Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/92 'MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - _ . OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, May 7, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City:Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue,. Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL -' COMMISSIONERS:. Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson JEFF ANDREW STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL Absent: STEVE ANDERSONi Vice.Chairperson DAVID COHN ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: 'LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner - JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate 'Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the-agenda. --.:. ~ .Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 3~ PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONER BJORN 'This itemWas continued to the regular meeting of May 21, 1992 due to the fact Commissioner-Bjorn could not be present.. Page 2 Chairman Marino stated requests for continuance had been received for the next 'meeting and that the agenda for that meeting is very full, saying he would request that items be allowed to be continued to the June 4th meeting. PUBLIC HEARING- EXTENSION OF TIME- TENTATIVE TRACT 5226 5.1) -(OPTIONAL DESIGN) Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was .opened; no one spoke in opposition. Frank Slinkard represented the applicant. He stated they are in agreement with -conditions and modifications to conditions. Chairman Marino read staff's recommendation'. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve a one-year extension of Tract 5226 with n° change in the original conditions, with-the exception of the change in the memo from the Planning Director dated May 5, 1992. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9723 Commissioner Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his employer is the property owner. Public hearing remained opened since this Was a continued' hearing. A request was received from the applicant for continuance to May.21, 1992. Responding to a request by Chairman Marino Jim Redstone representing Simps0n-VanCuren agreed t° a continuance to June 4, 1992. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to continue this item to the regular meeting of June 4, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers abstained from voting. Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 5.2) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9798 Page 3 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. No one was present to speak in favor. A request was received from the applicant for continuance on this item to the May 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Hardisty, Planning Director recommended a continuance to June 4, 1992. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated information regarding conditions of the expired original map would be provided. Motion was made by.Commissioner Rosenlieb, SecOnded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the regular meeting of June 4, 1992. Motion carried. 6.1) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5276 Commissioner Andrew abstained from voting on this item because he had not heard previous testimony, however he remained seated. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave a committee report. Public portion 0f the hearing remained open since this was a continued item. Roger McIntosh represented the subdivider. He said he agreed to all items in the memo-dated May 7, 1992. Regarding item #18 of Public Works conditions he asked' that sub-paragraph a. be removed because he did not want to submit another map. but wanted to show it on the tentative map. Mr. Kloepper stated his agreement to removal of this condition, but cautioned the applicant that some delay could result from its removal. He asked that Condition #15 of Public Works revised conditions of approval dated April 30, 1992 be deleted because he felt it is very .open-ended. Mr. Kloepper said this is a standard condition, stating he felt his department is very reasonable with this type. of condition, because it allows for flexibility. He. recommended it remain. Responding to comments by Mr. Mclntosh, Mr. Kloepper stated his agreement to the deletion of wall and landscape plans, however grading plans are needed. He asked regarding-Building Department condition #5 that the last words "and shall be located and adequately marked at the site by a surveyor." be deleted because he felt it was unnecessary. Mr. Bidwell said there could be an error in locating the site without something to indicate the facility, Mr. Mclntosh suggested the following addition to this Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 Page 4 condition: "prior"tobuilding construction." Mr. Bidwell concurred with this addition. Regarding Planning Department condition #3, second paragraph about city rejection of the park site he said it has ·been determined that Southern California Edison does not have the easement they thought and he has met with staff and worked out a reasonable park site location. He felt the entire paragraph could be deleted, Mr. Hardisty recommended deletion. Regarding Planning 'Department Condition #6 Mr. McIntosh requested that the second sentence be deleted entirely, because there is no ordinance requirement for this. Mr. Hardisty explained the reason for this conditiOn being the inconsistency of walls and noise because of eventual use of Highland Knolls as a major collector. Mr. Hardisty recOmmended it be left as is. Mr. McIntosh said the design Highland Knolls as it runs along these lots needs to be taken into consideration. He said slopes and walls or fence could be addressed during the design phase. Regarding Condition #11 he asked that the wording "Prior to recordation of the Final Map," be deleted because the ability to bond for .improvements exists. He asked for approval of this tract. Public 'portion ofthe hearing was closed. Regarding questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, concerning Condition #14.b., Page 2 of 10 of Exhibit "A", Mr. K10epper responded the intersection is under the jUrisdiction of CalTrans which is why he agreed to its deletion. They have indicated they will not permit a southerly extension without a signal. He stated he would prefer to leave the requirement for grading plan approval in Condition # 18, Page 2 of 10, Exhibit "A". Commissioner R°senlieb clarified the resolution of the utility easement maintenance issue from the committee meeting. Regarding the possible deletion of the last sentence of Condition #6, Page 9 of 10 she stated there is no ordinance in effect to require this. She stated the need for continuity regarding block walls, saying this was reflected in the recently passed ordinance. She stated her agreement with the verbiage as it exists and that an additional finding be made that due to health and safety concerns directly related to traffic noise it is necessary .to have the block wall along Highland Knolls except for those areas along the easement. Commissioner Frapwell questioned the value of the fencing if placed on the easement line along the street area due to the difference in grades. He felt some flexibility is needed for this situation. Mr. Hardisty recommended the block wall requirement be retained with design and location to be determined upon approval of wall and landscape plan to include Highland Knolls as well. Mr. McIntosh suggested they submit a wall and landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. M~inutes, PC, 5/7/92 . __ Page 5 Chairman Marino stated 'staff's recommendation for those present. .C~mmissioner Rosenlieb recommended the following wording for Condition #6 of Planning Department conditions: !~All fencing along Highland Knolls with the exception of the towerline easement areas shall be of masonry construction and/or crib block or approved equal as approved by the Planning Commission." Mr. McIntosh was agreeable to this. Chairman Marino recommended changing "shall" to "may." Commissioner Rosenlieb-stated the requirement which was developed through committee' meetings 'requires the fencing to be removed when the commercial area develops and a block wall constructed to' prevent-the double- fencing-situation. Regarding Condition #18 of the May 7th memo from 'the Public Works Department, Chairman Marino sta.ted he Would like to change wording of the first 'line to read as follows: _ "Prior to review of improvement plans by the City," .striking "fOr review" and deleting "wall and landscaping concepts,". Mr. Kloepper was agreeable, to .this change, Responding to a question-by Commissioner poWers,' Mr. Hardisty said a finding #14 should be added as fOllows: "Protection of public health, safety and welfare necessitates the installation of walls along the arterials and Highland Knolls to be installed and apProved by the Planning Commission." Motion was 'made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner-to approve- and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in 'the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5276 subject to the ~0nditions outlined in the Exhibit "A"., with the following exceptions and additions: ' ' - Inclusion of the memo to the Planning Department from the Public Works Department dated May 7,' 1992, with Item #18 to be changed to read as follows: _ · PriOr to reView of-improvement plans by the City all concept -apprOVals,-ineluding drainage and sewer studies, and approval of. 'grading. plans shall be obtained and the subdivider shall-submit: ... Finding #13i Page 7 of staff report, extra sentence to be added to the end as followS: For the .protection of the public health, safety and welfare there will be installation of block walls and/or Crib block or an approved equal for fencing along Highland Knolls. ' Minutes, PC, , Page 6- Page 3 of 10, ~Exhibit "A", condition #5 the following wording to be added ~ ' --to the-end: prior to building construction. Page 8 of i0 Condition #3, second paragraph to be'deleted, Page 9 of 10, Condition #6,-second sentence to be amended-to read as follows:- All "fencing" along Highland Knolls, with the. exception of the towerline easement 'areas, shall be of masonry construction and/or crib block or approved equal as approved by the Planning Commission. Page 10 of 10,-Condition #11 the following wording to be deleted: "Prior to recordation of the Final Map," 6.2) Motion carriedi' ' Commissioner.-Andrew abstained from voting. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5544 7.1) - .PUBLIC HEARING -- ZONE CHANGE #5259 -- APPLICATION BY - -MARTIN-MCINTOSH TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A- 20-A MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO AN R-1 (ONE dMILY'DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR 46 +/- ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETrA AVENUE WEST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE, NORTH OF THE CROSS VALLEY CANAL. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Seconded by Commissioner Messner to hear~agenda item #7.1 concurrently with agenda item #6.2. Motion carrl A request was June 4, 1992. these items for continuance to the regular meeting of Public portion of the. hearing remained open since these were continued public hearings. No one spoke on these items. Roger McIntosh was.present representing the appliCant. He stated they are close to working out .an. agreement with the school district and need the additional time to'dO so. : Minutes, PC~ 5/7/92 - Page 7' ResPonding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty responded · Saying .the application could be continued indefinitely, however it causes problems with record-keeping: He outlined the necessity of timing for the negative declaration. Mr. Hardisty recommended this item be continued to the June 4th meeting, at which 'time a staff report and recommendation will be available to the Commission. Mr. McIntosh Stated his hope that this issUe would be resolved by the June 4th meeting.' Commissioners Marino and Powers stated their suPport for the applicant's request for continuance to June 4, 1992. 6.3) Motion was made by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue these items to the regular meeting _of June 4, 1992.' Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5600 7.2) Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to hear. this item concurrently with agenda item #7.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5307 -- APPLICATION BY DAVID MANNING TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM R-S (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) ZONE TO AN R-l-10,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE), OR MORE 'RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR 4.96 +/- ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HOSKING AVENUE BETWEEN WIBLE ROAD AND AKERS ROAD. Staff report was given. A continuance was requested by the applicant on Tentative Tract 5600 only.- Public portion of the hearing for both items was opened; no one spoke in ~opposition or in favor. . .No one was present representing the' applicant. MotiOn was made. by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers'to continue these items to the regular 'meeting of June 4, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 6.4) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5603 8.a) Page 8 Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained from this item due to a conflict of interest in that her employer owns property within 300 feet of subject property. Staff report was given.. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or favor. Roger Mclntosh represented 'the owner of the property. He asked for a two-week continuance in order to allow time to address issues of the staff report with the oWner. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, he said he did not feel a continuance to June 4, 1992 would cause a major problem. Motion was made' by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to continue this item 'to the regular meeting of June 4, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained from voting. PUBLIC 'HEARING - PROPOSED INCLUSION OF THE CANFIELD RANCH OIL FIELD AS CLASS 3 PERMIT IN SECTION 15.66.030(A.3.) OF THE OILWELL ORDINANCE. Commissioner Andrew abstained from voting on items 8.a and 8.b due to the fact he has not heard previous testimony, however he remained seated. Mr. Hardisty suggested consideration of this item be continued to later on the agenda due to the' fact Attorney Marino has a conflict of interest and the- alternate would not be present until later in the meeting. Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to a conflict of interest because her employer has a financial interest in property that may be within this oilfield area. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to be heard later on the agenda. Motion carried. Commissioners Andrew and Rosenlieb abstained. Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 8.b) PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO BE ADDED TO BAKERSFIELD Page 9 MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 15.66) RELATING TO THE DRILLING FOR AND PRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES (PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND RELATED DRILLING/PRODUCTION). Commissioner Andrew abstained from this item. Commissioner Messner abstained from voting on this item due to his company's past efforts in development of the ordinance. Summary report was given. Public portion of the hearing remained open since this was a continued hearing. Mike Kranyak, San Joaquin Facilities Management, spoke saying they own and operate approximately 250 wells in the Fruitvale Field. He asked that the Fruitvale Field be eXempted with modification of the western boundary so that it would be Fruitvale Avenue. The elimination of this exemption would cause a burden for operations. He felt Fruitvale Field should be exempted for the same reasons other oilfields are exempted. ROger Mclntosh represented the Building Industry Association of Kern County statinghe is not in ~opposition to the ordinance, however pointed out that under off-site improvement, Page 11 B.3. and Page 12, C.4. regarding improvement requirements being in accordance with City Public Works Director. He stated his concern if an area has not been developed and determination that off-site improvements are not necessary what would happen when the adjacent property develops. Mr. Kl°epper said the experience with this is that the Public Works. Department does not succeed in the adherence of conditions if it is not directly -related. Lisa Smith spoke saying she felt this issue has been resolved with this ordinance. She encOUraged the Commission to approve this ordinance. Public portion of 'the hearing was closed. Chairman Marino.thanked Mrs. Smith for her perseverance for the 7 year period it has taken to b_ring about this ordinance. Commissioner Powers stated his satisfaction with this ordinance. He thanked those that contributed to the development of this ordinance. He felt this ordinance will work for everyone. Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 -NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Page 10 Commissioner RoSenlieb stated her agreement with this ordinance. Responding to a question by Commissioner. Marino, Mr. Hardisty said there is a distinction made between a drill-site and drilling island' being that a drilling island- is set u the-establishment of multiple wells. Regarding Subsections A. and B; of Page 14 under-Enforcement, Mr. Hardisty responded saying the following - - wording should be deleted: "and City Building official."' Motion was' made'by.COmmissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb-adopt the Negative Declaration, approve the propOsed ordinance as modified (Final Draft version), and recommend the same to the-City Council, with the inclusion of the .May 6, 1992 memofrom the Planning Director.~ Motion following roll call vote: AYES:. 'Commissioners Frapwell, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino -. None .'Commissioners Anderson, Cohn Commissioners Andrew, Messner PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INCLUSION OF THE CANFIELD RANCH OIL FIELD AS CLASS 3 PERMIT IN SECTION 15.66.030(A.3.) OF THE OILWELL ORDINANCE._ Commissioner Andrew abstained from voting on this item- due-to the fact he 'has not ~heard previous testimony. Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to a Conflict of interest. Responding to a request to Commissioner Powers, Mr: Hardisty stated if the' commission chooses to take action on this item it would be necessary to make a motion to inchide the exemption of Canfield Ranch into the oil ordinance. Mr. Hardisty outlined the-situation surrOUnding the canfield Ranch. He stated staff's recommendation is that the area near Buena Vista Elementary School not be'included nor the area within 1/4 mile of Buena Vista Road where development is now occurring, hoWever recommends exemption of the westerly 3/4 of section 13 and moSt of section 24. Public portion of the hearingwas opened. Minutes,. PC, 5/7/92 Page 11 Dominick Colletta,~ Attorney was present representing Castle & Cooke 'DevelOPment-Corporation. He said Section 12 is planned for residential development in which-deed restrictions exist. If an exemption were granted at the least it would cause significant confusion with regard to what the oil companies would be allowed to do. A-permit 3 classification is not in conformance with nearby residential-Use, therefore they feel no exemption should be granted. He felt a permit 1 classification is more appropriate. Mike Couchot,. Stream Energy, said an' oilfield exists and' this is an opportunity-to plaria development for this land. He said Stream Energy is a small business and the oilWel1 ordinance will make it difficult for them to operate. They will try to do their very best to get out of the area within the next 10 years. Regarding the statement in the memo about the development, activities and poss!ble curtailment of it by identification of this field, he did not feet the southwest growth would 'cease' because of the exemption of this oilfield. Jeff Smith, Stream Energy, stated he hasnever argued the right of the property owner to develop the. property~ however he felt they have rights also. He felt this area should not be annexed to the City for residential development. He stated he .did not want children or families in this area because of the high pressure and deepness of.the wells. He asked for .more time in order to accelerate the production of wells. He said they have tried to work out a compromise. Pal Black, Castle & Cooke, spoke saying whether or not this area should be annexed is not the issue, because they purchased the property with the intent to develop. If they cannot develop in the City they will develop in the County. The property was purchased with the intent to develop and restrict the rights of the mineral holder. ' Lisa' Smith spoke-saying she felt the commission needs to look at whether consideration shouldbe made as to whether the oil company should bear the -burden for those that choose to own property next to an oilfield. She felt Jeff Smith is not asking' for an exemption fOrever. She felt if a compromise cannot be' worked out then possibly this item should be advertised in order to give those people affected by it a chance to respond. Public portion. Of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hardisty said an.exemption would maintain the status'quo and would not impose a restriction on the surrounding property owners that is not now imposed which is why staff was not concerned about the noticing requirement as mentioned by Ms~ Smith'. Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 Page 12 Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Ms. Black said theyare in the process of preparing a master plan. She said development of homes would probably ocCUr within 3-5 years within section 12, however section 13 would be later. Chairman Maiino stated since this property is not in the city limits at this time it is not_covered by the ordinance. Commissioner Messner ~felt this may not be a moot point.. 'He stated all existing wells and operations are exempt from-this ordinance. Any future planned new _ well wOuld be affected. He said he would not be inclined to. support the language stated in the recommended action. Responding tO a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the commissi°n would' have the opportunity to 'allow oil companies to continue to be exempt from a Class i or 2 permit until the building-permit stage, phase the zoningin terms of when zone districts 'would be changed, or develop rules with respect to the development of this property since it abuts oilwell drilling, during the time of general plan amendment or zone change hearing. RespOnding to a qutstion by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Hardisty said all zoning would be agricultural. A general plan amendment would be necessary before other zoning cOuld be considered. Commissioner Powers felt the Commission would be remiss in considering Section 24-for exemption. He stated his oPposition to granting an exemption. Motion was made by-Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner, to deny the request tO exempt the Canfield Ranch from the adopted oilwell ordinance. Commissioner Messner clarified the request to exempt this oilfield from the ordinance is not being denied, but the denial of Class 3 status: Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn ABSTAINED: Commissioners Andrew, Rosenlieb l~Iinutes, PC,-5/7/92 Page 13 9. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Mr. Hardisty gave a staff report on this item. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke on this item. Public portion of the hearing was closed. -Chairman Marino stated staff's recommendation. Chairman Marino stated he felt the City has affordable housing, however is not pursuing the very tow income housing market. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated this is simply a restatement of State Law so that the City can comply. Responding to a question by her, Mr. Hardisty said the '~ definition of low income is a percentage of income which is lower than the median income and changes occasionally with the.economic evaluations of median incomes. Regarding Page 3; Item B, Mr. Grady explained the percentages outlined in this condition. Regarding Item #D.3, Page 2, Mr. Grady stated Section 51.2 of the Civil Code is for elderly or disabled housing. Commissioner Powers felt this ordinance is required to comply with State law, however did not feel it would, be used. Regarding Item #2, Page 2, he asked if an active MUC general plan designation is still in place, Mr. Grady replied this is the case, the same zoning districts are used for the downtown area as for the rest of the city, however if someone were to make application for a mixed use project with the MUC designation they would be processed in the redevelopment project area. This is related tO something outside the redevelopment project area where such a designation does not exist, however it would be offered as one of the incentives for reducing the cost of housing. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Density Bonus Ordinance. Chairman Marino stated he had no problem adopting this ordinance, however if the BIA feels they can bring something in that will encourage development .of a project, he would like to direct staff to write a letter to them outlining the commission's interest in this: Commissioner Frapwell amended his motion to direct staff to write a letter to the BIA regarding interest in their ideas about this subject. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 'ABSENT: · Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino None Commissioners Anderson, Cohn Minutes, PC, 5/7/92 Page 14 10. RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - CENTRAL CITY MASTER TREE PLAN Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he owns property in the downtown area. Commissioner Powers chaired this hearing. Staff report was .given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in. opposition. Responding to questions .by Commissioner Andrew, Ms. Barnes, Economic Development Department, stated Plan 2 could only be utilized if it were taken to the property owners ~and formed as any other maintenance.district. She explained street trees are required' for projects of $50,000 or more. Attorney Sherfy responded the City would be liable for damage caused by any street trees. Ms. Barnes responded to questions by Commissioner Messner saying the existing maintenance district was the business improvement district which was formed in the early 60's to promote downtown. The monies were used by the Downtown Business Association. The plan was began when the district was in place, since then it has been disbanded. Commissioner Powers felt it is rather onerous on business owners to impose the requirements of this plan on them because the downtown business are already struggling. He stated he would not support this plan. Motion was made by CommisSioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to. adopt resolution making findings set forth in the staff report and forwarding the approved "Central City Master Street Tree Plan" to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb NOES: Commissioner Powers ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn, Marino Minutes,. PC, 15 11. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING- REQuEsT_FOR A SUMMARY VACATION OF 7.5 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE 12. 13. SOUTH SIDE OF BRUNDAGE LANE, WEST OF OLEANDER AVENUE. Staff r~Port Was given. -Mr. Kloepper stated since Brundage Lane is-an arterial alignment and the general plan width for such an alignment is 55 feet half width, the Public Works Department therefore is now recommending that the Commission find that the abandonment be found inconsistent with the 2010 General Plan. -Motion was' made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwel! to_ find this request inconsistent with the General Plan and recommend denial fOr the-summary _vacation of 7.5 feet. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained. coMMUNICATIONS A) B) Written Regarding a l~tter from Delmarter, Beltone Hearing Aid Center, Hardisty Stated 'he had received this letter along with others. He. recommended it be referred to the Building Official for action. Verbal.' None .-- COMMISSION-COMMENTS - Consideration 'of conducting a Special' Meeting for General Plan Amendment hearings.- ' ._ Mr. Hardisty stated.-apPlicants for projects other than general plan amendments haVe been notified Of the difficulty in hearing their projects because of time constraints. The:amount. of business has managed to be minimized. Staff has also_gone throUgh each case of the .general plan amendments and does not find they are the very contentious type that will attract large crowds. He 'felt this agenda cOuld be managedand conducted in one evening comfortably. Additionally the entire' cycle has been noticed and would have to be-renoticed. He recommended the schedule be maintained. 'Minutes, PC,~ ~/7~92 ~.. ' :::_ ' " 6 ." i ;C~mmissi-one~R0senlieb thanked staff for the follow-up on the mine,,ral~rights · interest situation..-Regarding agenda items being continued over a/nd over again, "--. she asked Attorney-Sherfy.if a motion could be made to contin~he item until :-Such time as the problem is Worked out, but n° laterthan the~end of 1992 or for six months. Mr: Sherfy stated this could be done as long a~ notice is sent out stating this has'taken place. ×/. / Ch~airman Matin0 W~ic°med Commissioner Andre~° the'Planning Commission, -stating h9 Would appoint him primarily to Comn)i~sioner Bj0rn's committee's with the'exception-that-Commissioner Rosenlieb w/of Id chair Subdivision and Public Servi6es because an' on-going item regardin~g/wall and landscape will be discussed On the 15th. Mr. Hardisty stated this wil)Y6e placed on the agenda for the next meeting ~s0 that the appointments can ~ made. ' / 14. ADJOURNMENT / / / There no furtherbusines(s to come before the Commission, meeting was ourned at 9:09 p:m.. / / / / / Laurie 'Davis Recording Se6retary Minutes, pC, 5/7/92 Page 16 Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked staff for the follow-up on the mineral rights interest situation. Regarding agenda items being continued over and over again, she asked Attorney Sherfy if a motion could be made to continue the item until such time as the problem is worked out, but no later than the end of 1992 or for six months. Mr. Sherfy stated this could be done as long as a notice is sent out stating this has taken place. Chairman Marino welcomed Commissioner Andrew to the Planning Commission, stating he would-appoint him primarily to Commissioner Bjorn's committee's with the exception that Commissioner Rosenlieb would chair Subdivision and Public Services because an on-going item regarding wall and landscape will be discussed on the 15th. Mr. Hardisty stated this item needed to be placed on the agenda due to the Brown Act and would be placed on the agenda for-the next meeting so that the appointments can be made. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bUsiness to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary JACK HARDISTY, Secretary Planning Director