Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/99AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: Thursday - February 18, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BO YLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRA GUE 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. 2. 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 $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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council ~hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday - February 18, 1999 Page 2 = = 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Located on the east side of State Route 184 (aka Kern Canyon Road) between State Route 178 and Mesa Marin Drive, consisting of 5 parcels on 21.27 acres for purposes of commercial development, zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial); and a 65.37 acre designated remainder zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and a request to waive mineral right owner's signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 1. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from February 4, 1999) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of a 10,500 + square foot site for use as a domestic water well site, generally located northeast of Hageman Road and Verdugo Lane (Lot 40 of Tract 5658). (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group VOte. DISCUSSION OF A MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING COMMISSIONERS BEING ABLE TO ATTEND A COMMITTEE MEETING AS A NON- = MEMBER. ' 1) WORKSHOP - REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2) WORKSHOP - SOUTH BELTVVAY STATUS COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal Page 3 Agenda, PC, Thursday - February 18, 1999 '9. 10. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE February 10, 1999 NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT ~~anning Director Held Thursday, February 18, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA = ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN RON SPRAGUE Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director . MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary- PUBLIC STATEMENTS None CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None PUBLIC HEARINGS -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Commissioner Sprague stated that he had a conflict of interest in this project and would not be voting. Staff report was given. This was a continued item from the last meeting as there were some outstanding issues regarding road improvements and proposed parcelization. The map now proposes two parcels. The issue still exists regarding improvements along Highway 184. The applicant requests~deferral of those improvements. The City feels that it would be inappropriate to defer those improvements. Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions attached to the staff report. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 18, 1999 Page 2 Public portiOn of the hearing waS opened. No one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist with pOrter-Robertson Engineering stated that they had met with staff ' prior to the meeting and were not able to come to agreement in regards to the improvements so they are submitting a revised map with two parcels. It will be phased and the improvements will be done along Highway 184 with each'phase. He stated the conditions were acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked if there were any outstanding issues and Mr. Grady said there were not. Motion was made by Commissioner BoYle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration to approve Tentative Parcel Map 10581 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of a 10,500 + square foot site for use as a domestic water well site on Lot 40 of Tract 5658. Staff report was given. Staff recommended the Planning Commission make the finding.' Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or favor. Commissioner Sprague would like the record to reflect the adjacent residential housing that will go in to the north and east of this lot and Wondered if the BOard of Zoning would buffer those lots with some type of fencing or shrubbery that would buffer the sound zone on the well. · Commissioner Boyle asked what the city standards are for buffering the well site from - the adjoining residential. Mr. Grady stated that the pump house is usually in a block building and a wall is then built around the exterior from the actual site where the water well is. The site would also be landscaped and maintained by the city. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner sprague to make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402 that the proposed acquisition of the site in question for useas a water well site is consistent with the Metropolitan · Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. DISCUSSION OF A MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING COMMISSIONERS BEING ABLE TO ATTEND A COMMITTEE MEETING AS A NON- MEMBER. Carl Hernandez spoke to the Commission about the Brown Act. The Brown Act prOhibits a meeting of a majority of the members of the particular body unless the items they are going to discuss have been agendized and the public has been noticed as to what is being discussed. Where a non-committee member attends a committee meeting there ~ essentially is a potential that a quorum of the full Commission. would be in attendance. There are two solutions to that problem. The first is you prohibit any non-committee member from attending a committee meeting. Which is the type of rule we have now. The second solution if its the Commissions desire to attend committees that you are not a member of, you would have to amend Your bylaws to establish standing committees. The non-committee member could then attend but could °nly-attend as an observer. Minutes, PC~ Thursday, February 18, 1999 Page 3 The non-committee member could not participate. Commissioner Brady asked what he meant by non-participate. Mr. Hernandez stated that'you could only observe. Not say anything. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Hernandez what the difference was between a standing committee and an ad hoc committee. Mr. Hernandez stated that an ad hoc; committee is a committee that is formed to achieve a particular task thats been designated by the chair or the Commission. After the task is achieved, the committee is no longer in existence. A standing committee is a committee that can be established in the by-laws that has continuing subject matter jurisdiction over a particular area. Commissioner Sprague asked if it would be a problem for this Commission to have standing committees? Mr. Grady responded by saying the reason we don't have Standing committees is that there would have to be consistent agendas to prepare and notices sent out. If there were nothing to discuss, notices would still have to be sent canceling the meeting. It creates a lot of additional paperwork. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Hernandez if a non-committee member attended a committee meeting and did not participate, he would still be in violation of the Brown Act. Mr. Hernandez stated yes. If a non-committee member is attending a meeting there is a potential that some consensus is being reached and a decision has been brought back to the full Commission with a decision that has already been formulated and can only be rubber stamped by the majority who have already made that decision with the full Planning Commission. · Commissioner Kemper stated that she is O.K. with leaving the committees as ad hoC. Commissioner Boyle asked if Mr. Hernandez if it was possible to hold SPecial meetings of the Planning Commission? Mr. Hernandez responded by saying that a special meeting where the whole Commission can attend is O.K. 1) WORKSHOP- REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ' Mr. Grady gave an overview of the general plan and an update of the scope of work that is being proposed for doing 'the update. The purpose of the uPdate is to revise 'the seven mandatory and optional elements of the general plan to reflect changes to the assumptions upon which .the current plan is based. The update will evaluate the baCkground data, plan assumptions, policies and implementation measures in the current general plan and revise them as necessary to reflect current conditions and their impact on projections about the future. The planning horizon is a benchmark not a goal post. It Provides the reference point in time for measuring impacts, making growth projections and performing -other quantative analysis required for the plan to be considered adequate. An update allows for the reference point to be reset and calculations adjusted based on new information. Minutes, PC~ ThursdayI February 18, 1999 Page 4 An extensive community participation process that utilizes the Internet is planned. Updates on the web site will be provided periodically. Citizen response surveys that can be downloaded and comments may also be submitted through the web site. Commissioner Boyle asked if there would be any benefit to having joint meetings with the City and County Planning Commission as the City and County will be jointly conducting the update? Mr. Grady responded by saying that that could occur, The details of how this will all mesh together are still being worked out. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if there was a time table as to how long this project will take. Mr. Grady said that that was to be determined as well. It could take approximately one year. Commissioner Ortiz asked Mr. Grady to explain the term "visioning process". Mr. Grady said that what that is intended to do is provide opportunities for the public to submit their ideas of what they think the City of Bakersfield should be like in the future. Commissioner Tavorn asked if we were going to look at the 2010 Plan and look at what we actually planned to have happen and then compare it to what actually happened so that we can analyze where the concerns are if we have any or do we need to look at some updates to reevaluate some of the previous decisions that were made and maybe have them changed or reevaluated as the update goes forth? Mr. Grady responded by stating the process does include an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing policies which would include looking at what was said about what was going to be done and making some evaluation as to how well it was done. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if there were any plans to expand the Sphere of Influence in and around Bakersfield with this plan. Mr. Grady said there were no plans for expanding the Sphere of Influence during the update of the plan. CommiSsioner Kemper asked if this was a 20 to 25 year plan? Mr. Grady said that would be determined when the plan was looked at. Commissioner Brady commented that he enjoyed the presentation and graphics and thanked Mr. Grady for taking the time to put it together. He also mentioned that the public having access through the Internet as a part of this update was a - good idea. Commissioner Tavorn asked if annexation would be a part of this process? Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Kemper asked if the city would be doing anything in the form of press releases? Mr. Grady said that was a possibility but that the details about how this is going to work has to be worked out between the City and the County. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, FebruarY18, 1999 . Page 2) WORKSHOP - SOUTH BELTWAY STATUR Marian Shaw, Engineer With the Public Works Department, stated that the South Beltway would not be heard at the March general plan hearing. The environmental document would not be ready. . Ms. Shaw told the Commission that she would like to put on a few workshopS for the Commission to give some information on transportation issues especially how they relate to the South Beltway. This would be the first one. - Ms. Shaw gave a~ brief overview of how the general plan and cireulation element Work with specific plan lines. Commissioner Sprague asked previously about interchanges. Ms. Shaw stated that she prebably had more information than he wanted but she had some excerpts from a highway design manual frem CalTrans. She 'gave him a brief overview of typical freeway to freeway interchanges. Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw if there were a vision of how the interchange would look overlaid on the present interchange or would it be south of the present interchange at Taft Highway. Has Public Works looked at that? What type of interchange and how it would tie in with that interchange to Come across and to take the traffic off of the beltway and into the 99 corridor. Ms. Shawstated that nothing has been laid out yet but she could lay out something similar to 58 and 99 and see what that would look like. Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw if she could also provide an Overhead photo such as she had so that they could physically see it as its sets and may be overlay it and see what it looks like. Commissioner Sprague asked if Ms. Shaw envisioned the area being approximately 40 acres and what if something was built on that that would interfere. How does the city disclose to the public aboUt major development in the corridor?. In the period of months before the beltway is adopted, development may occur and the taxpayers may be out a lot of money in acquiring the property. How do We prevent that? Ms.'Shaw stated that she would like to get back with him with the answer to that question at a later time. Commissioner Sprague asked if the information in the South BeltwaY Kern COG Re port 1994 been included in the current report before the Commission that they have been reviewing? Ms. Shaw stated that she believed there is and said that she would confirm this for the Commission. The computer was not functioning properly so Ms. Shaw decided to end her presentation and schedule it for to another time. Date to be decided later. 8. COMMUNICATIONS. There were no written or verbal communications. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 18, 1999 Page 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner Tavorn asked when the terms expired. Commissioner Tkac stated that application deadline is Friday, March 19. The appointments will be made March 31, 1999 and Council interviews will be held March 31 at 5:15 p.m. Terms would expire April 17, 1999. Commissioner Kemper said the Park Committee had concluded their assignment and it would be coming back to Planning Commission soon. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. It was decided that a pre-meeting on March 1, 1999, was necessary. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m. March 16,' 1999 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretai'y