Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/97 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, January'16, 199~ 5:30 p.m. 1. BOJ_L_Q~LL KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC ALTERNATE: MICHAEL DHANENS NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. A 2. PUBLIC STATEMENT_S_ 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 933011 A $330 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 $330 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, 1/16/96 Page 2 o If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. ~_T~GENDA 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regualar meetings held November 21, 1996. PUBLIC_HEAEI._NG - VESTING TENTATIVE TI:?,ACT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5859 PHASED (Telstar Engineering for Carriage Homes). Located on. the northwest corner of South Union Avenue and Panama Lane. Consisting of 97 residential lots and one park lot on property zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.2. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote P~I~I.I~I_G_S - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS= ASSOCIATED REZONING_S AND CIRC_U_LATION ELEMENT AMENDMEbI_ TS 1) GPA CASE NO. P96-0780 -- RQN RU_E_'ET_GE~S_FOR_ CAr,J~'_QI~_HJLLS GH_U_ECHJ~GQD has proposed a Circulation Element.Amendment, Realignment of Auburn Street and establishment of a specific plan line. The segment of Auburn Street proposed for realignment is located between Morning Drive and the Canyon Hills Church of God. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from the regular meeting of December 19, 1996) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Roll call vote ,:. , ~'Agenda, PC, 1/16/96 Page 3 10. 2a) b) ~SE~O. P96-05_4;3: Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) or LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 12.38 + acres for property located southwest of Stockdale Highway and South Renfro Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from the regular meeting of December 19, 1996) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditionsl Roll call vote Zone Change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Limited MUltiple Family Dwelling) on 12.38 + acres for property located southwest of Stockdale Highway and South Renfro Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from the regular meeting of December 19, 1996) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Roll call vote PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RFP_QI~' FOE GEI~.E~L_E~~.DMEN~8_6_~87~ND 521 AND ZONE CI--]AIAGE C~9_6-¢~8Z~J~IDSZ1, GENEBALLY~_QCAT_ED S_QU~ THE CROSS VALLEY CANAL AND BETWEEN ALLEN ROAD_AND CALLOWAY ROAD. (NO ACTION) GENEEAI_~_LA~ C~)NSISTE~C~V~INDING (Government Code Section 65402) General plan consistency finding for the sale of property located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and "K" Street. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve,, Group vote COM MUNI_CA_T_I 0 N S A) Written B) Verbal _COMMISSION CO M MEIAT~ A. Committees 'iAgenda, PC, 1116196 Page 4 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGAR~CANCELLATJO~LOF T_~ PJ:~--~. 12. ADJ_OU RBMENI Janua~ 2.1997 Planning Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held January 16, 1997, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS 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 LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENT-'::; Jill Kleiss representing Southwest Community Action Committee asked if the commission has the ability to deny EIR's. The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Brady asked that the following changes be made to the November 21 st minutes: Page 7, 6th paragraph, be changed to read as follows: "Commissioner Brady said one of the problems the commission has encountered in justifying a small lot subdivision is the vagueness of the language in the current ordinance, however this proposed ordinance amendment defines that the amenities provided are at the discretion of the commission after guidelines are followed. The language provides uniformity and a basis for determining that the open space requirement has been met." Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve minutes of November 21, 1996 as previously amended. Motion carried. .PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5859 PHASED Staff report recommending approval was giVen. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland represented the applicant. He submitted a sketch of surrounding properties pointing to the one acre portion and saying that the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Delgado, were not notified. He stated if the condition remains it will bring the future back of sidewalk thirteen feet from their front door. He requested because of this impact on this property owner that Condition #'s 1.1 and 1.2 be deleted. Concerning Condition #2 with regard to construction of street in front of their home, he asked that this condition be deleted also. Regarding the need for an encroachment permit he asked that this condition be deleted and that they be allowed to work with the county on this issue. Concerning Condition #8.3 regarding the proportionate share of westbound Panama Lane he asked that it be deleted because he felt that if their client builds 100 percent of his street he has done his fair share. He stated the calculations for the park site were based on 97 lots one of which is the park site. Instead of the condition reading .7325 it should be .7248. Mr. Grady said contrary to Mr. Moreland's statement, Planning staff had spoken to the Delgado's and they were provided with a staff report. Maria Delgado stated she was in opposition to having a portion of their yard taken and to the block wall. Mr. Grady clarified there will be no wall required around their property. Mr. Moreland asked that the street improvements that would affect the Delgado property to be deferred until their property is developed. Commissioner Brady asked if Ms. Delgado has plans at the present time to subdivide her property. She stated she did not. He asked if there is a fence around the property at the present time. Ms. Delgado responded there was and it is chainlink. Mr. LaRochelle stated Mr. Moreland has addressed numerous conditions of which he was not previously informed and recommended this matter be continued. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Discussion continued regarding the streets. Commissioner Brady felt if Panama Lane were not improved and widened at this time it would never get done. He stated he would not agree with Mr. Moreland's proposed change to the widening of Panama Lane. Commissioner Boyle agreed with Commissioner Brady's comment. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 3 Commissioner Delgado informed the Delgado's they were not required to do anything. It would be the developer who would be required to compensate them. He stated he would be in favor of a continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to .continue this item to the next regular meeting. Motion carried. 6.1) PUBLIC HEARING - GPA CASE NO. P96-0780 - RON RUETTGERS FOR CANYON HILLS CHURCH OF GOD PROPOSES A CIRCULATIO_N ELEMENT AMIFI~ ~REALIGNMENT OF AUBURN STREET AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIFIC_PJ.A~ LI.NE. THE SEGMENT OF AUBURN STREET PROPOSED FOR REALIGNMEN_T IS LOCATED BETWEEN MORNING DRIVE AND THE CANYO~ HI~QE This item was withdrawn by the applicant. '6.2 a&b.) PUBLIC HEARING - GPA AND ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. P96-0543 -- PROPQSEE) AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DFS~ EROM LMR (.LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO HMR (HIGH MEDIUM DENSITY PJ~SIDENTIAL) OR LMR (,LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ON 12.38 +/- AC_RES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUT~ST_OCKDALE HIGHWAY AND SOUTH RENFRO ROAD. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. John Willingham stated he is speaking as an apartment owner. He was concerned that an Overabundance of apartments exists. Commissioner Brady asked if he had information concerning the vacancy rate in subject area. Mr. Willingham said he did not have exact figures however thought it was about 5 percent. However in the southwest where he owns units he is experiencing a 20 percent vacancy factor. Gary Powell submitted written materials to the commission. He stated they have obtained over 1,000 signatures in opposition to this proposal. He stated his concern that the property owner has not met with the surrounding property owners. He stated they are not opposed to development of the property under its current zoning designation, but are concerned that the quality of their neighborhood be protected. Dan Kass felt the commission should deny this proposal because it is not compatible with the 2010 Plan because it conflicts with the goals of the community. He also felt it disrupts the physical arrangement of this established neighborhood and creates a land use transition problem. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 4 Barbara Lomas stated she is a resident in the area of Stockdale and Renfro Road. She submitted a copy of the previous weekend paper showing the rentals and especially those giving incentives. She showed the entrance into the elementary school stating there is already a serious traffic problem. She stated her concern with the lack of infrastructure at this point. Tony Lomas stated he is a resident of the Del Rio area. He stated they are not opposed to managed growth, however are opposed to this project because they do not feel it is a well planned project. He was concerned about the burden on schools during the interim time before they can be constructed. He stated he did not appreciate the amount of delays for this project and did not feel this was handled as well as it could have been. He felt this type of use was perhaps more appropriate for redevelopment areas. Lynn Mihalijo spoke in opposition. She submitted signatures which would bring the signatures in opposition to Over 1,100 from residents in their area. She cited problems with the noticing procedure. She quoted the Housing Element which she said does not give a minimum number of apartments required in all areas of the city. She stated they are not opposed to development of this site, however want it developed as it is currently zoned. John Sarad represented the applicants. Regarding the statement concerning overabundance of apartments he said this is determined by the market. He said the decision of constructing apartments is one that is his to make and should not be a consideration of the Commission. Regarding the school issue he stated he had spoken to the district office and was told when the new school adjacent to the Rosedale School District headquarters is completed there will then only be approximately 460 students in Del Rio School because boundaries will change. Regarding traffic impacts he stated they have been addressed through conditions of the staff report. Noise impacts and .animal habitat have also been taken into consideration. He stated they are not increasing the maximum number of dwelling units because the density will be greater on one end, however it will be less on the rest of the parcel. He felt the opposition to apartments in this area is based on opposition to Iow income housing which he said it would not be. He cited areas in which nice apartments exist abutting single family homes. Matt Vovilla, Porter-Robertson Engineering commented on the traffic impact study which they prepared. He requested modification of Condition #'s 10-13 because the fee computations did not take credits to traffic impact fee into account. He stated he had discussed this with staff and they are in agreement. Mr. LaRochelle stated this was correct and that the amounts should be half of what are shown. He stated concerning the traffic study that the change to multi-family causes a very small net increase to overall traffic as opposed to single family homes which they calculated at 21 additional evening peak hour trips to that generated by single family homes. He pointed out the contribution to street improvements identified by the traffic study would be necessary with or without this project. Regarding the analysis of the east/west collector their traffic study shows that it is not necessary along the north side of the Cross Valley Canal because the canal truncates the section and isolates a road of collector status. Local streets will suffice for traffic circulation. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 5 Jim Marino spoke in favor of the prOject. He cited the Housing Element which encourages a mix of housing types. Regarding mitigation measure #2 he stated this ensures that the density will not be increased. He requested that the commission support staff recommendation and the general plan and approve the project. Chuck Tolfree stated he is one of the partners on this project. Concerning a question about the capability of the applicant to complete the project he gave a history of their construction in the area. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle thanked those present for their time with respect to attending hearings on .this item. He felt it was unfortunate that the developer did not work out the issues with the neighborhood before the hearing. Concerning Mr. Kass' comment about the transitional issue he disagreed citing county land to the west which is zoned general commercial stating R-2 property is the most appropriate and he did not see the inconsistency. Concerning a comment regarding an increase in density on 80 acres he felt this was not accurate that the increase in density only existed on 12 acres. He stated there is no R-2 in this area and while vacancies may exist in other sections of town that does not equate to vacancies in this area. It is not within the purview of the commission to make economic decisions with respect to how people want to develop their property. He felt it was important to have a mixture of housing in every neighborhood. He stated he would support this request. Commissioner Tavorn stated he did not agree with Commissioner Boyle's comments. He cited the 2010 Plan which states changes to the general plan should be made when issues require it. He did not see any reason why a change should be made on this property. He was concerned about the issue of overcrowding in schools. He did not feel it was fair to change this zoning now that the surrounding neighborhood exists. He stated his concern about traffic. He stated he would vote to uphold the zoning for this property as it is represented in the 2010 Plan. Commissioner Brady thanked those for attending this hearing and taking the time to prepare for it. He stated concerning the petitions they submitted that this is not necessarily a reason for denial of a request. He stated it is not the role of the commissiOn to make decisions based on the economic housing market. Regarding impact on home values, he felt there was no evidence which would support this. Regarding the overabundance of rental properties, he said the future market may necessitate this amount of apartments. He said there is an absence of this particular variety of housing stock in this area. Responding to request by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady explained the Mello-Roos funding method. Commissioner Brady said the school issues have been mitigated per the school district. Concerning the noticing issue raised by Ms. Mihalijo, Ms. Marino explained the process. Mr. Grady explained the city is not required to ensure that the notice is received, but is required to ensure that it is sent. Commissioner Brady asked if the condition requiring a block wall along Renfro which was discussed at a previous meeting had been added. Mr. Grady said this would need to be added to a motion for approval. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 6 Commissioner Tavorn cited a previous decision which was very similar to this in which the commission voted in favor of homeowners opposed to construction of apartments next to their homes stating he felt the commission needed to be consistent. Commissioner Brady cited this project being next to Tevis Ranch and stated the density was higher and it was proposed from agriculture to R-3. Commissioner Hersh stated his concern about the lack of dialogue between the residents and property owner. He said he hasn't heard a good reason for making this change. He stated he would not support the zone change. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and approving the proposed Low Medium Density Residential designation, with findings and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "1"), and recommend same to City Council, subject to the following changes on Exhibit "1" Second paragraph beginni~i~: Change reference of "High Medium Density Residential" to "Low Medium Density Residential" Exhibit "A," - figures in condition #'s~ID~JI~~ 13 should be cut in half with the last sentence in each condition to rea~Lasd~%(~espectivel~: Project share of a Project share of a Project share of a Project share of a $65,000 signal is $176. $65,000 signal is $475. $65,000 signal is $1,372. $65,000 signal is $234. Addition of a condition to read as follows: Submit a wall and landscaping plan for Renfro Road to the Planning Commission with the first site plan approved in the project area. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado, Hersh Commissioner Brady asked if the zone change motion was necessary; Mr. Grady replied it was not. Ms. Marino stated a converse motion needed to be made so that a recommendation could be sent to the Council. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to deny resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and deny the proposed Low Medium Density Residential designation, with findings and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "1"), and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: Commissioner Brady ABSTAINED: Commissioner Boyle *5-minute break was taken at this time. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT_ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS~_9_6-~.SJ~28Z~A~IE~52]~D_Z_O~l~~ CASES P96-287 AND_521, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BEUMHALL ROAD TO_ THEJ~E_OSS VALLEY CANAL AND BETWEEN ALLEN ROAD AND CALLOWAY L~QAD~ (NO ACTION) Mr. Grady said this is one of two opportunities the public will have to comment in public hearing on this environmental impact report both in draft and final form with respect to addressing the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible significant environmental impacts and mitigation. He introduced Michael Houlihan of Michael Brandman Associates, the consulting firm preparing this environmental impact report. Mr. Gauthier gave an overview of the proposed project. Chairman Hersh asked if the commission receives notice of scoping meetings and if it is well publicized. Mr. Grady said the commission does not and that the meeting is well publicized. The commission may attend the scoping sessions and make comments during the 30-day review period or during the public hearing. Chairman Hersh asked if staff can inform the commission concerning these scoping sessions. Mr. Grady agreed this could be done. Commissioner Hersh asked if Castle & Cooke is in the process of developing a large scale property inthe county in close proximity to subject location at this time. Mr. M¢lntosh, engineer for Castle & Cooke stated to his knowledge they have made no application in the county near subject property nor do they own any property in the county near this project. Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, stated they analyzed the environmental impacts for the south of Brimhall project. He said there are 3 primary categories of the impacts being 1) 8 insignificant impact issues 2) issues determined to have no significant impact after mitigation 3) issues determined to have significant effects after mitigation. He explained items under these categories. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle asked if the EIR states that the payment of fees is adequate mitigation. Mr. Grady said an environmental analysis was performed when the fee was put in place to determine whether it would mitigate the impact for which it was intended. There would be no need for this environmental document to redo that work to determine whether or not that fee adequately mitigates the impact. Commissioner Boyle stated he was not sure if he could agree with this because of the size of the project and was unsure if the existing fees are adequate on a project this size. Commissioner Hersh cited Page 1-1 with respect to the project possibly taking a total of 10 years for total buildout. Mr. Houlihan stated if fees were to change over this period of · time the city may have to reevaluate the project and determine if subsequent environmental documentation is necessary. Concerning the impact analysis, Mr. Houlihan stated they not only looked at a project level impact analysis but also a cumulative levell Due to the projected 10-20 year development of this project the cumulative impact analysis assumed development in accordance with the 2010 general plan buildout levels. Regarding Page 9, Appendix D - Traffic Impact Study Chairman Hersh said this is being projected based on a 2020 projection. If there is a quick development the traffic impact is going to change substantially and this will become very critical. He said he would prefer to see a scenario to show the existing plus project traffic. Commissioner Hersh stated his problem with the traffic issue is that some major streets in the area already have peak time problems and are going to get worse. There is no continuity between the EIR and the good to the rest of the community. Commissioner Boyle asked about a discrepancy between the amount of acreage and residential units. He also asked about the 9 acres of open space. Mr. Grady said this consists of the 100-foot wide strip along the Kern River and the staging area referred to by Mr. Gauthier in his presentation. In response to a question by Commissioner Boyle concerning park requirements, Mr. Grady explained the process by which parks would be implemented. Commissioner Delgado asked if it is possible to inject into the analysis growth at an accelerated pace as suggested by Commissioner Hersh. Commissioner Hersh stated a good job was done on the description of level of service from the highway capacity manual and defining it for the reviewer and asked if all of the surrounding immediate roads are assigned a level of service to determine their status at this time. Mr. Houlihan said a previous traffic study for the fee impact program is referred to and incorporated by reference. Commissioner Hersh asked if something could be added on the major arterials and collectors with respect to levels of service prior to mitigation and with mitigation. Mr. Houlihan agreed to this. Carolyn Belli represented Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails. She stated the concerns of equestrians who own the rural property to the north of Brimhall Road between Allen and Calloway Roads. She explained trails and trail connections. She stated in discussion with Castle and Cooke representatives they indicated their willingness to consider continuing the trail to the north from Goose Lake Slough and perhaps having an unpaved trail easterly to Jewetta to make a connection. Their Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 9 willingness was contingent upon continuity with completion of the Kern River Freeway and approval of an unpaved trail on the south side of Brimhall is granted to provide a link to the trail along Allen Road. The Kern River Freeway Alignment Plan currently shows a proposed interchange at Allen Road which would provide for a trail crossing. Caltrans has been aware of the planned trail system and they have indicated their commitment to continue working with her group to ensure the continuity of trails with respect to progress of freeway construction. She requested that staff, the applicant and their organization meet to discuss options available to alleviate their concerns. Tony Lomas stated he represented the Del Rio area residents stating their opposition to this project based on infrastructure and traffic impacts on their area. Carolyn Belli requested with respect to provision of parks that space be allowed for a trail along Brimhall. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle said he would like the consultant to be given a copy of the trail design of the Rosedale Specific Plan to be considered with the EIR. He stated he had a concern with respect to the conversion of farm land because he did not feel the report sufficiently discusses the impact that 9,000 more residents will have. GEN.ERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING -- SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATFD AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET A~. Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Brady asked if the parking spaces which will be lost are going to be replaced. Mr. Grady said this would be the responsibility of whomever purchases the property. Commissioner Brady was concerned that this is an area with insufficient parking at the present time. He asked when these concerns could be addressed. Mr. Grady said if this item could be continued to the following meeting he would arrange for the City's property manager to be present to address these questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item to the next regular meeting. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 Page 10 9. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Grady said a copy of the Planner's Institute bulletin was submitted to the Commission. He said a packet of information was submitted to the site plan review ordinance committee containing copies of site plan review ordinances from several cities. He said more are expected to be received and will be forthcoming. He said a draft memo was submitted for members of the Subdivision Committee concerning the open space issue which staff would like to transmit to the Urban Development Committee in time for their next meeting of February 12, 1997. He asked that the information be reviewed and that staff be advised with respect to whether it is on point concerning the issues evaluated and conclusions reached in committee. B) Verbal Mr. Grady said the site plan review ordinance is scheduled to go to the Urban Development Committee since the traffic impact fee ordinance has been adopted by both the city and county. He stated he would be proposing a change to the agenda which he would like the commission to consider with respect to addition of an item for deferred business for items which are continued from one meeting to another. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle commented on the memo to the Urban Development Committee concerning the small lot issue which Mr. Grady previously cited with respect to BIA's position. He felt the memo should reflect that the BIA is opposed to any changes in setbacks or lot sizes. Mr. Grady requested that changes be submitted in writing. Commissioner Hersh said he was informed by the City Attorney that a new draft of the site plan review ordinance existed and would be transmitted to the commission soon. Ms. Marino said none of this has gone before the Urban Development Committee and it would not be appropriate to be made public at this time. Chairman Hersh said he has a list of site plan project approvals asking if he could obtain the CEQA documents for these. Mr. Grady said these projects are prepared with 'an exemption therefore there is no CEQA document. A. Committees 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGAP, DJNG_P_OSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT -P~E~EE~E~IG. Mr. Grady gave information concerning items for the next agenda. He stated the next Thursday meeting may not be necessary. Chairman Hersh asked that if the next Minutes, PC, 1/16/97 meeting is held a pre-meeting be held. 12. ~T_ There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Page 11 Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director