Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/00AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION , OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, February 17, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any. use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received wlthin the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday, February 17, 2000 Page ? CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) Agenda Item 6.1) -Vesting Tentative Map 5964 3.2) Agenda Item 6.2) - Vesting Tentative Map 5980 3.3) Agenda Item 8) - Administrative Review - Report from Planning Director 3.4) Agenda Item 9) - General Plan Consistency Finding for Acquisition of a Drainage Basin APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held December 16, 1999 and January 20, 2000. (Wards 1,3,6,7) (Ward 4 ) PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment No P98-0760 - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfiel,~ has proposed an amendment to Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopting both the South Beltway Transportation Corridor alignment and the specific plan line between Interstate 5 and State Route 58, a distance of approximately 26 miles, transversing central Kern County and the southern portion of the City of Bakersfield. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5964 (Porter-Robertson) consisting of 117 lots on 41.91 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (12,000) (One Family Dwelling-minimum 12,000 square foot lot), R-1 (10,000) (One Family Dwelling-minimum 10,000 square foot lot) and R-1 (8,500) (One Family Dwelling-minimum 8,500 square foot'lot) zones; a modification to lot depth, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by providing a 2.07 acre drill site, located on the southwest corner of Renfro Road and Johnson Road. (Negative Declaration on file) 'Agenda, PC, Thursday, February 17, 2000 Page 3 (Ward 7) 6.2) RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5980 (Porter-Robertson) containing 42 lots on 10.02 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the southeast corner of Pacheco Road and Monitor Street. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P99-0919 (Coleman Homes, Inc.) Zone Change from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone to a P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) zone for 13.65 acres to allow development of a 102,222 square foot shopping center, located at the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote (Ward 4) 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from Planning Director on P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) Final Development Plan Modification. The report documents the Director's approval of a minor Modification to P.C.D. Final Development Plan for freestanding pads at the Northwest Promenade Shopping Center located north of Rosedale Highway, west of Coffee Road to Main Plaza Drive. (Pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.100 D.) (Categorically Exempt) RECOMMENDATION: Accept Report as Filed Group vote (Ward 1) 9. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of .59 acre for a drainage basin'at the northwest corner of Planz Road and'Anderson Avenue; and for the acquisition of a .35 acres of additional street right-of-way for Planz Road and Anderson Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) Agenda, PC, Thursday, February 17, 2000 Page 4 10. 11. 12. RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Make Finding COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDIN~ POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. 13. ADJOURNMENT February 14, 2000 Planning DirectoI Held February 17, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501. Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioners Sprague and Dhanens announced that they were absent at Monday's pre-meeting but had listened to a copy of the tape and were prepared to participate in tonight's agenda. Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1)' 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) Agenda Item 6.1) - Vesting Tentative Map 5964 Agenda Item 6.2) - Vesting Tentative Map 5980 Agenda Item 8) - Administrative Review - Report from Planning Director Agenda Item 9) - General Plan Consistency Finding for Acquisition of a Drainage Basin Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held December 16, 1999 and January 20, 2000. Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to move Agenda Item No. 7 (Zone Change P99-0919) to be heard as the next item before Agenda Item No. 5. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P99-0919 (Coleman Homes, Inc.) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution and approving additional changes stated in Coleman Home's letter of February 17, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Brian Arial, from MCG Architecture, spoke in favor of the project. He gave a general overview of the project. He stated that his firm feels that the shopping center is laid out in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The square footage of the shopping center of 102,000 square feet lends itself to be classified as a "neighborhood shopping center." He stated that he would be happy to answer any specific questions having to do with the elevations or the site plan. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Grady stated that there was a memorandum from Steve Walker, the City's Traffic Engineer, concerning Public Works Condition l.b. which makes a change in the traffic mitigation fee. This should be included in any motion on the project. Mr. Grady also stated that there is a letter from Castle and Cooke regarding the project that the Commission needs to look at. Ms. 'Shaw made copies and passed them out to the Commission. CommissiOner Sprague stated that he feels the shopping center is not pedestrian friendly coming from the west into the center. He suggested that they make some kind of pedestrian opening to make an easyfiow for the residents and children of the west subdivision so they can get through there rather than coming through the two driveways MinUtes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page 3 north and south. Commissioner Sprague asked staff what type and size of trees will be placed in the shopping center? He also asked about the increase of square footage for the pad at the northeast corner. Commissioner Sprague wanted to know if they are still going to maintain the canopy for the gas pumps in addition to a possible 5,800 square foot building? Mr. Arial stated that they would maintain the landscaping with the increase in the size of the building. He then exhibited on the overhead a drawing of the site. The drawing indicated a 6-foot high block wall that could be treated with signage and the area would be further enhanced with landscaping and enhance the pedestrian connection. He demonstrated how a better location for pedestrian access could be made withan opening along River Park Way creating a stamped or enhanced concrete feature. They would create a meandering path as well as a landscaped area. It is the midway point between the intersection. Commissioner Sprague said that is what he is trying'to avoid because the walking traffic would be between two driveways or turn areas. It creates an unsafe condition for pedestrians. A cross walk at the T intersection and.possibly homing through to the shopping center where the signage is would be a better solution Commissioner Sprague commented. Commissioner Sprague stated that he could support the center if thOse things were done. He thinks it is a good project. He likes the design and layout of the center along with the location. Commissioner Sprague said that Coleman has a nice product and he is pleased with their participation in the committee meetings and he is pleased with their staff. Commissioner Brady stated that he was also on the committee that had an opportunity 'to make recommendations for change and improvement on this project and many of the changes have been incorporated. He said that he noW has had an opportunity to review the letter from Castle and Cooke and wondered if the applicant has had the opportunity? Commissioner Brady read through the letter and the first issue is site lighting. COmmissioner Brady asked if there is a limitation on lighting standards for the exterior of this project? Mr. Grady said that the only limitations that staff has on lighting is the standards that we had taken from the Grand Canal project and applied to this project which discusses the height of the poles and the type of shielding they would have to use. It does not address specifically off-site glare. Commissioner Brady asked if there is a limitation on the exterior poles so that they are shorter than the interior ones? Mr. Grady said that it does not tier the lights. The condition states that light fixtures shall be between 15 feet and 40 feet above grade with illumination evenly distributed across the parking lot. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant if he would be amenable to a condition which limited the height of the lighting standards on the exterior of the premises to 20 feet? Tony Hogue, with Coleman Homes, stated that they did not want 40-foot high light poles either but they did not know what would be an appropriate height. Mr. Hogue stated that they thought this would be addressed during the comprehensive sign plan hearing but that if they needed to do it now, they would confer as to what is a typical height in lighting. Commissioner Brady stated that the new SavMart project at the corner of Stockdale Highway and California Avenue has very high light standards and the lights shine into Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page 4 the nearby apartments. These standards need to be shorter than the ones there. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the project will be back before the Commission for a sign plan in the future? Mr. Grady said yes, but the lighting issue needs to be addressed now. Commissioner Brady asked staff if a condition could .be made so that the height and the elimination of glare be up to the discretion of the Planning Director? Mr. Grady said that the Commission could do that and staff could look at projects where the Commission actually specified a height without requiring the applicant to go out and do a study, such as the Grand Canal. Staff could do something comparable. Commissioner Brady asked if the applicant has a comment regarding that? Mr. Hogue stated that they do not know the technical answer but do share the same concerns. He did not know how he could give an answer right now other than to say it is their intent to do directional lighting and keep it site oriented so that it 'is protecting all the residents on each side. Commissioner Brady commented that Castle & Cooke's letter also talked about signage and wanted to know if they needed to discuss it now or at the time of the Comprehensive Sign Plan hearing? Mr. Grady said they would hear it under the Comprehensive Sign Plan when it was applied for. Commissioner Brady said that the letter mentioned screening walls for the drive-thru and wondered if there is a comprehensive landscaping plan for this project? Mr. Grady said that what they see on the plan is in final form. Commissioner Brady asked what size trees will be installed initially? Mr. Grady said the standard 15 gallon trees, unless the Commission specifies larger trees. Commissioner B~'ady asked why the applicant did not feel a screening wall for noise is necessary for the project. Mr. Hogue stated that it has been their experience that hard surfaces do a lot to throw sounds and landscaping berms do a lot to control the sound. If the landscaping is done in a correct way, they feel that the soft landscaping will control the south a lot better than the hardsurface of a screening wall. Commissioner Brady asked what the correct way is? Mr. Hogue said that a landscape berm that shields is high enough at the level where the noise comes directly out as well as a dense ground cover. Vertical ground landscaping elements that create denseness absorbs the sound also as opposed to bouncing off the building. Commissioner Brady asked if pad 4 has berming in place? If that is part of the project? Mr. Hogue said that it was indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Brady asked if any studies had been done regarding how high it needs to be to send noise directly away from the residents immediately to the south of the project? Mr. Hogue said that a noise study was done and it fits within city guidelines as acceptable. They have 20 feet to play with. Commissioner Brady said that he does not think the berm has been adequately addressed. He feels it will have to be fairly high to do much good and the landscaping will have to be sufficiently dense. He wants to know variety and feels that 15 gallon trees are not sufficient. The Commission would want at least a 24 inch box. Mr. Hogue Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page 5 said the applicant has indicated that they would use 24 inch, 36 inch and 48 inch box trees as part of the landscape. Commissioner Brady said he understands that but wants to see as part of a condition for pad 4 how high the berm is and a specific screening effect. Commissioner Brady wants a screen in place, not a future screen when the trees grow. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Hogue about the change to the pad. Which way would it be expanded and what is their intent to expand and how it might effect traffic flow? Mr. Hogue stated that the majority of the expansion would be to the south and it would not effect the driveway that is currently scheduled there. Commissioner Brady asked if the Traffic Engineer looked at the interior flows with the proposed expansion of the 5,800 square foot on that particular pad? Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, said that unless they do some drastic changes to the flow pattern, the expansion shouldn't make a major difference to the internal circulation. The Traffic Department is mainly concerned that the internal circulation does not backup out onto the public streets and that.has been taken care of sufficiently. Commissioner Brady said that those were his main comments. He wanted to remind the applicant that he wants the sump to remain at the site listed on the map directly across from Major A so that loading and unloading can be done with the sump across the street. Mr. Hogue asked Mr. Grady if the lighting issue had to be decided tonight or if it could be done at the Comprehensive Sign Plan stage. Mr. Grady said that the sign plan is intended only to address just the signage on the site. The PCD is the zone for the district which includes all the design features which would include lighting. Mr. Grady said the Commission could delegate the decision to him if they so desire, therefore, no decision would have to be made tonight. No one present has the technical response for the concern tonight. Mr. Grady stated that he understood what the objective is with regard to shielding it from the adjoining residential property. He thinks the condition speaks to the same issue and in order for the applicant to comply with that condition, they would have to submit what the light standard would be and at that time staff could see if it did comply with the condition, Mr. Hogue made one more comment to the Commission regarding the fast food pad and the screen wall. He said they can either tell the Commission the berms will be so high with this many trees, or they can offer to put in the wall. They are open to either but the studies showed that the landscaping absorbed the sound better. It is up to the Commission which they would rather have. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he agreed that 40 feet is probably too high for the light poles. Typically what happens is that the smaller the light poles are the greater frequency you would have to have to achieve the same amount of illumination. Commissioner Dhanens said that perhaps the Commission could pick a number for the height and the developer could add a few extra light poles to meet light standards. Minutes, PC, February t7, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Dhanens also mentioned a concern about the landscaping on pad 4. He feels there is not enough room to put a berm in between the drive-thru lane and the meandering sidewalk. He feels that landscape features in.most cases reduce sound but in this case he did not think it would work because of the physical constraints that have been designed into that corner. Commissioner Dhanens echoed Commissioner Brady's and Commissioner Sprague's concerns about the pedestrian connections between the center and the neighborhood. To get to the site, the center is oriented to vehicular traffic. Commissioner.Dhanens feels that the center should be more pedestrian friendly with perhaps a covered walkway or some pedestrian friendly experiences as opposed to the rear and the side of a rather large building. Commissioner Kemper suggested that since this project has been to a committee and the developer is aware of the concerns of the Commission, her suggestion is that the Commission leave it up to the discretion of the Planing Director to work out the problems of the lighting, the partial wall and the landscaping berm. Commissioner Kemper also suggested that since the majority of the people are going to be accessing the shopping center by car, that she is o.k. with the location but a sidewalk should be added that links the sOuth side of River Run Boulevard to the front of Major A. Mr. Grady used the computer and demonstrated where Commissioner Kemper suggested a sidewalk be put in. Commissioner Boyle stated that he was disappointed in the shopping center and the attempt to incorporate it into the neighborhood. It is oriented towards the streets not towards the neighborhood. A year ago the Commission strongly encouraged the developer that he should incorporate it into the neighborhood. There has been nothing unique done to incorporate this into the neighborhood. Commissioner Boyle said that he believes the orientation of it, including the pedestrian and bicycle access, could be better. Commissioner Boyle mentioned that he thinks evergreen trees on the west side are a good idea and a mini-retaining wall per Commissioner Dhanens' suggestion might be a way to get height in addition to be.rming. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant if they had had any experience building screening walls in the past? Gordon Stabler, with Coleman Homes, said that they had not-done any walls like that but are open to building one. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they were familiar with any screening walls placed in the city, and how they have been used and the effect? Mr. GradY said the only one he was familiar with was the Marketplace and it was part of the settlement from litigation not a requirement from an acoustical study. There wasn't any technical report that suggested that that was going to do something with respect to reducing noise a certain number of decibels. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant what they would be willing to place there if they were going to do a wall? Gordon Stabler said that he would not like to see an eight foot Stucco wall such as the Marketplace has. He said that he liked Commissioner Minutes, PC', February 17, 2000 Parle 7 Dhanens' suggestion about a retaining wall and perhaps they could do a retaining wall along the outside edge of the drive-thru with a berm on the outside with a fairly dense planting to try to mitigate it that way. Commissioner Brady said that he agreed. He would not like to see an eight foot wall either but was concerned about constraints. Commissioner Brady asked staff if a condition to the effect that with regard to pad 4 that there be a screening technique for the south portion of Pad 4 drive-thru using either a berm, wall or other screening technique put in place with the approval of the Planning Director? Mr. Grady said "yes." ; Gordon Stabler stated that they plan to use evergreen trees so that the landscaping will be full in the winter. Commissioner Brady asked if they would agree to a specific condition regarding the use of trees along River Parkway that they will be evergreen? Mr. Stabler said "yes" as they plan to do that anyway but they would like to have a little flexibility to have a little bit of variety, such as 90% evergreen, in terms of a design standpoint. Commissioner Brady asked if the applicant had a comment regarding the suggestion that the sidewalk along Major A be continued in some fashion to connect with the sidewalk that will be put in along River Run Bouelvard? Mr. Stabler said it was an excellent comment and they are prepared to do that. Commissioner Brady said that he is willing to support the project. He feels it could be more pedestrian friendly and there could have been more creativity in the design but that it is a nice looking center. Commissioner Brady feels a condition regarding the lighting plan be added stating that a lighting plan will be provided to show that lighting will not filter into adjacent property owners with the approval' of the Planning Director. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Zone Change P99-0919 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the changes recommended in Stanley Grady's memorandum dated February 17, 2000, to the Planning Commission adopting the changes in Tony Hogg's letter to the Planning Commission dated February 17 and the February 17, 2000, memorandum from Steve Walker to Marian Shaw with the addition that a condition be added that along River Park Way that the trees be of at least 90% evergreen variety, that a condition be added that the site design around Pad 4 shall include screening on the south side of the building incorporating a wall and/or landscaping that effectively screens the sound from menu speakers and the window subject to the approval of the Planning Director and a separate condition that the applicant submit a lighting plan for the project that will affect the height of the lighting standards and appropriate Screening to prevent lighting from filtering into adjacent properties with the approval of the Planning Director. A separate condition shall also be added to require that the sidewalk in front of Major A shall be extended in some fashion so there is a connection between there and the sidewalk along River Run Boulevard. Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Parle 8 Motion carried by the following roll call vOte: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens None 5. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment No. P98-0760 - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield (Wards 1,3,6,7) · Commissioners Boyle and Brady stated that they had a conflict of interest on this project and would not be participating in this item. Staff report given recommending approval of the committee's alignment as modified by. staff and shown on the map. Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following people spoke against the proposed alignment: Ingrid Colson, Curt Williams, Fern Peters, Wes Colson, Steve Gerber, Ray Banducci, Marion Crane, Brenda Diaz, Dave Baldwin, Joanne Galbrieth, Jim House, John Maley, Jackie Collins, David Slicker, Jack Alexander, Tom Boozer, Roger Paulk, Patricia Collins, Ron Holbert, Larry Parker, Gerry Hauld, Lisa Morger and Martin Pizani. Tom Fallgater speaking for Stan Antongiovanni, property owner who will be impacted by the alignment, asked for a continuance so that Mr. Antongiovanni could have time to see exactly how his property is impacted. They feel the nine days notice the property owners received was not sufficient notice to see exactly how their property would be impacted. Fern Dessy, representing the members of the Costerian family, expressed her appreciation for the efforts of the Commission, the City and the County to accommodate all of the concerns that have been expressed to them over the realignment situation. Stanley Grady clarified for the speakers that notices were sent out to people within a half mile of the proposed line. Some property owners came to the office and talked to staff from the city and county and in an attempt to resolve some of the major concerns that were expressed they looked to see if their were some additional options for the Commission to consider. The red line shown on the map is based on concerns from those individuals. Mr. Steve Gerber spoke again and asked when the beltway would be built. Chairman Tkac said that he thought it.was in 20 to 25 years. Mr. Grady said that is correct. Mr. Gerber then asked what to do with the signatures he collected against the alignment. Chairman Tkac told him to give them to the secretary. Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page Margaret Hall asked staff which side of DiGiorgio Road would the 300 feet be taken from? Mr. Grady said he believes it is the south side. Ms. Hall then asked if the State would buy all of her property or just the 300 feet they need. Mr. Grady said the decision would be made by the State when the project was actually funded. Mr. Ray Banducci asked if the State would appraise the property at tOday's value and then pay you 25 years down the road and what can he do with the property for the next 25 years? Mr. Grady explained that Mr. Banducci could continue to farm the property as though the plan line does not exist. The line would only come into play if he decides to construct a permanent building of some sort or subdivide the land for the purpose of building residential properties. Farming or building farm related buildings can still occur on the property as though the line didn't exist. Ms. Shaw, in response to the concern of property owners who said they would not be able to sell their property, stated that the transportation impact fee, as it stands now, does contain a project to purchase right-of-way for the south beltway. No property can be purchased until a specific plan line has been adopted but once it is adopted, if the county chooses to, there would be a limited amount of funds available to purchase properties as they came on the market. Chris Sullivan, a property owner, asked the Commission to continue the project until his family can be consulted about the alignment. The fOllowing people spoke in favor of the project: Terri Bjorn and John Cicerroni. Ms. Bjorn, representing Oxy, USA, who recently acquired substantially all of Enron's mineral rights in California assured the Commission that OXy is in the process of trying to get up to speed on all of the City and County projects they inherited from Enron that effect their mineral rights and Oxy does intend to continue to monitor all of these projects and work closely with the City and County staff and decision-makers on these various projects. Ms. Bjorn said that they are not necessarily opposed to the :alignments that are being looked at tonight but they would prefer that the alignment remain north of DiGiorgio Road. Oxy would like to strongly encourage the Commission to include in their resolution adopting the alignment the language that was included in a prior resolution in December when the Final EIR was certified which language amends the Bakersfield Municipal Code Section that otherwise prohibits continued development within the specific plan line. There is a lot of potential mineral'development in the area. Ms. Bjorn went on to thank the Commission for their hard work with the committee meetings and such and hope that the Commission will make wise deliberations tonight. John Ciccerone, speaking on behalf of property owners in eastern and northeast Bakersfield, are in support of the Comanche alignment. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Parle 10 Commissioner Sprague told the audience how the new proposed alignment was reached with committee meetings, aerial photographs, and discussion with City and County staff. Commissioner Sprague said that they had.spent untold hours on the project, trying to protect property owner's rights, trying to protect homes and properties that were effected in previous routes. The committee tried to miss areas that were currently built out and areas that would be effected 20 years down the road. Commissioner Sprague said that he thought there were only two or three houses effected and wanted to know if staff had any current aerial photographs (taken within the last six months) that they could take a hard look at? Mr. Grady said "no" and did not know if the County had any or not. Commissioner Sprague said that he would support possibly continuing this for another couple weeks working and massaging the route around to see if there is a way that we can make this work for most of the people out there. Commissioner Kemper said that the main reason for the beltway is to take the traffic count off of the City streets so you don't have bad levels of service, and to move traffic around town, and in order to get funding support from CalTrans we have to have trip numbers. Trip numbers are not generated out on Bear Mountain because there is nobody out there to use it. Therefore, the freeway alignment must be brought up as far north as possible to increase the trip numbers. The 2010 Plan had the alignment running near Pacheco and Panama Road but because there was no specific line adopted and so much housing built up that by the time the beltway was considered again, it was impossible to go through the area. Commissioner Kemper proposed to continue this meeting to the March 2 Planning'Commission meeting in order for City and County staff to work with the residents and come to a conclusion that will please as many as p°ssible. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if there is a concern because the green line is actually the preferred alignment and was noticed if the red line which was just proposed this week would effect the notice area? Mr. Grady said "no" that the red line is still within the half mile area which is still in an area greater than what is required by law. Commissioner Dhanens also reminded the audience that just because the Commission recommends one route, it still has to be approved by the City Council and because the majority of the route is in the County, the County Planning Commission will have hearings on it along with the Board of Supervisors. There is nothing to say that the · recommendation that the Planning Commission makes is the one that will eventually be approved. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw how many times the Kern River Freeway has been changed since it was approved? Ms. Shaw stated, that once the plan'line of the Kern River Freeway was adopted jointly by the both the City and the County, the plan line did move once and was readopted by the County. Since then, CalTrans has been studying the alignment roughly along the same specific plan line and have changed it again at three different locations that she knows of by about 300 to 400 feet and it still has not been adopted by the State. Commissioner Dhanens made a comment to the effect thatsince the Kern River Freeway plan line was adopted there is a major land developer in the northeast who has Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Page 11 a lot of holdings and has continued to do environmental impact reports, general plan amendments, rezonings and subdivision maps for single family homes, multiple family homes, commercial, schools, parks, 'etc. within a quarter mile of the specific plan line. Although he is not a real estate agent or a land' appraiser, he knows that the adoption of the specific plan line has not necessarily stopped development. Commissioner Dhanens assumes there is not a tremendous change in the land values. Commissioner Dhanens recommended instead .of continuing this that the Commission adopt a specific line that is the green line as modified by the red line with the addition that the line be moved approximately one quarter mile north of DiGiorgio Road between Oswell and South Union Avenue and send the recommendation along to the City Council. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the committee tried to come up with an alignment that would be livable for everyone but tonight's audience is every bit as dissatisfied with the line as was the property owners in December. Commissioner McGinnis feels that the Bear Mountain alignment would be the best as it wouldn't step on anyone's toes but if you don't move the traffic, you don't get support from the people that are putting up the money to build the roads. There(0re, Commissioner McGinnis said that he is ready to support the amended line as drawn by City staff as long it is within the half mile area that was noticed. Commissioner Dhanens asked if an actual legal description has been prepared for the specific plan line or whether that gets done at a later date in the process? Ms. Shaw said that it is her understanding that County staff has prepared a legal description for the green line, however, any changes can be accommodated by rewriting the description. The description is needed when the specific plan line is finally adopted. Commissioner Sprague had one other point that he meant to make earlier regarding vested mineral right holders along a specific route that is selected, and their rights to' continue their operations, build facilities, oil and gas lines as well as drill oil wells. Commissioner Sprague stated that he does not specifically agree with Chapter 17.55 that's set forth within the draft ordinance. But understands from legal counsel with the City that that ordinance is in place giving them legal right, their vested rights to go ahead and expand their facilities or drill oil wells or place oil and gas facilities up on that right- of-way because it's their vested right to do it. Commissioner Sprague put his self in the property owner's shoes in this position, and feels that if it's not right - if they don't give the property owner the right to build on that alignment, then they shouldn't be able to give the right to the mineral right holders to drill oil wells and put gas facilities on the beltway that 20 years from now that citizen taxpayers are going to have to buy back. Commissioner Sprague feels it is kind of ambiguOus from that standpoint and wants to make a strong reference to it when it goes forward into the different political bodies that they consider Chapter 17.55 as being a negative with the citizens of Kern County and · the City of Bakersfield in that items that could be developed on this beltway that could cost the taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars 20 years from now. Commissioner Dhanens restated his proposal that tonight the Commission recommend Minutes; PC, February 17, 2000 Page t2 to the City Council that we adopt a specific plan line that is described as alignment two which is the green alignment that the committee adopted with the suggested revisions that staff has proposed to us tonight as indicated in red with the further revision that that portion of the alignment between Oswell and South Union Avenue be shifted'one quarter mile to the north of DiGiorgio Road as opposed to sending it back to a committee or continuing it to the next Planning Commission hearing. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff to draw the revisions on the map. Mr. Grady drew the proposal on the computer screen. Mr. Gauthier then put the map on the overhead with the proposed changes and there was some discussion about where the alignment would go. Commissioner McGinnis stated that this alignment seems to be fine but at this point in time in good conscious could not support it until he had a chance to take a look at it personally. For that reason he wished to continue the proceeding tonight to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sprague asked if City and County staff would be available to meet with the committee on the beltway to do a drive on this so they can take a Io0k at this within the next five days? Mr. Grady said that City staff would be available and since the County has been cooperating with us on this, if they are available, he was sure they could join us. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks if they take a joint drive out there and take a · hard look at this physically, that maybe there is some way that they can come up with some better ideas than what they have here and what they got from the aerials. ' Commissioner Sprague said that he supports a continuance of this for two weeks with a joint field trip with the committee to try to eliminate some of the property owner's concerns. Commissioner Sprague said that if there are no other Commissioner comments he would make a motion to continue this for two weeks. Commissioner Kemper seconded the motion. Mr. Hernandez then told the Commission that they need to realize that if they are going to meet again as a committee that it has to be noticed and agenized. Mr. Hernandez said that could not be done in the two weeks prior to the March 2 meeting. The committee would have to make a decision on where the alignment is going to go and then renotice other property owners. Mr. Hernandez said that Mr. Grady would have to advise the Commission when they might be able to hold a continued hearing on this matter. Mr. Grady said that if the Commission were to appoint the committee members tonight and then if all the individuals could get together tomorrow then perhaps the March 2 meeting could be made but if not it would have to be the 16th or the first meeting in April. Commissioner Sprague said that that would work for him. Commissioner Dhanens stated that with respect to timing and schedules and committee Minutes, PC, February t7, 2000 Page t3 meetings and Planning Commission hearings and so forth that this. issue has been studied over a period of a year and half and it is important to get a recommendation to the City Council to keep the process moving ahead and with the changes to the alignment that have been made tonight and in meetings with property owners, Commissioner Dhanens feels that they have enough of a specific plan line to go ahead with and made a recommendationto the City Council. Commissioner Dhanens said that he would be in favor of trying to write some language tonight to keep the process moving forward, knowing that it will still be reviewed by other bodies. The Commission can give them a recommendation at this time based on the testimony that they have heard over the past year and a half. Commissioner Sprague said that with that fact and the fact that they probably would not meet again until April, he will withdraw his motion for a continuance. Commissioner Dhanens made a motion that the Commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of the Circulation Element Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and specific plan line with findings as presented in resolution Exhibit "F" to the City Council and subject to mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "C". Such specific plan line shall generally be described as that shown as the combination of'alignments one and two on the graph prepared by staff tonight with the red line being the suggested route by staff and with the further modification that the alignment be generally described as occurring approximately one quarter mile north of DiGiorgio Road between Oswell and South Union Avenue. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Hernandez if he legally felt comfortable with the noticing and the changes that possibly could be made or do we need to continue this and renotice? Mr. Hernandez said that he believed the noticing that was provided is sufficient and also he thought it is important to note that City staff will go ahead and notice all of the areas that have been proposed and discussed as part of Commissioner Dhanens' motion so that those persons who would like to continue to voice their opinion may do so before the City Council before this plan line is set from the City standpoint. Chairman Tkac stated that he had a motion by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, and the motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dhanens, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac NOES Commissioner McGinnis ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Brady 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS Minutes, PC, FebrUary 17, 2000 Page 14 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5964 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4 ) See Consent Agenda 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5980 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) see Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING -Zone Change P99-0919 (Coleman Homes, Inc.) This was heard prior to item 5. (Ward 4) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from Planning Director on P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) Final Development Plan Modification. (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of .59 acre for a drainage basin. (ward ~) See Consent Agenda 10. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague requested that staff start working on a future agenda that would consider the east beltway from Highway 58 north along Comanche Road along to Highway 178 and then north along Alfred Harrell Highway to Hart Park across the bridge across the river and then northwest along north of Round Mountain Road, northwest to 99 and on to 7th Standard Road to connect into I-5. Commissioner Sprague said the reason he is' requesting to start this process is because major planning is about to happen in the northeast and now is the time to address proper beltway planning in the northeast as well as north of Bakersfield which he thinks will expand in the next 20 years. He would like to see it placed on the agenda for review before the end of this year. Mr. Grady stated that the City Council just had a presentation by staff on the freeway system and what he is suggesting may be in conflict with what the Council is directing Minutes, PC, February 17, 2000 Pa~e 15 staff to do. Mr. Grady suggests that the Commission should not have staff pursue something outside of what the Council is doing right now. Mr. Grady said that staff could put together a presentation for the Commission so that the Commission may know what the Council is studying about the freeway system. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks it is important for the Commission to start working along these lines for general planning principals because development is going to happen out there and if we lag behind and not be on top of it, the specific plan line will be built over and they will be where they are today with the South Beltway. Commissioner Sprague said that for good planning purposes he would like to see joint meetings with city and county Planning Departments and Commissions addressing the continuity of codes and ordinances on properties which are adjacent and items that come on the county's general plan and city's Sphere of Influence within the county jurisdiction. He would like to see something like this come about within the next 6 months. Mr. Grady said that he would see what he could do. Commissioner Dhanens thanked staff for their efforts regarding the Circulation Element, staff's demeanor with the public and staff's patience with the public. Chairman Tkac thanked staff and offered a round of applause. Commissioner Tkac said that he thinks it would alleviate a lot of the controversy and questions if the Planning Commission were broadcasting on television. Mr. Grady said he would see what he can find out and let the Commission know. '12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING Motion was made by commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to cancel the pre-meeting of March 13, 2000. '13. March 20, 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 BAKERSFIELD Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Stanley C. GradY Planning Director (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield scheduled for THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000, is canceled. DATED: February 24, 2000 ~Y Planmng Director pc~agenda\3-2 City of Bakersfield · 1 715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301