split face block with rock pilasters. Mr. Hardisty was agreeable to this. He requested that Condition #13 - Fire Department issue be deleted. Regarding Condition #14 he said they would like to have language inserted that would reflect them paying the fee to the North Bakersfield ReCreation and Park .District but would like the option to make other acceptable arrangements with the district in-lieu of the fee. He asked that it be amended to read as follows: "Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map, the subdivider shall pay, t°, or make such other acceptable arrangements as agreed to with the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, an in-lieu fee of $1250 per gross acre (or a .total of $74,375)for park requirements for the development." He asked that Condition #15 be deleted from the memo from Jack Hardisty to the Commission dated July 15, 1992 in light of the other arrangements negotiated with the adjacent land owner. Mr. DeBranch said they were in agreement with the memorandum from Public Works dated July 16, 1992. Public portion of. the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 19 Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated his agreement with condition .changes proposed by the applicant~ Responding to questions by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. DeBranch said the berm is not' taking property away from the owner to the south, no changes are made to the south side of Meany. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, with mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", and approving GPA 2-92, Segment X, consisting of an amendment to the Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan and Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from LI (Light Industrial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 59.5 acres, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council with the following changes to Exhibit "A": Changes incorporated in the memo dated June 18, from Jack Hardisty to the Planning Commission. Condition #13 of Exhibit "A" deleted Condition #10 to be changed to read as follows: The subdivider shall construct a 6-foot high block wall between the proposed R-1 and existing C-2 properties, prior to recordation of a subdivision map. Condition #14 to be changed to read as follows: Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map the subdivider shall pay to, or make such other acceptable arrangements with, the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, an in-lieu park fee of $1250 per gross acre (or a total of $74,475) for park requirements for the development. The inclusion of the memo dated July 16, 1992, from Mr. Kloepper to Marc Gauthier of the Planning Department be made part of the conditions. Condition #15 to be added referencing Exhibit #'s 1 and 2 provided by the applicant with those Exhibits to become part of the condition. Minutes, pC, 7/16/92 Page 20 Condition #16 to be added to read as follows: Construction of improvements listed in Condition #'s 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 above shall be phased as approved by the City Engineer. Condition #t7 to be added to read as follows: This approval is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the · terms-and conditions of the memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and the Kern Union High School District dated July 16, 1992. She clarified that she did not include the memo dated July 13, 1992, which contained an additional condition #15 as part of the motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Anderson Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, with mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", and approving concurrent Zone Change #5323, consisting of a change from an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 59.5 acres, and from an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to a P (Parking) zone on 1.52 acres, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A", and subject to prior approval of GPA 2-92, Stgment X, and' recommend same to City Council with deletions, additions and amendments made in the prior motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: . AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Anderson Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 21 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to amend Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan Text, Maps and Exhibits as listed in:Exhibit "B", subject.to prior approval of GPA 2-92, Segment X and Zone' -Change #5323 and recommend same to City Council. She clarified there were no proposed changes-to Exhibit "B". Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES:~ None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Anderson 11.5 a&b PUBLIC HEARING ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT XI AND ASSOCIATED REZONING #5335 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Jim Delmarter:represented the applicant. He stated the High School District and Panama School District had entered into memorandums of understanding with the applicant which are similar to those of Segment VIII. He said an agreement was discussed with Staff regarding traffic fees of the memo dated July 15, 1992, of giving them the option of paying fees identified in item #1 or the option of $750 per acre, with the exclusion of the elimination of the first item which requires a payment of $1L280 and the last two items of $1,350 and $4,300. Mr. Kloepper Concurred with these changes. Regarding Item #14, he felt it would be changed substantially if they are given the option as proposed by him for condition #1. He suggested it be changed as follows: "The traffic impacts identified in items 1., 2., 3., and 13. above are based on 650 lots. The unit cost per single family lot shall be calcUlated to be proportionate to the 650 lots for which this memo was created." Regarding the memo of June 10, 1992, he said this property has a vesting tentative map on it in which Fish and Game fees have been paid. He requested that a "de minimus" finding be made by the Commission on this project.. He said :the developer would reimburse the city if in fact they are charged the fee through audit. Mr. Hardisty said the position of the city is that it is a different projec_t than the one for which the fee was paid. He said the fee is an exaction attached to the posting of the notice of determination. Mr. Delmarter said it is within the city's purview to make a "de minimus" finding and asked that the commission instruct them to do so, with the knowledge that he will pay. the fee if the State determines otherwise. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes,-PC, ~ 7/16/92 Page 22 Commissioner Messner questioned the possible posting of a bond if a "de minimus" finding is made. Mr. Hardisty said this project is a new project from that .which was approved Previously. Commissioner Marino felt a "de minimus" finding does not apply to this particular project. Motion was madeby Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the 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 following changes to the Exhibit "A": Condition #2 to be deleted Condition #3 shall read as follows: This approval is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and the Panama-Buena Vista School District dated July 16, 1992. Inclusion of' the 4 conditions of the June 18, 1992 memo from the Planning . Director Inclusion of-14 con:ditions from the July 15, 1992, memo from Public Works Department with the following changes: The dollar amounts and proportionate shares on condition #1 shall be deleted excePt St. Rt. 119 at SB St. Rt. 99 (lst line of condition #1 ($11,280) and St. Rt. 119 at SB 99 ramp (2nd to last line of condition #1, ($1,350) and St. Rt. 119 at NB 99 ramp (last line of 1st condition ($4,300). In-lieu of the amounts shown the developer shall have the option of ~paying $750 per acre. Condition #14 of Public Works memo shall be revised to read: The traffic impacts identified in items 1., 2., 3., and 13. above are based on 650 lots. The unit cost per single family lot shall be calculated to be proportional to the 650 lots and maintained regardless of the number of the lots that are finally created so that proportionate traffic mitigation will be achieved. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 The addition of Condition #5 to the June 18, 1992 memo from the Planning DirectOr to read as follows: Page 23 This approval-is expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the developer and the Kern High School District dated July 15,-1992. Finding #7 shall be deleted, Finding #6 to read as follows: The July 16i 1992 memorandum of understanding which addresses 'school facility fees will mitigate impacts to the Panama-Buena Vista School-Disffict created by additional elementary and middle school students. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson NOES:' None ABSENT: Commissioner Cohn Motion was made' by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution 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", with all changes and addition~ made in the previous motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: . NOES: ABSENT: 'Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson None Commissioner Cohn Mr. Hardisty clarified for Mr. Delmarter what conStitutes a phased project for Fish and. Game fee purposes. MinUtes, PC, 7/16/92 _ Page 24 11.6. ~ a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT XII AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5331 Staff repOrt was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Steven Hartsell, representing Kern High-School District, stated they would defer comment until the time of next hearing since a continuance has been requested On this item. Brian Batey, Batey Development spoke saying he wanted to continue this item to the next cycle stating he felt he would be more aware of the school mitigation costs: Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said action on the zone change and general plan amendment could be split. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Batey said he would nOt be in favor of continuing both items. Responding to a question by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Batey said the reason for continuance is the escalation of price that the school district would add to his lots and those opposed to the HMR designation at the previous hearing have requested that. he work With them further to address their concerns. Commissioner' Andrew said he had no problem with splitting the two applications. Commissioner Marino agreed. He proposed approval of the C-1 zone on the 5 acre parcel on the corner thereby deleting conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested $ acre C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district subject to conditions shown on Exhibit "A" with the deletion of Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 and continue the general plan amendment and R-1 zoning to the next general plan cycle. commissioner Rosenlieb asked if the commission should be considering requiring the block wall on commercial at this time. Discussion continued regarding this issue, Chairman Anderson said it was agreed upon in the committee meeting that a block wall would, not be required at this time but at the time the commercial is developed. Mr. Hardisty clarified if the commercial is approved with the Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 25 agricultural property being left until the next cycle any lots being constructed which abut this property will have to maintain a 50 foot setback from agricultural zoned property. Mr. Batey said it would not be a problem at this time, they will be back before the commission'before it becomes a problem. Chairman Anderson felt it may be cleaner to continue both items. Responding to comments, Commissioner Marino amended his motion to. include the requirement of a 6ofoot concrete block wall to separate the commercial zoning from agricultural designation. Amendment was seconded by Commissioner Powers. 12. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would not support this amended motion because she felt it is not good planning. She felt it would be a good idea to continue the entire application to the next cycle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: .AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers NOES: Rosenlieb, Anderson ABSENT: 'Commissioner Cohn Commissioner Anderson clarified the action taken on this item being that the general plan amendment was continued to the next cycle and the commercial zoning.was approved with-the addition of a requirement of a 6-foot concrete block wall separating the commercial from agricultural designation. With the clarification that the fence would be required with the on-set of development of the .commercial property. RESOLUTION OF BY-LAWS Resolution combining the provisions of Resolution #'s 7-92, 61-91 and 8-89, containing rules and regulations of the Planning Commission Staff rePort was given on this item. Mr. Hardisty clarified on Page 7, Item J., second line the word "CommisSion'' should be changed to "Commissioner." Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 Page 26 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt these by-laws. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Andrew, Frapwell, Marino, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cohn, Messner 13. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None 14. B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said a letter was received by the City Council from the Building Industry Association at the meeting of July 15, 1992, requesting that an EIR-be written to address school fees issue. This issue was referred to the Commission and will be brought back at a future date. Responding to a question by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said his position' is that-the City should pay for a portion of this EIR, the school district should pay a portion and the development community should pay the major portion of it. Commissioner Anderson felt this issue is long overdue and would be beneficial to everyone concerned. COMMISSION cOMMENTS Mr. Hardisty clarified a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, saying he would report to the Commission a staff recommendation as to how to proceed on the EIR for the school fees issue, and would schedule it for the next hearing. CommisSioner Rosenlieb thanked staff for their efficiency in providing the Commission with Such large volumes of information. Regarding a Previous question by Commissioner Rosenlieb about lot 122 of Tract 5074 in a Riverlakes Ranch project, saying it contained injection or well equipment on site, she asked if this lot would have been approved if it were not buildable. She asked 'that city staff look at this lot for a review of what is on it. Mr. Hardisty said'this would be done. Minutes, PC, 7/16/92 . Page 27 Mr. Hardisty outlined the Schedule for the next hearing for Commissioner. Frapwell. Commissioner Marino gave a report on the Trails Committee regarding multi- purpose trails in the Rosedale area. He cited 3 meetings to be conducted before the next heating being on July 24, 1992, with a State representative from an office which funds multi-purpose trails. He stated he would make a report back at the next hearing. A Council w~.orkshop will be held on this issue on August 5th. .Commissioner Anderson commended everyone for the way in which the hearing was conducted on General Plan Amendment, Segment III-A and Commissioner Powers for his. chairing of the hearing. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being' no fUrther business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned-at 11:56 p.m. Laurie DaVis ~ecre~a~ ,anmn.