Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, April 21, 1994, 5i30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEVE MESSNER, Chairperson JEFF ANDREW, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO DARREN POWERS, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS! Present: sTAFF: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works DireCtor DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Assistant Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None 4. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR 1994 CALENDAR YEAR Action was taken on this item at the meeting of April 18, 1994. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 ~5. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR EAST HILLS MALL PCD Page 2 Staff report recommending approval was given. Philip Thrane represented the applicant. He described the project. Commissioner Marino said he appreciated additional landscaping at the project site. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to make findings set forthi in the staff report, and approve the Final Development Plans .and Comprehensive Sign Plan for P.C.D. 4808 Phase III, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. Responding to question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Thrane said landscaping would be consistent with the rest of the development. Motion carried. APPEAL HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW 220-94 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING: ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF A 6-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT IN LOTS ! AND 2 OF TRACT 5245 - PHASE I, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRIMiHALL, EAST OF MONDAVI WAY Staff report recommending denial was given. Chairman Messner stated..Agenda Item #9 would be taken concUrrently with this item. Ron Fuller spoke in favoL' He read a statement into the record stating he would like to leave the wall in place for aesthetic reasons only. He said the small portion of the wall functions as an architectural relief to balance the project's monument sign at the corner of Brimhall and Mondavi Way. The monument sign aesthetically compliments Castle and Cooke's monument sign. He felt recommendation for approval with conditions should have been made. The condition being a mitigating condition from the Water Department requiring the property owner provide the city with a covenant on the property making the land owner responsible for any damage of the concrete block wall, swimming pool and landscaping if water main failure occurs. He stated his agreement with this condition. He felt this is a better situation for the city than the present situation of the city incurring the cost if a water main breaks, saying he did not see a reason that staff would not recommend approval. He said a letter in favor of this proposal from an adjacent property owner was in the packet. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 3 Mr. Fidler said a 4-1/2 foot minimum fence would be required along the _ 'boundary. Responding to question bY Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady said there was no indication this was an intentional encroachment. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question indicating the encroachment into the easement is not a problem for traffic travelling either on Brimhall or Mondavi with regard to site distance. Mr. Grady reSponding to questions by Commissioner Brady explained that this is an unusual situation in which denial is being recommended. He said the situation was found after the project had begun, with the applicant submitting a plan and offering a covenant for the wall which is atop the water main. If the public utilities easement had not been under the wall staff would have made a recommendation that the request be approved. Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hauptman, City Water Department indicated there would be no problem if this item were approved with the proposed covenant. Commissioner Marino said he would be in favor of approving this with the covenant. Commissioner Delgado stated he had viewed the site and would be willing to support this request with the appropriate covenant. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in Staff report, not upholding the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee dated January 24, 1994, and approve the request to allow a six-foot high wall and column within the landscape easement, with the addition of the following condition: Within 30 days of approval of this request, a covenant shall be placed on the land that in' the event of failure of water line by presence of the wall the property owner, shall be responsible for any repairs to the water line and repairs of the wall.' changing finding #'s 5 and 6 as follows: o The proposed project is consistent with the City landscaping policies and ordinances. o The proposed project is in the best interest of the Public's health, welfare and safety. Motion carried. ~Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Andrew pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the Summary Abandonment of a portion of the 6 foot ~Public Utilities easement in Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 5245 - Phase i consistent .With the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and report the same to the City Council. Motion carried. 7. REVISED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN #3-94 Staff report recommending approval was given. Don Barker, 1587 Orchard Drive, Ojai, California represented the application. He stated agreement withi staff's analysis and recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan 3-94 subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Motion carried. 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5665 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the applicant. He submitted a letter requesting changes to conditions of approval. Regarding Condition #1.3 of Public Works conditions he said it required the Buena Vista Canal be shown as a lot on the map and they have elected to show this as not a part and requested it be deleted in its entirety. Mr. KloepPer stated agreement with this request. Regarding condition #12 of Public Works conditions he said they are requested the word "walls" be included. He gave history saying when the developer developed an adjacent tract they obtained approval to place landscaping and a chainlink fence with redwood slats along Buena Vista Canal. He said they are asking for a like kind approval for fencing and landscaping along the west side of Old River Road. He stated their requested wording as outlined in the letter dated April 21, 1994. He said this would avoid submittal of a conceptual plan. Mr. Kloepper stated agreement with this proposed change. He stated their request for removal of Public Works Condition #'s 15.2 and 15.3 because they are unnecessary at this time. The situation will be dealt with when the balance of the R-3 property is developed. Mr. Kloepper~stated he had no objection to eliminating these conditions. Regarding deletion of Condition #2 of Fire Department conditions he said a fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute was required, however since they are agreeing to a covenant restricting the lots to single family residential he requested this be changed: to 1,000 gallons per minute. Mr. Kelly, Acting Fire ~Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 5 Chief stated this would be acceptable. Regarding Condition #3 of Fire Safety Control Mr. McIntosh asked that the wells be located and marked by either a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. Concerning condition #5 of Planning Department he requested, this be revised to read as follows: The subdivider shall match existing walls and landscaping to the north on Old River Road adjacent to Tract 5616." He said this would bring it in compliance with the intent of Public Works conditions. Mr. Grady was agreeable to this rewording, however asked that the word "fencing" be included. Condition #8 of Planning Department conditions he requested change as noted in the letter to allow them to apply for R-2 zoning rather than obltain it, saying the process takes approximately 4 months and they are ready to begin construction at this time. Responding to question by Mr. Kloepper concerning contribution toward railroad crossing construction, Mr. McIntosh said the traffic study identified traffic south on Old River Road to be. ~minimal since densities are being reduced and the traffic department decided because it is minimal, a fee was not required. Mr. Kloepper asked for agreement to a revision to Condition #18 to add 18.4 so that the developer would pay a proportionate share of the cost of the railroad crossing improvements. Mr. McIntosh stated his agreement with this condition. Responding to question bY Commissioner Powers, Mr. Kloepper indicated he did not feel if Condition #1.3 were deleted it would allow deviation to fencing and landscaping on the west side of Old River Road. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. McIntosh was agreeable to providing wording limiting this subdivision to single family dwellings. Mr. Grady responded to questions by Chairman Messner saying the map as proposed would bring the 'Property into conformance with the general plan and zoning because the line would be moved to include the tract within the R-2 district. Regarding concerns of Commissioner Marino concerning fencing on the west side, Mr. McIntosh stated his intent to extend the fencing and landscaping south of the canal and a possible exchange to the west. Mr. KlOepper responded to question by Commissioner Delgado saying it would be more consistent to have a ~block wall in front of the canal, however a decision has been made to use chainlink with slats and it would seem more appropriate to continue this. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady explained the basis for finding #21 concerning minimum cul-de-sac frontages and layout of the cul- de-sac as it relates to parking on the street. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 6 Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. McIntosh said' he had no problem with Finding #2!. Public portion of thee hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5665 with a reduction in lot area, interior and corner lot width, and depth as requested by the applicant, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," with the inclusion of the letter from Martin2McIntosh dated April 21, 1994, making changes to conditions and addition to Public W6rks Condition #18 adding the following: 18.4 developer shall pay proportionate share of the railroad crossing for Old River Road. The addition of the following condition: Inclusion of C.C.&R.'s limiting each 10t to One residence Per lot. Condition #5 of Mr, McIntosh's letter shall be revised to read as follows: The subdivider shall match existing walls, landscaping and fencing 'to the north on Old River Road.adjacent to Tract 5616. Fire Department Condition #2 to be changed to reflect 1,000 gallons per minute. Motion carried. 8.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5768 Commissioner powers said he had conflicts of interest on remaining items on the agenda except one and excused himself, from the meeting. Chairman Messner stated a request had been received for a continuance on this item. Commissioner stated he had a conflict on this item as well as item #'s 8.3 and item #10, therefore he exCused himself from the hearing. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, Seconded by Commissioner Delgado to continue this item to the meetings of May 30, and June 2, 1994. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 8.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5678 Page 7 Commissioner Messner he said his residence is within the park maintenance district for this area and could have a conflict of interest. He therefore excused himself from voting on this matter..Commissioner Marino was designated interim chairman. Staff report recommending approval was given. Michael Kelly, Acting Fire Chief stated during discussion with the applicant's representative it was apparent that current design of the tract would not allow a requirement for minimum 50-foot setback from the pipeline, therefore a compromise was reached in which a minimum 25-foot setback with construction of six-foot, masonry blockwall Would be constructed between the pipeline and habitable structures. Public Portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Sandy Hughes was present and stated her property borders the proposed tract. She was concerned about maintaining reasonable privacy and rising assessment fees. Yolanda Sparling stated her concurrence with this proposal. She also stated she represented neighbors at 8501 Del Forrest stating they concur with the staff report and conditions and would be willing to provide this concurrence in writing. Mr. Fidler was cOncerned ;about the block wall creating a 15-foot area of dead space. Roger McIntosh represented the property owner. He submitted letter dated April 21,~ 1994 requesting changes to conditions. He requested deletion of Public Works condition #18.2. Mr. Kloepper concurred with this. Regarding Condition #20 of Public Works he requested it be reworded as follows: "With each phase to be recorded the subdivider shall construct along and adjacent to each phase: 20.! full improvements including wall and landscaping along White Lane, Gosford and Pin Oak. Park Boulevard including the right turn lanes at Umbrella Pine Way and Sugar Pine Street." Mr. Kloepper said he saw White Lane as being a fairly major link in the arterial system. He said he could agree to changing this to read "from Gosford Road to the west P.G.&E. easement boundary." as long as sidewalk is installed from the west boundary of P.G.&E. easement to Pin Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. McIntosh argued they are looking at developing the northerly portion first and do not want to have to install walls and landscaping on White Lane up front. He suggested the following wording: "With recordation of the phase fronting along White Lane, subdivider shall construct along and Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 8 adjacent to White Lane up to the towerline easement." Mr. Kloepper felt staff could work with Mr. McIntosh on this issue. He asked that Public Works Condition #21 be change~l to read as follows: "With the phase west of the towerline easement recordation, the' subdivider shall construct full improvements including wall and lands, caping along Pin Oak Park Boulevard from White Lane to the north tract boundarY and along White Lane to the towerline easement.", 21.2 to read: "With the second phase to be recorded east of the towerline easement, the subdivider shall construct full improvements on Dead Bark Drive from Pin Oak Park Boulevard to the phase being developed." Mr. Kloepper felt Dead Bark Drive shoUld be constructed between the developed area and Pin Oak Park Boulevard at least with the second phase or sooner because of the need for circulation due to the location of the junior high school. Regarding Planning Condition #16 Mr. McIntOsh requested it be amended to read as follows: "Dead Bark Drive shall be extended to Pin. Oak Park Boulevard in conjunction with recordation of' more than '180 lots east of the towerline easement." Mr. Movius stated staff's preference that Condition # 16 be deleted in its entirety stating he felt Public Works wording handled this condition satisfactorily. Mr. McIntosh concurred with this change. He also stated his concurrence with Fire Department memo. He reqUested deletion of Planning Department Condition #17 saying he had discussed with the adjacent residents the limiting of the lots to single storY, therefore a block wall is not required by code between two single storY residential developments. Mr. MoviUs felt it was appropriate if it is desired by the adjacent property owners and due to the discretionarY nature of the modification request. He requested deletion of Planning Condition # 18 saying if they match lot lines they would lose one lot along the northerly side. He said he was not aware of an ordinance which requires fhe matching of lot lines. Mr. Movius stated staff's recommendation that this condition not be deleted citing a recent situation in which this condition was imposed. Staff was not of the opinion that the loss of one unit would be detrimental because there are 289 units. He asked for rewording of Planning Condition #20 as follows: "A six-foot block wall along Pin Oak Park Boulevard and landscaping to match the existing landscaping to the north shall be constructedi Any wall transition necessarY from the existing wall along Pin Oak Park Boulevard and the proposed wall shall be at smooth angles or curves. Sharp angles to achieve differences in landscape widths will not be allowed. Conceptual landscaPe plans shall address this transition in detail." Mr. Movius stated no objection to this change. Regarding necessity for paying into maintenance district costs, he said he would prefer to spread the increase in cost over the entire district because the entire district benefits from landscaping and reduction in densities, saying he realized this may be a moot point after Council · budget hearings because of their proposal to combine existing maintenance districts. He stated concurrence with memo dated April 21, 1994 from the Planning Department concerning walls and landscaping on double frontage lots and six-foot high block Wall along pipeline easement. He also stated cOncurrence 'with Building Department memo dated April 18, 1994 and Fire Department memo dated April 21, 1994. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 9 Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Movius said the assessment increase is 53% and in discussions and in written correSPondence from the developer he indicated he would pick up the reduction in density. If he does not it would result in a fairly.significant increase in cost throughout the district. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. M°vius cited Planning Department Condition #15 which restricts the four lots abutting existing development to Single story. Mr. McIntosh agreed with this condition. Commissioner Marino felt if a block wall is constructed two fences would exist from wood and one blocklwall, saying he felt this would not be aesthetically pleasing.. Ms. Hughes felt the block wall would give them separation from the proposed subdivision. Ms~'Sparling said their subdivision is currently surrounded by block walls. Commissioner Delgado stated his reluctance to rely on the Council's action to reapportion assessments for landscaping and park areas. He said he was reluctant to approve this type of project because he felt it was in conflict with finding # 12 which states the modification would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Commissioner Brady said ~he was concerned about the applicant not having to construct walls until construction occurs to that point. He cited fires which have burned this property recently asking if the Fire Department representative felt having Walls constructed before commencement of construction would have a deterrent effect on additional fires. Mr. Kelly, Acting Fire Chief, said the possibility exists that if the exterior walls were constructed far enough along the sides of the project it would make it inconvenient to enter the area and may help to deter this. Responding to question bY Commissioner Brady, Mr. Movius said fencing along the easements would be e~ected as the project is phased. Mr. McIntosh said even in the event walls are constructed before.development, openings have to be allowed. Responding t° question by Commissioner Marino concerning the letter from Panama-Buena Vista School District, Mr. McIntosh felt one left turn lane on Gosford Road would be sUfficient. Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, responded to question by Commissioner Marino, saying the installation of a left turn lane at Gosford Road and Sugar Pine Lane would enhance the flow of traffic. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 10 Responding to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Movius said similar easements have been walled off as a corridor as is proposed on this subdivision. Staff has documented some over the fence dumping, however it was a situation in which they had easy access. In other situations in which a gate did not occur it was much less prevalent. The Police Department has indicated they want a gating system which they can easily see through. Responding to question bY Commissioner Marino, Mr. Movius said the overall density is 7.90 units per net acre. The applicant could build apartments at a lower density. Mr. Lee said the net acreage is significantly reduced on this proposal because the powerlines are taken out of the net acreage, however in construction of an apartment complex the powerline easement would be included in the net acreage. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question by Commissioner Marino, saying maintenance assessment fee would be based on the estimated dwelling units for the project. Commissioner Marino stated he supported Council's concept of combining assessment district, however would not take this into consideration since it has not been accomplished. Mr. McIntosh said this property is contributing toward maintenance of all landscaping and parks within the district and is asking that the additional landscaping which would normally be maintained by the multi-family portion, be spread throUghout the district because the entire district is benefitting. Regarding the 15-foot Space behind the pipeline Mr. McIntosh said a gate would be installed off Gosford Road and to the sump for access to allow for maintenance. Assistant Chief Kelly said as long as the Fire Department can enter and exit from either end this would be acceptable. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to deny the request for a modification to reduce the cul-de-sac frontage and approve the request for modification for the reduction of lot area, lot depth, interior lot width and corner lot width as requested by the applicant with the exception that no reduction in lot area or depth is allowed on lots 258 through 261, and approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5678 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," as amended to include Parks Department conditions and additional Building Department conditions as referenced in the memo from the Planning Department dated April 21, 1994. In addition the changes to conditions requested in the letter from Martin-McIntosh, outlined as follows: Public Works Condition #18.2 to be deleted. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 11 Public Works Condition #20 be modified so that the block wall on Gosford Road would be phased to be put in at the time the phase on Gosford is developed. Fire and Safe .ty Control Condition #1 - require a 25-foot setback with a 6- foot high masonry Wall which allows entrances and exits at each end as per memo from Fire Department dated April 21, 1994 with the addition that the proper _ty-between the masonry_ wall and canal being a separate lot with provisions for ingress/egress on each end. ~ Planning Department condition #16 to be deleted. Planning Department Condition #'s 17 and 18 would remain as written. Planning Department Condition #20 to be modified as per the aPplicant's request. Addition of the Building Department's memo of April 18, 1994. Addition of Public Works condition to read as follOWS: A left turn lane for, northbound traffic on Gosford Road shall be constructed at Sugar Pine. Public Works Condition #21.1 amended to read as follows: full improvements, including wall and landscaping, along Pin Oak Park Boulevard from White Lane to the north tract boundary shall be constructed with the phase adjacent to Pin Oak Park Boulevard. Motion carried. Commissioner Delgado voted no. 10. FILE 5502 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY SKIP HARDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMII.Y DWELLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN R,1-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/- ACRES, CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 26.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERAIJ.Y LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF WIBLE ROAD, NORTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD, AND SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAl. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 12 George Robertson, 7254 Wible Road spoke saying he was representing owners of property opposed to this Zone change. He referenced a letter from Mr. Hardisty asking the city to initiate down-zoning of his property, saying he wanted the commission to be aware that this request did not come from other property owners in the area. Regarding a statement in a memo from Mr. Hardisty concerning a tentative tract map application being received for parcel of property west of Wible Road, he said this has not been submitted to the city. He said a tentative tract 5768 is proposed which does not include the property in question. He said subject property was only 200 feet wide at the narrowest point and approximately 400 feet at ,the widest. Wible Road will soon be a 4-lane arterial and he was concerned about the amount of ingress and egress. He felt the best use for this prOperty is commercial. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Robertson said Mr. Fambrough, Mr. Tackett and Mr. Meadows were present as property owners opposed to this proposed Zone change. Mike Callagy 'said he was asked by Mr. Hardy to represent him. He referenced five pieces Of property in this rezoning application. He gave history on the necessity of this change of'~ zone, saying this application would bring the properties into conformance with the 2010 General Plan. He said the bulk of the landowners are in' favor of, this change of zone. He said vesting tentative tract #5762 exists for Mr. Hardy's project in which grading and street plans are approved. He asked that the archaeological study be waived for this parcel. He felt if Mr. Fambrough and Mr. Tackett do not want their properties zoned - residential the logical procedure would be to file a general plan amendment to change the designation and a zone change. Regarding the archaeological report, Mr. Grady said it was his understanding the zone change property is intended for further subdivision, at this time the archaeological inventory Would be looked at. He said language could be added to Condition #2 which' would require that upon further Subdivision the archaeological surVey would be required. Roy Gargano spoke saying he was a major partner in the ownership of property at the southwest corner of. Panama Lane and Wible Road. He said the city council approved a change in zone for this 9-acre parcel for a major shopping center on conditi°n that the ultimate change in zone. for commercial property would be accomplished. He said the application for general plan amendment was signed by every property owner. He felt the best use for this property is residential. 'He asked that the area be made to conform to what the parties initially agreed to. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 13 Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mike Callagy said property owners Signed the original general plan documents in favor which proposed the change to residential designation. Commissioner Delgado was concerned that there appeared to be an effort to change individuals property rights. Responding to question by him, Ms. Marino said a condition was placed on the general plan amendment and zone change for the corner of Wible Road and Panama Lane that the applicant record a document that they could not construct anything on the property within two years until the subject property was rezoned. Mr. Callagy said also a moratorium was placed on building to a date specific that a supermarket could not be constructed until the property was rezoned. Also the City Council in approving the zone change for Mr. Gargano's property wanted the zone change for this property brought back to them for approval. Mr. Grady suggested if information is needed on a previous approval from the City Council he would like time to obtain the i~iformation from the case file and felt this issue would have to be continued. Commissioner Delgado stated his reluctance to make a decision on this item without this information. Commissioner Marino felt~ what happened in the past on Panama and Wible was in the past and the Commission must deal with the issue at hand. He stated he would support staff's recommendation because he felt this is a cleanup action to .bring zoning into conformance with the general plan. He said he would be agreeable to this item being brought back to the Commission at the next general plan cycle and forming a Committee to discuss the issue. Discussion continued regarding options available to the Commission. Commissioner. Marino said he would be in favor of leaving the two portions of property zoned C-I~ zoning the balance of the property R-1 and direct staff to bring the general plan back on the 6 acre portion at the next General Plan Amendment cycle. Commissioner Brady was in favor of a continuance of this item to a future hearing to obtain the additional information concerning the council's action. Motion Was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to the meetings of May 2nd and May 5, 1994. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 ~ Page 14 1994-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET - 11. DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY 12. 13. WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS Mr. Kloepper gave presentation on items of interest to the Commission such as seismic retrofit for fire station #2, widening of intersection of Stockdale and California Avenue, widening of Arvin-Edison and Farmers Canal crossings, widening of Panama Lane-Freeway 99 Bridge. He said these projects are being funded through transportation development fees and impact fees. He als° cited a study to look at the specific plan line for the 178 Freeway extension, wastewater treatment expansion. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Delgado pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the City of Bakersfield Fiscal Year 1994-1999 Proposed!Capital Improvements Program Budget consistent with the General Plan and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None Verbal Mr. Grady referenced decision reached on trails plan for Mr. Nickel's property in the northeast area, saying a master plan for the area was referred to the Urban Development Committee and a meeting is scheduled for May 11, 1994 al noon. He said since standing committees do not exist members should be appointed to attend this meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Messner welcomed new commissioners. Minutes, PC, 4/21/94 Page 15 A. Committees 14. Discussion commenced regarding committee assignments. Chairman Messner appointed! himself, and Commissioner Marino to the Urban Development Committee. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Marino.said the focus on this committee would be on amending the Kern River Element of the General Plan and since Commissioner Boyle's firm represents Mr. Nickel her initial impression would be that he would have a.conflict. Commissioner Delgado volunteered and was appointed to this committee. Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mr. Grady said an agenda would be sent to COmmissioners on this committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Acting Secretary Assistant Planning Director