Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, March 17, 1994, i5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB BILL SLOCUMB, Alternate Absent: STEVE MESSNER ADVISORY MEMBERS! Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal 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 Commissioner Rosenlieb asked about possible continuances and the timing of the amendments being heard before the City Council. Mr. Hardisty said flexibility has been provided for continuances to the next meeting that will not delay general plan public hearings to be heard before the Council. He suggested if items are continued beyond the first meeting in April that they be continued to the next cycle. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 4.1 a&b Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT I AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5544 Chairman Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he represents property owners in the area. Commissioner Marino chaired this item. Staff report recommending denial was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Miriam Raub Vivian spoke representing residents in Tevis Ranch asking that this application be denied. She felt the current general plan designation is compatible with the environment of the neighborhood. This development would significantly alter their neighborhood. She urged the commission to protect the environment of'the city and their neighborhood. Jim Kruse, 10008 Shadow Oak, said he had submitted a memo to staff. He felt the commission must vote in favor of preserving the neighborhood. Roy Wesson said. Tevis Ranch as a group is upset about the possibility of this development. He felt if these apartments are allowed a rise in crime will be the result. He was concerned about teenagers from schools in the area hanging out in this complex. He asked that the commission deny the project, thus helping them to safeguard their neighborhood and preserve the quality of life. Jerry Marquis stated he lived in close proximity to the proposed development. He said he had sent a letter in opposition to the Planning Department which is on file. He said he Strongly opposed this project because the mistake of overcrowding cannot be reversed once it is created. He was concerned about higher crime, lesser quality of life and loss of property values. Stephen Thomas stated he was a developer of Tevis Ranch. He felt if the density is allowed property values would diminish. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 3 Daniel Smart stated he was an attorney asked by several property owners to represent the neighborhood. He felt the project being proposed was not consistent with the 2010 General Plan nor the present zoning ordinance. The property owners purchased in the area taking into consideration the general planning for the area. The applicant's proposal is not consistent with nor complimentary to the existing land uses. He felt the applicant's proposal ignores the abundant pre-existing sites and the vacancy rates of existing developments. He stated their agreement with staff's findings. He asked that the application be denied. Maurice Etchechury represented the applicant. He asked for approval of this project. He said the project requires an 18-acre site so that the number of units can be constructed to allOw for proposed amenities. He 'stated a letter was submitted to staff requesting amendment of their application so that the general plan amendment be conditioned so that the HMR designation would only be ' effective with a PUD zone and that the zone substantially conform to the site .plan submitted and 12 conditions in the letter. He said applications are being processed on two HMR Project sites that would convert the use from apartments to single family residential uses which would be within the LMR range. He said they had conducted a meeting with residents where they presented evidence, however the group was nOt convinced this was an appropriate project. He felt the residents in the area were trying to extend their wishes over the owner's property. He asked if apartments cannot be placed here where should they go. He said they felt this project woul'd not be detrimental to properties in the area, saying resistance from residents makes it difficult to provide housing for low and moderate income familieS. He felt this Project would add to the neighborhood because it is gated and has one property owner. He was concerned that most of the letters received in opPosition were form letters. John Smith, General Manager, Bright Development, gave a summary of their proposal and previous projects they have developed. He said they build and -manage their own complexes. This development would be a long-term asset to them. He said they have not sold a multi-family project. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Etchechury said he would like flexibility to negotiate Public Works conditions with the director, if this project is approved. Terra Martinez spoke saying she had searched long and hard for her home and chose this location because of the lack of 'apartments and the fact that the surrounding properties were already zoned. Regarding the comment concerning sending form letters she said she had sent one, however it stated all of her concerns. She was concerned about this project affecting the possible sale of her property, and the possibility of reduction of property values. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 4 Michael Gerrity resident of Tevis Ranch felt the issue in this situation was profit for the applicant. ~ Ron Bickett spoke saying!he is a real estate appraiser. He said higher density residential development being constructed next to single family homes diminishes the values and utility of the adjacent properties and extends marketing time required to sell adjacent Properties. Mary Saunders stated her opposition. Steven Pelz felt the project is a well-designed apartment project and he would not have opposed it had the o~riginal designation for the project been HMR. However a consideration he made when purchasing his property was the fact that it was zoned LMR. Public portion of the heaiing Was closed. Chairman Marino stated a manual with information concerning the project had been submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave a history on this project regarding the designation at the time of adoption of~ the 2010 Plan. She felt this was a great project, extremely well designed, however she did not feel it belongs at this location because of its inconsistency with the general plan. The vacancy factor is substantial in this area. Commissioner Slocumb agked what evidence had been presented to excuse the applicant from submittingian EIR on this project. Mr. Hardisty responded the applicant had submitted ai traffic study which indicated they would provide their share of transportation improvements required to maintain level of service C for the area.. Responding to question bY Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said the· proposed conditions of approval include two additional intersections alluded to by the applicant in which he would provide 3 percent share of the cost; with this he felt traffic impacts are coVered. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Etchechury stated he would ~agree with additional conditions regarding traffic impacts. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. LaRochelle said the regional impact fee by itself does not constitute full traffic mitigation. The additional traffic study requested by staff is an attempt to cover additional mitigation necessary for regional impacts. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 5 Responding to question by Commissioner Siocumb, Mr. Hardisty said the traffic engineer must evaluate whether or not any impacts are not addressed in the fee structure and none have been identified as being directly attributable to this project on a regional basiS. Responding to question b~ Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Etchechury said their switching from an R-2 zone to a PUD would not affect the outcome of the traffic study or the mitigation because the only change was reshuffling of buildings within the development. Commissioner Hersh felt both sides of this issue had made good arguments, however stated he would support the residents and staff's recommendation because he felt the residents had made lifetime investments and now the developer is asking to change in the middle of the game. He felt the neighborhood would be impacted by this project and that enough R-2 zoning is available in the area. Chairman Marino said hewas pleased that the applicant has offered to bring a PUD request back to the Commission. He was concerned about uses that could be instituted in the current A zone. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Etchechury said examples submitted regarding Stone. gate development were 19.5 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Delgado p6inted out advantages of a single development such as with this project. He saidl he had been persuaded by those concerned about this project. He felt there were optional construction sites for this project. Commissioner Andrew said it was his understanding the vacancy rate in this area is approximately 10 percent. He said he has owned property close to apartments and has had no problems and has had rising appraisals, therefore did not feel apartments would bring the neighborhood down. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said staff could not recommend rezoning to R-2 at this time. Commissioner Messner felt the Commission must decide whether this project is needed for this community, saying staff has indicated it is not. He said he did not support this project, however since he missed testimony at the beginning of the hearing he would abstain from the vote. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the Staff report approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested HMR (High Medium Density Residenlial) land use designation, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Delgado, Hersh, Rosenlieb, SlocUmb NOES: Commissioners Andrew, Marino ABSTAINED: (Conflict of interest) ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers Commissioner Messner Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone, and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Delgado, Hersh, Rosenlieb, Slocumb NOES: ABSTAINED: (Conflict of interest) Commissioners Andrew, Marino Commissioner Powers ABSTAINED: Commissioner Messner 4.2 a&b *8-minute break was taken at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT Il AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5542 Commissioner Slocumb abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his employer is ·providing consulting services for the applicant. Commissioner Delgado abstained due to a conflict of interest due to an economic arrangement with the applicant's attorney. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 7 Commissioner Messner abstained due to a conflict of interest in that this project will potentially provide services for his employer. Mr. Hardisty clarified thei hearings for this project and said the whole of the project must be evaluated in an environmental sense, however the commission does not have the authorfty to approve or deny the use of the property for a cogeneration plant. He also said that if this application is approved, the applicant would have to hook up to' a sewer line and have the septic tank approved by the health department and meet requirements regarding noise level. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the heating was opened. Danny Russell, 10901 Pit~ Avenue, said he felt there was a need to keep these cogeneration plants in the oilfields instead of residential areas. He was concerned about the proximity of this proposed plant to school facilities and concern over the issue of water used for this project. He was concerned about the injection of steam and its effect on water quality. He stated his concern about the issues of noise and lighting. He asked for continuance on this item to allow him and his neighbors additional time ito gather information regarding this project. Terry Goldner, Attorney ~epresenting Charlotte Johnson and the 'Johnson Family Trust noted she had submitted a letter from Mrs. Johnson. She stated their property is the 80 acre parcel directly to the south of the proposed cogeneration facility. She said they are~ adamantly opposed to this project. She said they felt insufficient notice was given. Mr. Hardisty responded to question by Chairman Powers saying the noticing requirement is 300 foot radius. She was concerned about the fact that the lahd owners only had 30 days to review the 17 studies which were performed. She felt this is a significant project with significant impacts and residents need to have time to review it. She cited the concerns of her clients being constant tnoise, light, above ground steam lines. She asked why this cogeneration plant is not being located next to the oilfield which it will serve. She was also concerned about the possibility of additions being made to this facility at a later date. She was concerned about whether the applicant has secured air pollution reduction credits. She asked about the location of power lines. Responding to question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Ms. Goldner felt an adequate time for her to respond would be at least 120 days. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 8 Robert Fairman, Jr., Attorney represented Meg Harris, 6609 Royal Coach Drive. He reiterated what Ms. Goldner stated regarding inadequate time in which to review and respond. He felt safety and nuisance problems exist with this project. He asked why expansion would be proposed for a declining oilfield property. He felt more time was needed for exploration of the details of this proposal. Meg Harris_spoke saying she was not sure if she was in favor or in opposition. She was concerned about'the possibility of a disaster. She also said lighting for this facility concerned her~, saying she did not know how lighting could be contained. She asked for~ additional time to research this project. Tom Queen resident of Bella Drive, said he was in opposition to this request because of lack of notification. Jessie Frederick, Manager Environmental Affairs, Destec Energy represented the applicant. He stated they~ contacted schools in the area offering them tours of the site and facilities. He stated his support of staff's recommendation. He pointed out design features of the! project. He said they have taken what they have learned from each projec~ applying it to the next. Jeanne Benedetti pointediout key design features of the project. Mr. Frederick said a socioeconomic study was prepared, saying the project would employ 15 people causingi: a beneficial impact and would generate tax revenues. Responding to request byi. Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Frederick addressed stated concerns saying the project location is controlled by a power purchase agreement with P.G.&E. and is impractical to change. He also stated when negotiating the original contracts they situated the project in an area which they felt would be in a remote:location and was not a hazardous site. Regarding the concerns about water quality and pressure, he said they'received a will-serve letter from California Water Service Company. Mr. Hardisty said this site would be serviced by a new water line and would need to be done in a fashion that would not take away from the pressure and fire flow of those in the general vicinity. Regarding the concerns about odors, Mr. Frederick said their facility does not create odors. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Wilson said the water quality would not impact the area because the steam and the wastewater would not stay at this location. : Responding to questions by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Frederick said the project would be built by February, 1995 if all aspects are approved. Minutes, PC; 3/17/94 Page 9 Commissioner Andrew asked if there would be a problem with a continuance. Mr. Frederick said they do not want to put the project at risk which he felt a continuance would do. Public Portion of the heating was closed. Chairman Powers said he'would like to see a continuance on this item in order to give additional time for all concerned to further review the project. Commissioner Rosenlieb Stated she met with the applicant and viewed the site. She said based on the staff report she did not feel the commission could make an intelligent decision. If a continuance were to be granted, she asked that the staff report be consolidated fo~, the next hearing. Regarding the comment in the staff report stating there are nO aesthetic impacts, she felt there were and asked that the report acknowledge iti and give information on how they would be mitigated. She asked if city standardlcurb, gutter and sidewalk should be required in front of the project. She felt possibly a larger buffer should be p!aced on the LR portion rather than that required in the agricultural zone. She asked for correction to traffic fee and sewer situation. She also asked for clarification of Public Works condition #3. She said ih the event the city looks at another cogeneration facility in the future reqUirementlof an EIR should be looked into. Mr. Hardisty responded tO question by Chairman Powers, saying he felt the questions raised at this hearing could be answered at the next hearing. Discussion continued regarding possibility of touring the site. ~ Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Goldner said they would need 120 days if they wanted to hire their own experts to complete studies of the site. Mr. Hardisty said 120 days is an exceptional time period for CEQA reviews. Ms. Goldner suggested that the applicant hold public workshops and possibly tours of the site for property owners in the vicinity in order to alleviate fears. Commissioner Marino stated a problem with continuing this item fOr an extended period of time, saying twO commissioners will be replaced. He stated the two new commissioners had received all the testimony involved in this case. Ms. Wilson responded to question by Commissioner Marino, saying steam would be injected into the Kern River Oilfields where extensive steam injection already exists, to date there has been no groundwater pollution problem caused by injection of steaTM in the Kern River Oilfields. Minutes, PC,-3/17/94 Page 10 Commissioner Marino said he was aware the applicant was mitigating all impacts for this project. He was cOncerned about the possibility of mistakes in mitigation and lack of notification. Mr. Hardisty said he felt staff has completed all necessary requirements. Regarding mitigation he said often staff does not include that which is required by law, however it exists. He stated, however, that the staff report would be updated. Commissioner Hersh felt time ~vas needed for additional review Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue these items to the regular meetings of April 4, and April 7, 1994. Motion carried, *Break was taken at this time. Mr. Hardisty requested thOse in the audience interested in following this case to provide staff with contact information. 4.3 a,b, c,d PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT III, KERN RIVER PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94, BRECKINRIDGE HILLS Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. George Nickel stated his Objection to the charge per unit in' the underlying assessment district, saying!it is supposed to be uniform within the district. He read his communication into the record which is on file. He was concerned that the land greatly benefitting from the sewer line would be paying a small price for use. He felt an inequity existed for users of sewer assessment district #93.1. He suggested that those land owners west of Morning Drive pay the same average dwelling unit assessment CoSt. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she did not understand how Mr. Nickel's comments relate to the project at hand. He felt a deal was being made for properties that have no reference to the assessment district. Mr. Hardisty said this issue is not within the purview of the commission, he suggested that Mr. Nickel's correspondence be submitted to the City Clerk's Office addressed to the City Council. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 11 Mr. LaRochelle Stated correspondence had been received by the Public Works Department from Mr. Nickel. TheY are currently working on addressing his . concerns. Fred Porter represented the applicants. He gave information concerning Mr. Nickel's concerns. He gave history of the need for this proposed general plan amendment. Regarding Condition 82 concerning median island restricting left turn movements, he said Highway 184 is completely improved, stating they would agree with landscape median island, however felt the last portion of the condition was superfluous. Mr. LaRochelle was in agreement with this deletion. Regarding Condition #'s 8, 9 and 10i he felt they read as if when a 5-acre subdivision is developed $800,000 to $1 imillion worth of assessment fees must be paid. Condition # 12 sets forth the mechanism and further clarifies Condition #'s 8, 9 and 10. He asked for further clarification on these 3 conditions so that misinterpretation would not take place down the line. Mr. LaRochelle was in agreement with clarificatibn for these conditions. David Gay stated his support of the down-zoning of the commercial and lessening · of impacts. Jim Nickel concurred with Mr. Porter's comments saying he wants the down- zoning of his property. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was concerned about recommendation to change the amount of county jurisdiction to Estate and Suburban Residential zoning from R-MP designation. Mr. Hardisty explained this request. Responding to question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said a letter had been received from Stockdale Oil and Gas, Inc., and he explained a change is not being recommending on the lease hold that they have but a change is being recommended adjacent toit. He said they. object to encroachment of urbanization. Commissioner R°senlieb asked if a setback should be considered.to protect this operator. Mr. Hardisty said at this time it would not be necessary since the zoning is not being enforced by the city because it is within the County jurisdiction. Upon annexation the City would be in a better position to deal with this issue. Regarding the memo received from Public Works Concerning Page 2, Item # 12 regarding traffic impact fees and Commercial use permit square foot fees, Commissioner Rosenlieb asked if a condition is in place to implement this. Mr. Hardisty said there Would be a proration of the current trip generation and then they would be tracked by property. If a change is necessary it would be made. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 12 Commissioner Messner felt spreading out the assessment base made good fiscal sense. Responding to concern by him, Mr. Hardisty clarified the issue of prime agricultural land, saying at least 800 acres exist along Rancheria Road. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question saying three separate entities are working together to develop a uniform water supply for the entire northeast area. Mrl Porter clarified which distkicts would be serving which areas. Regarding Fire Department condition prOViding for the possibility of a 4,500 GPM rate, Mr. Hardisty said it is advisory depending on the uses. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to ER (Estate Residential), SR (Suburban Residential), LR (Low Density Residential), GC (General Commercial) and OS (Open Space) on 1,791 acres, subject to conditions and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "A", together with the conditions contained in the March 17, 1994 memo from Public Works, with the modification to Conditioni #2 to read as follows: o and recommend same to City Council. vote: With the first development within the GC area the south side (westbound) of State Route 184, a full landscaped median island to restrict left-turn movements along State Route 184 to specific locations approved by Caltrans. Motion carried by the fOllowing roll call AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None Motion was made.by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and!approving the requested Kern River Plan Element to 5.4 (Residential - maximum 4 units per net acre) on 106.3 acres and 3.1 (Public or Private Recreation Areas) on 24.07 acres, subject to conditions and mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", including the March 17, 1994 memo from Public Works with the changes as noted in the previoUs motion, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 13 Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and! approving the requested Breckinridge Specific Plan Amendment to-map code 5.5, 5.5/2.1, 5.5/2.4, 5.5/2.6, 5.4, 5.4/2.1, 5.4/2.4 and 5.4/2.6 on 1,008 acres, subject to conditions and mitigation listed in Exhibit "A", including the March 17, 1994 memo from Public Works with changes as noted in the first motion, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner,- . Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner~Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution makin'g findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and. approving the requested zone change to OS (Open Space), R-1 (One Family ~Dwelling) and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)'onlYin Section 20, T.29S., R.29Ei, M.D.B.&M., subject to conditions and mitigation'listed in Exhibit "A", including the mem° from Public Works with changes as noted in the first motion, and including the Planning Department March 14, 1994 memo with respect to school feeg, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Roseiflieb, Powers NOES: None Chairman Powers asked for copies of response to Mr. Nickel's letter to be sent to the Commission. 4.4 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT IV AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5543 Commissioner Marino stated he would abstain from voting on this item. Staff report recommending apprOVal was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 14 Steve Wilson stated he was a property owner within this area. He expressed support for this request, Stating it is his desire that this property remain low density single family if this application is approved. He expressed concern over traffic problem on Brimhall Road. He felt improvement of Brimhall Road between Coffee and CallOway should take place before further issuance of building permits. Brad Henderson stated he is a property owner east of subject property. He said he is in favor of this down-zoning. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. He stated his agreement w/th recommendation and addi~tional memos. Regarding the issue of Coffee and Brimhall, Commissioner Rosenlieb felt the problem was that Brimhail was designated a collector instead of an arterial. Responding to question bY her, Mr. LaRochelle explained the timetable for the grade separation and how it would relieve traffic. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner 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 listed in Exhibit "A", and recommend same to City Council, with the following changes: Inclusion of Memo dated March 17, 1994 related to fire flow from the Planning Department. Inclusion of the March 17i 1994 memo from the Planning Department relating to the realignment of Brimhall Road. Inclusion of Memo dated March 11, 1994 from the Planning Department relating to school fees. Inclusion of March 4, 1994 memo from the Public Works Department. Inclusion of the March 14, 1994 memo from the Planning Department relating to deletion of Condition #2. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 15 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Slocumb ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino 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 the requested R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A", and recommend same to the City Council, with the changes as outlined in the previous motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Messner, 'Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Com~nissioner Slocumb ABSTAINED: 'Commissioner Marino 4.5 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT V, ASSOCIATED' ZONE CHANGE #5549 AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR SALE OF 27.5 ACRES FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 58 FREEWAY 5.3 AND EAST OF MT. VERNON AVENUE. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR SALE OF 27.5 ACRES FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 58 FREEWAY AND EAST OF MT. VERNON AVENUE Mr. Hardisty said a request from Public Works was submitted for continuance of this item to April 7, 1994.. RepresentatiVes .of the school district and the applicant have had discussion and have scheduled a meeting for the following Wednesday to discuss working out issues and they are in agreement with continuance on this matter. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 16 Staff report was waived. At the request of CommiSsioner Rosenlieb, Agenda Item #5.3 was also taken at this time. ~ 'Commissioner Andrew abstained 'from hearing this item due to the fact he markets adjacent properties. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that when this item comes back to the Commission, the departmgnt requesting continuance address her concern of whether the city is requesting this zone change so that the property can be marketed at below market rates. She asked what type of effect this would have on private industry, Motion was made by'Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue these items to the regular meetings of April 4, and April 7, 1994. Motion carried. 4.6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT VI Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or oPposition. Public portion of ,the heating was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked staff for their work on this issue. She asked for follow-up'of an additionali proposed change to the text. Mr. Gauthier said the change was proposed for the Year 2000 school impact mitigation language. Motion was made by commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by adding to Chapter X of the Public Services and Facilities Element the implementation measure as shOWn on the memo dated March 17, 1994 from the Planning Director. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 5.1 GENERAL PLAN coNSISTENCY FINDING FOR PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR A PROPOSED WATER WELL SITE Page 17 GENERALLY LOCATE:D SOUTHEAST OF VERDUGO LANE AND 5.2 BRIMHALL ROAD Staff report recommendin~g approval was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by CommissiOner Hersh to make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed acquisition of real property for a proposed water well site southeast of the intersection of Brimhall Road and Verdugo Lane is consistent with the general plan. Motion carried. C°mmissioner Marino abstained from voting on this item. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR PROPOSED VACATION OF CITY AND PUBLIC i UTILITIES EASEMENT RIGHTS IN THE 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT IN PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3668 (ALSO PARCEL MAP WAIVER 25-93), 2100 WHITE LANE. (VONS COMPANIES, INC.) Staff report recommending approval was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seConded-by Commissioner Powers pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find summary vacation of city and public utilities easement rights on 30-foot wide access easement (Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 3668) consiStent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and report same to City Council. Motion carried. RESTRUCTURING OF COMMITTEES PURSUANT TO BROWN ACT AMENDMENTS Chairman Powers' felt the most equitable way for restructuring of committees would be to eliminate the. committees, retaining an executive committee consisting of the chairman, past chairman and the vice-chair who would act as Joint City Council/Planning Commission committee and would be a standing committee. He felt all committees should be ad hoc and committee persons would be rotated with the list containing the commissioner with the most seniority being at the top of the list, the bottom of the list would contain the person with the next most seniority and so on. Mr. Hardisty said the idea needs to be that of not falling into a habitual reappointment of the same people to the same topical areas. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 18 Msl Marino said when three people are assigned to a certain topic for a period of time these committees woUld become standing committees and would have to following the Brown Act and would have to adopt regular meeting schedules. Responding to questions by Commissioner Messner, Ms. Marino said if committees meet twice onl the same subject matter it would become a standing committee. Commissioner Delgado gave information concerning Planning Commissioners Conference saying a Brown Act session was held in which they mentioned a six- month duration being a standing committee. Commissioner Marino suggested the order of the commissioners on the committee list be that the;commissioners of top seniority be in altenated With commissioners of low seniOrity so that experience levels could be mixed. 7. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None o COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Hersh asked that when a great deal of extra correspondence is to be submitted to the Commission, that it be submitted early in the day of the meeting so that the commission can have time to adequately review the information. Responding to concern by: Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Hardisty said for the sake of timing and competition with Council hearing dates things are scheduled ahead of time. A. Committees 1) General Plan Commissioner Messner asked that a meeting of the General Plan Committee be convened before April 1, 1994. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 -2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Zoning Ordinance Sign Ordinance Subdivision and Public Services Trail~ and Ways Parka and Environmental Quality_ Act Joint'. Council/Planning Commission .Page 19 °. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. ~ Laurie Davis Recording Secretary