Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/95MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, April 20, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California.' 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal planner JENNIE ENG, 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. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 2 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None Mr. Grady presented Commissioner Marino with a plaque in commemoration of service to the Planning Commission. Mr. Marino addressed the Commission stating his appreciation for the opportunity to work with them. Chairman Andrew expressed gratitude for Commissioner Marino's work on the Commission. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5810 Staff rePort recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Herb Hull stated agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In response to a question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady gave information concerning the intent of the property owner to transition the landscape strip to 10 feet from 30 feet. The Commission does not have the authority to require the landscape strip to be 30 feet. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution approving' and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5810 with modification to reduce lot frontage and width, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", and subject to the April 17, 1995 memo from the Parks Division specifically requiring the property owners to be responsible for their proportionate share of the annual park maintenance assessment. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- ZONE CHANGE 5615, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10162, TENTATIVE TRACT 5804 (PHASED) Commissioner Boyle abstained because of a conflict of interest in that his law firm represents the property owner of subject property. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Randy Bergquist represented the applicant. He stated agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was' closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration, and approving Zone Change No. 5615, subject to conditions of approval on Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tavorn Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration to make all findings set forth in the staff report with the exception of Condition #'s 16-21 and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10162 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration to make all findings set forth in the staff report and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5804 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," with inclusion of recommendationS of April 12, and April 17, 1995 memos from the Planning Department. Motion carried. Minutes? PC, 4/20/95 Page 4 6.- PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-95, SEGMENT VII ZONE CHANGE #5627 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 5809 (VESTING AND PHASED) Staff reports recommending approval were given. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Ms. Eng clarified the school district assessment for this project. She said staff's recommendation is that the school district be responsible for monitoring this condition. Mark Sutton, Professor of Anthropology, CSUB and Archaeologist gave presentation. He said the law requires that federal regulations be followed when federal monies are used or a federal permit is issued for a project. State 'guidelines require that CEQA be followed which includes archaeological as well as cultural resources be considered, specifically stating that the absence of data cannot be used to infer that the data are negative. They must be looked for before the agency can say whether or not they exist. He gave reasoning and benefits of archaeological studies as it relates to cultural issues. In terms of archaeological resources present, on agricultural land he said he has prePared a fairly large amount of studies and can provide many specific examples where archaeological sites exist on agricultural land. While it may be true that plowing and discing of agricultural land may disturb archaeological sites, it does not necessarily destroy their total integrity or scientific or cultural value. Regarding costs of studies it is relatively inexpensive particularly if nothing is found. A more significant cost could be incurred by a failure to conduct archaeological inventory if it is discovered that materials are present. If this happens during a construction phase it is possible that the entire project would have to be shut down. Garrett Fenenega, Professor of Anthropology, CSUB and Archaeologist spoke. He felt the community should be proud of the diverse ethnic heritage. Some of the record of this lies in the archaeological record, their concern being to preserve the heritage of various peoples. The largest ethnic populations in California were located in the central valley. The best way to deal with cultural resources from a cost-effective standpoint is to deal with them during the initial inventory stage. Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Dr. Sutton said the studies take approximately 1 day to perform. He said the entire process would be between $500 and $600 for a 20 to 80 acre project. If a project were ten times this size the cost would not necessarily be 10 times as much. He gave examples of what is looked for being changes in soil, vegetation, pieces of broken rock, burned rock, shell, food remains, bone, formed artifacts, many of the hints being subtle and requiring someone with experience in this field. He reiterated that agricultural use does not necessarily destroy archaeological sites. Every survey that has been Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 5 done is kept on record in the archaeological information center, which is an office of the State Historic Preservation Office and there are ways to hasten the records search that must be performed. There has been very little systematic inventory because of the lack of extensive knowledge due to the large amount of previous settlers over the past 12,000 years that the river has meandered through the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Sutton said one 80-acre parcel adjacent to subject property to the south has been surveyed, however 1-1/4 miles away is a known native American village mound and 2 miles directly east is a known native American village mound with a cemetery. It is not known whether sites exist on this parcel because it has not been surveyed. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Sutton said if a site existed before agriculture it would still be there. The vast majority of archaeological material would go unnoticed by farmers. Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Sutton said if a site is located the next step would be for its significance to be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. A plan would then have to be formulated determining if it can be easily and quickly mitigated, not easily or quickly mitigated or that it can be avoided. He gave examples of ways to deal with remains. He answered a question by Chairman Andrew saying inventories and excavations have been prepared through the Kern County Archaeological Society and students as part of their Masters Degree program, however it is not their responsibility. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Doug Wattenbarger stated he is the owner of subject property. He felt the fees for projects are becoming exorbitant. This tract is slated for low- and moderate- income housing, however with the additional fees it will be difficult to develop. He was concerned that the city was not required to provide an archaeological study on property he donated for a sump site in this area. Mr. LaRochelle said this sump is currently being constructed. Mr. Wattenbarger said he had no problem with an archaeological study for this site, however did not feel the developer Should be responsible for this study. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Wattenbarger was agreeable to the balance of conditions placed on these projects. Public portion of the hearing was closed. MinUtes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 6 Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Boyle saying the canal pre-dates the law for archaeological studies. Mr. Grady responded to questions by Commissioner Boyle clarifying that a provision allowing for reduction in standards requires that at least 25 percent be sold to low income buyers or that all home prices shall be at 80 percent of the area median. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew concerning the need for archaeological study, Mr. Grady said CEQA conditions for this are not negotiable. It requires that the land be surveyed for the possibility of archaeological materials at tract map stage. Mr. Sutton responded to question by Chairman Andrew saying there is no licensing procedure for archaeologists. There are a series of requirements for qualifications by Federal and State agencies requiring a Bachelors or Masters degree with some difficult projects requiring a PHD, eliminating the possibility of a student surveying this land in spare time. It would require a supervisor meeting the minimum qualifications. Commissioner Brady asked if the Commission removes the requirement for the study, could it be setting this project up for failure to meet CEQA requirements. Mr. Grady replied that would be the result. He clarified this is not a condition that is placed on all projects. This is in response to the concerned agency reviewing the environmental documents for the project. In this case they have identified there are significant finds within a reasonable distance of this property and that there has not been a survey for this property. They have placed evidence in the record suggesting this condition should be placed on the project. The only way in which it can be removed is if the Commission may provide evidence which shows that their conclusion is incorrect. This would require a survey of the property and a finding that no archaeological finds exist on the site. Commissioner Brady stated he understood the applicant's concerns, however did not want to set this project up for a lawsuit. Motion was made by CommisSioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report recommending apProval of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Low Medium Density Residential on 35.55 acres, subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A," adding the school fee condition as shown in the Planning Director's April 19, 1995 memo, and recommend same to City Council. Chairman Andrew thanked staff for clarification of the archaeological study issue, stating he was concerned about the possibility of this condition being placed on all projects whether it is necessary or not. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 7 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tavorn Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report recommending approval of the' Negative Declaration and approval of R-1 zoning on 6.8 acres, subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A", adding the'school fee condition as shown in the Planning Director's memo dated April 19, 1995, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: CommissionersBoyle, Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tavorn Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5809, and the request for modification of lot design, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" and as amended by the Planning Department's memos dated Apri! 17, and April 19, 1995, and the Public Works memo dated April 13, 1995. Motion carried. Mr. Grady stated the conditions for Parcel Map 10162 and Tentative Tract 5804 became scrambled requesting that the Commission make a motion to reconsider and restate the motions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to reconsider these items. Motion carried. Mr. 'Grady suggested the motions be restated and he gave the proposed changes. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10162 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", subject to the memoranda of April 12 and April 17, 1995 from the Planning Department. Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5804 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," with the addition of the April 12, 1995 memorandum from the Planning Department and deletion of condition #'s 16-21 of Exhibit "A". Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a) Proposed amendment to the Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.14 (R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling zone) regarding minimum lot sizes for one family dwellings and yard setbacks. (Categorically exempt) Mr. Grady said in response to questions by Commissioner Brady a memorandum was provided to the commission giving additional information. The vote to bring this proposed ordinance to the committee was unanimous. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Kate Rosenlieb gave history of the minimum lot size standard with regard to her tenure on the Commission. She said she felt a standard needed to be created for all developers. She said the small lot subdivision is not only for affordable housing. When the small lot ordinance was adopted it contained the necessity for an amenity. She did not feel this ordinance was being put forth because of the demand for affordable housing in this community but to help increase profit for developers. She was not opposed to small lot subdivisions, however felt they needed an amenity. Bill Slocumb concurred with Ms. Rosenlieb's comments, saying he urged the Commission not to vote for the changes to the ordinance, however said if they were inclined to vote in favor he would recommend a change to the R-1 designation. He felt this ordinance is poorly thought out. He felt when increasing densities in neighborhoods the need for recreational amenities increases. He quoted the Open Space Element of the 2010 General Plan which states the encouragement of parks, open space and Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 9 recreational activities and this is in direct contrast. He was concerned that this project was deemed to be categorically exempt from CEQA when it is obviously contrary to the intent of the community's environmental plans and goals. He urged the Commission to deny this request. He felt in voting for this the Commission would be voting for "tomorrow's slums today." Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Slocumb said there are areas in the city such as what is being proposed that do not have a favorable impact on the community. Jill Kleiss concurred with the previous statements. She felt some developers would argue that by building smaller lots they would be doing the community a favor, there is market demand, no special findings or PUD are necessary for small lot subdivisions in an R-2 zone, they will say that a kiddie park or amenity is not necessary to compensate for the trade- off. She said the reality is that small lots provide for a lack of open space. She submitted pictures of a similar development outlining the problems which occur. She surveyed people in this development who complained about the lack of privacy due to the close proximity of homes, the large amount of children with no recreational outlet saying these types of communities will not target a large group of "empty nesters." She felt at the very least an amenity such as a park or tennis court should be offered. She asked the Commission to keep minimum acceptable standards. Jerry Marquee urged the Commission to consider the destructible impact of this proposed ordinance and to reject it. He said the zoning designation makes no difference. The end results of these small lots will be overcrowding, higher crime and increased smog. He felt perhaps the commission should visit some existing small lot subdivisions and felt they have not worked well in this community or others. He asked that this ordinance be rejected. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association of Kern County. She said their representatives met numerous times with the Commission Subdivision Committee. This proposal represents a compromise by both sides on the issue. This proposal maintains the integrity of the 6,000 square foot lot in the R-1 zone. It adds the opportunity for less than 6,000 square foot lots in the R-2 zone. It allows the flexibility of building single family dwellings with a minimum lot size of 4,200 square feet. It does not automatically assure that every home will be 4,200 square feet. It was reasoned that a multi-family project in an R-2 zone would not require a recreational amenity, therefore it would not be appropriate to burden a single family project with the cost and MinUtes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 10 maintenance of a recreational amenity when it is being developed at a lower density than the zoning would allow. She felt this proposal should eliminate many problems experienced by the Commission in the past. She urged support for the proposed revisions. Regarding the statement of increased air pollution she said the Air Pollution Control District is in favor of higher densities for more efficient use of mass transit. The city will be under more pressure by them to bring the community into higher densities. Commissioner Hersh was concerned about high density urban sprawl. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady felt small lot housing is a necessary component of the housing needs in the city. He felt these small lot homes are condominiums in effect with space between walls. He felt small lots do not belong in R-1 zoned areas. He stated his disagreement with the rule that 80 percent of homes in a small lot subdivision must be built on small lots feeling that this stymies creativity of the develoPer. Builders of R-2 types of development are not required to provide an amenity. He felt a small lot home is superior to a condominium and felt this is an acceptable proposal. He felt that just because someone has a small lot home it does not mean they will not take care of their property. Chairman Andrew felt there is a demand for this type of housing. Alternative type of housing is needed. He felt comments previously made are stereo typing .and discriminatory regarding residents of these homes creating a detrimental effect in the neighborhood. Commissioner Boyle felt this ordinance would increase the use of PUD zoning designations. He said with regard to lack of experience he has made a great deal of effort to gain from the experience of others. The existing ordinance no longer creates the level playing field that this commission felt it was creating and the creation of this is his reasoning for supporting the proposed ordinance. What is being proposed through this ordinance is similar to condominiums with a lot of space between the walls. Responding to comments by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said the proposed ordinance allows the multi-family lot size only for single family dwellings. The minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet if more than one dwelling were to be proposed. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 11 Responding to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said hypothetically if single family homes in an R-2 zone burned it would be possible to reconstruct with apartments. Commissioner Boyle felt because the densities on R-2 property would be lower he disagreed with Mr. Slocumb's comments that an environmental impact report is necessary. He encouraged the commission to approve this ordinance. Commissioner Hersh was not sure why the ordinance needed to be reformed. He felt this is being proposed for economic reasons for developers. He cited there is not a shortage of homes. The ordinance is being changed for the building industry and not for the sake of the community. He was concerned about problems with placing landscaping on small lots. He felt this would set the stage for a challenge to the 6,000 square foot lot size. He was concerned that the force behind this proposal is one of economics and children not having anywhere to play. He stated he would not support this ordinance. Chairman Andrew felt there would be more landscaping with this type of use than with apartments. He felt a better community contains more homes and less apartments. Commissi°ner Ortiz was concerned about clutter of streets and where the children will play. He stated he is not in support of this ordinance change. He felt quality of life needed to be maintained in this community. Commissioner Brady felt this proposal is to aid in the affordable housing problem. A problem with requiring an amenity is the cost which the developer passes on to the home buyer. This proposal tightens the standard. Commissioner Boyle said regarding the comment that children will have nowhere to play in an apartment or condominium development there is no' control over provision of amenities. This ordinance revision does not impact that situation. Commissioner Hersh did not want to change the ordinance to serve a small group. Provisions for R-2 small lot subdivisions are in place at this time and he did not feel there was a viable reason for changing but felt the change was brought upon for short-term economic reasons. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 12 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to make findings and adopt resolution amending Title 17 (Zoning), Chapter 17.14 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code as referenced in the staff report and depicted in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Hersh, Ortiz ABSENT: Commissioner Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tavorn b) Proposed alnendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.28.170 (lots) regarding lninimum lot sizes and findings to allow one family dwellings in an R-2 zone. (Categorically exempt) Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to make findings and adopt resolution amending Title 16 (Subdivision), Section 16.28.170 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code as referenced in the staff report and depicted in Exhibit "B," and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Hersh, Ortiz ABSENT: Commissioner Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tavorn 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Grady said the resumes for new commissioners had been passed out to the entire commission. B) Verbal None Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 13 9. SPECIAL COMMITTEE AND STAFF REPORTS Ao Subdivision and Public Services Committee Report regarding park land credit for PUD and Optional Design Subdivisions. Mr. Grady gave history on this issue saying the committee decided to leave the issue as it is because it was determined that they have the discretion to grant it on an individual basis. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to accept report and recommendation. Motion carried. Trails and Ways Colnlnittee Report regarding access points along the Kern River for Equestrian staging areas. Mr. Grady said a report had been supplied to the Commission with recommendation. Motion was 'made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to direct staff to bring the appropriate amendments to the Kern River Element and the Kern River Parkway Plan back before the Commission. Motion carried. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Policy to require requests for consent items be placed on the agenda prior to the Monday pre-meeting. Mr. Grady gave information concerning the request by Commissioner Hersh that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. He said a policy could be adopted so that no consent agenda items could be accepted later than Friday prior to the Monday pre-meeting. This information would be. transmitted to the Commission at the pre-meeting and the agenda revised for the Thursday meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt a policy to direct staff to present consent agenda items at the Monday pre- meeting: If they are not presented at this time they will not be acted on as consent agenda items at the Thursday meeting. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/20/95 Page 14 A. Committees Chairman Andrew reminded those present of the future sign committee meeting held on the fourth Wednesday of the month. Commissioner Brady asked about appointing Mr. Marino to the Trails Committee as an advisor. Mr. Grady gave an example of appointing a member of the public to a committee, saying they did not act as a Commissioner and since these meetings are open Mr. Marino could participate, however not in the capacity of commissioner. Chairman Andrew said he would rather have this item for appointment on a future agenda. Commissioner Ortiz commented on the large amount of public input on the trails committee. Commissioner Boyle said the next trails committee meeting would be May 10th asking that appointment of Mr. Marino be placed on the May 4th agenda. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director