HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Held Thursday, April 2, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Tmxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
1. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
JIM MARINO, Chairperson
STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson
TERI BJORN
DAVID COHN
STEVE MESSNER
DARREN POWERS .
KATE ROSENLIEB
C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate
ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present:
LAURA MARINO, Deputy City
Attorney
FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public
Works Director
CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director'
STAFF: Present:
STANLEY GRADY, Assistant Planning
Director
JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner
MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner
JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner
MIKE LEE, Associate Planner
LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
No one made any public statements at this time.
Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
'.'Page 2
AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS - CONDUCT OF
MEETINGS
Commissioner Rosenlieb stated regarding Page 3, Item A she would like to see it
changed to say that the Commission may vote to establish time limits instead of
the chair only. -Regarding Item F she said she did not feel an amendment needed
to be made to include either this item or that proposed by Commissioner Marino.
Regarding Item D at the end of the page, last sentence regarding no member
being allowed to speak after the beginning of the presentation she felt a need
exists to be able to ask someone from the public a question in which they could
reSpond. She felt the wording "except to answer a commissioner question" could
be added.
Chairman Marino asked-for clarification about the intent of Article 2(D), Mr.
Grady said it was the intent to clearly identify that the Monday pre-meeting was
not the place 'to take testimony that would influence the decision.'
Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr.-Grady outlined
Robert's Rules definition of debate as it relates to Item #1 of the memo dated
March 13, 1992. The purpose of the memo is to identify procedures occurring
that are not consistent with Roberts Rules of Order and provide the Commission
with opportunity to make amendments if they wish to deviate. Discussion
continued regarding amendments to Roberts Rules to allow for more flexibility.
Commissioner Powers stated his satisfaction with the' current operating
procedures. He agreed with the recommendation by Commissioner Rosenlieb
that the CommissiOn vote to establish time limits. He felt Item D should be
removed. He was in agreement with the substitute language for Item F which was
distributed at the pre-meeting.
Regarding Items E and F Commissioner Marino said the Commission is not
supposed to be interfering with the public hearing in any way' under Roberts
Rules. Discussion and debate comes at the close of the public hearing. He ·
stated he understood staff's opinion that the public should have knowledge of the
recommendation. He agreed with staff in that some form of order needs to be
implemented saying the amount of commission discussion and debate among the
Commission during the public hearing is disruptive and unfair. He stated he has
received complaints during his tenure as chairman for being too lax and allowing
the public hearing portion to get out of hand. He felt if "D" were left in the
potential for this would continue to exist. He said he did not feel a necessity to
change the rules c~f order. Regarding Items E and F he stated he could see
where they would expedite things. Staff is not recommending that changes be
made bUt that the Commission follow the'rules.
MinUtes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 3
Commissioner Cohn felt'it is important to have rules in a forum such as this,
however he would not like to see the implementation of rules that would stifle
-and inhibit debate. He felt the most important thing accomplished on the
commission is the debate of items resulting in reasonable solutions to difficult
Problems. He said he did not feel the need to have a change in the rules as it
relates to discussion with the public at the pre-meeting. He disagreed with
Chairman Marino's comments that the Commission is sloppy stating he did not
feel the Commission's conduct during hearings has reflected badly upon this body.
He stated his opinion that the openness of the Commission has encouraged the
public to make whatever comments they feel are appropriate. He felt if the
Commission will be under such stringent guidelines with respect to debate that it
willinhibit debate, he would not support the changes.
Commissioner Powers agreed with all of Commissioner Cohn's comments saying
to take away the flexibility the Commission has had would be a disservice to the
pUblic. He suggested a compromise on Item D to be changed so that the
Commission may ask questions of staff only during the public portion of the
hearing. He. 'felt misinformation is often given to the public unintentionally and
felt this may be a way of clarifying it at the time it is discovered.
Commissioner Messner agreed he would not want to take any action that would
inhibit debate and the open forum the Commission has provided, saying this is
something he has heard positive comment on. He said he has been concerned
with debate during the public portion of the hearing being diverted. He said he
would like to see something along the lines of what Commissioner Powers
recommended by allowing the Commission to ask questions of staff only.
Chairman Marino felt it would be a good idea to allow staff to answer questions
during the public hearing or to clarify for the public what the request entails.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said she has not seen the Commission act in an
unprofessional manner with one exception. Questions of the public should be
allowed to be asked for clarification purposes. The Commission is overreacting
because of one incident. She felt the Commission should be allowed to ask
questions of the applicant at the pre-meeting in order to obtain facts.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 -Page 4
Commissioner-Bjorn felt the first item D would not be taking aWay the
· Commission's flexibility, however is simply attempting t°' distinguish between
questions and debate. In response to a question by .Commissioner Bjorn
regarding Item 2-D, Attorney Sherfy said the last sentence is not required by the
Brown Act. Any testimony taking place at the pre-meeting would have to be
repeated at the hearing in order to be taken into consideration. Commissioner
Bjorn said she did not have a problem with Item D as written, however would like
to see a revision so that the Commission would comply with the Brown Act but
would have the flexibility of asking questions during staff presentations.
Chairman Marino said he maintains his original position especially as it relates to
public hearings. He felt the question is not a just a question of order but a
question of demeanor also. He felt during the public portion the Commission
should have the professionalism to allow staff to answer questions and not get
involved. He did not feel it is right for the commission to use' the public hearing
time to debate.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that each commissioner give a brief summary
of the changes they would like to see therefore stating he would not be willing to
support anything that would require the Commission to make a motion before
they were able to have debate. He agreed with the need to limit interference
with the public hearing. He felt it should be permissible to ask questions of the
aPplicant because it is. necessary to avoid perpetuation of erroneous information.
He felt if done properly it would not interfere but aid in the process.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see Item Achanged to read: The
Commission may vote to establish time limits She also stated she would like to
see the second Item D amended as per Commissioner Bjorn's suggestion that
would allow for clarification questions, not debate and if it needs to be restated at
the Thursday night's meeting it could be stated as such.
Commissioner Messner said he would agree to the change in Item A from
Chairperson to Commission. He said he is in favor of striking the words "or the
public" in Article 6-D. He said he felt more comfortable with the substitute
motion submitted by Chairman Marino for Article 6-F. He was in favor of
Commissioner Bjorn'scomment on Item 2-D.
Commissioner Powers agreed with all of Commissioner Messner's comments,
however he was undecided on Article 6-D and Item #2-D.
Minutes, PCi 4/2/92 Page 5
CommisSioner Cohn'wasin agreement with the change to Item "A" to replace
Commission with Chairperson. Regardiffg item D he said he would not agree to
strike the words "or the public" because he wants to option of asking the public
questions. With respect to Item F he stated he did not want to be in the position
of having a large number of motions on the floor. Regarding Item 2-D he felt it
is appropriate to be able to ask questions-at the pre-meeting.
Commissioner Bjorn concurred with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments
regarding Item A and Item 2-D she stated she concurred with Commissioner
Rosenlieb's summarY. Item 6-D she stated she was in agreement with it as
currently written. Regarding Item 6-E -she felt it would be a good idea for the
chairperson to restate staff's recommendation which she felt could be the motion
on the floor that opens the debate. She therefore was not in agreement with'
Item 6-F which she felt would-make the debate seem too technical. She said she
liked the open-debate situ. ation as it exists and felt the Commission could satisfy
Robert's Rules by having the staff's recommendation as the motion for the basis
for debate.
Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Attorney Sherfy said it would be
proper.for the alternate to make a comment.
Alternate Commissioner Frapwell said he would be in. agreement with substituting
the Commission for Chairperson in Article A and would like to see Item 2-D
remain as is. Regarding Item '6-E he felt it was a good idea that the
recommendation be read so that the public is aware of what staffs
recommendation is. He felt Robert's Rules of Order should be followed. He was
in favor of Commissioner Bj0rn's Suggestion that the Commission be allowed to
ask questions of the public at the pre-meeting, however not getting into debate, at
the same ~time informing the public that information brought up at this hearing
should be brought up at the hearing in order to be considered.
Chairman Marino said his first choice would be to use the current rules of order.
before proceeding to change. Regarding Item A he stated he had no preference.
Regarding Article 6~D he said he felt the abuse of questioning of the public is
unprofessional. There is ample time to debate after the close of the hearing.-
Staff should explain and clarify issues during the public hearing. Regarding Item
E he felt it would work better if the Chairman read the motion. He stated his
impression of Item F is that it verY closely resembles Roberts Rules and stated he
would not object to doing it either way. He stated his agreement with
Commissioner Bjorn's proposal as it relates to Article 2-D.
Motion was made by COmmissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
continue this item to the next regular meeting of April 16, 1992.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 6
Responding to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Grady said a resolution
would be prepared for the next hearing which incorporates changes suggested at
this hearing. Regarding disagreement he stated he would enter staff's
recommendation allowing the Commission to resolve it amongst themselves.
Motion carried.
4. pUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9758
Staff report Was given.-Mr. Lee stated Public Works is recommending deletion of
Condition #'s VII-B and C and Item VIII-E.
public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Raymond stene represented the applicant.
conditions. '
He stated he agreed with the
Public portion of the hearing waS closed.
Chairman Marin° read the motion.
R~sp°nding to a question by CommiSsioner Powers, Mr. Kl0epper said the reason
for deletion of Item VIII-E is that 0riginallyit was recommended by staff because
there will be trenching in the street. After personally visiting the site he found it
will not be detrimental with the longitudinal patch.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the deletion of
Fire Department conditions, Mr. Grady said the conditions were advisory,
therefore not needed in the staff report.
Motion was made by COmmissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers
to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed
Tentative Parcel Map.9758 subject to the conditions in the Exhibit "A" attached to
the staff report, with the following changes:
Deletion of items VII-B & C and Item VIII,E, Page I of Exhibit "A"
conditions.
Motion carried.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 7
5.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5544 '
6. FILE 5259 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION BY
MARTIN-MCINTOSH TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A-
20-A (AGRICULTURE-20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO AN R-1 (ONE
FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR
PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF
JEWET'FA AVENUE, WEST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE, NORTH OF THE
5.2
CROSS VALLEY CANAL. (Negative Declaration on file)
Commissioner Anderson abstained on both items dUe to a possible conflict of
'interest in that his company is providing services to the applicant. Since .the item
was requested to be continued he remained seated.
Motion was made'by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn
to. hear Agenda Item #6 concurrently with this item. Motion carried.
Staff report was waived.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
continue these items to the next regular meeting of April 16, 1992. Motion
carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained.
PUBLIC HEARIIqG - TENTATIVE TRACT 5276
Staff report was given.
Public portion of-the hearing was opened; no one spoke 'in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. He stated his concerns about
Condition III - Fees stating they concur with the amounts except item d.
regarding State Highway 178 and Morning Drive saying the State is paying half of
the signal. He therefore requested the condition be reworded to read 22% of
$87,500 equal to $19,250. Mr. Kloepper said there is no guarantee the State will
pay half. He proposed it be left as is with the agreement there will be a refund if
the State does fund their half. Mr. McIntosh was agreeable to this. Regarding
Condition #VIII-B.2. he asked that the last sentence be deleted becauSe their
concern is that they are contributing 22 percent to the total need and are
concerned about what would come. first the signal or connection. Mr. Kloepper
was in agreement with the removal of this line. Regarding Condition #VIII.B.3.
Mr. McIntosh requested it be deleted in it's entirety because he felt it could be
handled during the P.C.D. process. Mr. Kloepper said this condition is in place
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 8
becaUse it is felt it would be beneficial for residential use to complete the ·
circulation pattern in the area and is triggered by adjacent developments. Mr.
McIntosh said the traffic study does not warrant this connection. Two points of
access are being provided. Mr. McIntosh said the memo dated April 2, contains a
condition which addresses this issue, and would be acceptable to him. Regarding
Condition VIII.D. of Public Works conditions he asked that the following wording
be deleted "and approval of grading plans", because they do not see the necessity
of obtaining approval of the grading plan prior to submittal of improvement
plans. Mr. Kloepper was.agreeable to this. Regarding Condition #1 of the same
condition Mr. McIntosh felt it would be redundant to resubmit this when it has
already been shown and hpproved on the tentative map. Mr. Kloepper felt the
condition is an effort to operate more efficiently on the part of the City, he was
however agreeable to the deletion due to the applicant's strong opposition to it.
Regarding condition .#5. and 6. of the same condition D he requested they be
removed. Mr.' K10ep. per suggested that the following sub-heading be added for
these conditions to read as follows: "Prior to approval of plans the following shall
be completed:" He noted that often it is difficult if approved street names do not
exist on the improvement plans because they may change in the process.'
Regarding the April 2nd memo, last condition under Miscellaneous he said the
easements are controlled by Southern California Edison' which has the right to
Construct and maintain them in any way they see fit. It has been very difficult to
obtain development approval from them regarding these easements. He stated
his concern about the maintenance of the easement possibly violating State or
Federal. Law because of the natural habitat. He asked that this condition be
deleted. Mr. Kloepper said the intent on rewriting the condition was to establish
a means to keep the easement area in a respectable condition for an urban
environment. He said the cost to maintain the area would be approximately $60
to $80 per year. Mr. McIntosh Stated his agreement with deeding the easements
to Southern California Edison as an alternative. Regarding Condition #5 of
Building Department conditions he asked that the following wording be stricken
"and shall be located and adequately marked at the site by a surveyor." -Mr.
Bidwell stated he had no objection to this change. Regarding Condition #3 of
Fire Department conditions he stated they are agreeing to construct about 160
feet of off-site improvements~which are not on the developer's property and will
provide a secondary access road, therefore he asked for deletion of this condition.
Henry' Pacheco, Fire Department representative felt as long as secondary access is
being provided there Would be no problem with this request. Regarding finding
# 12 of the staff report, Mr. McIntosh said the agreement referenced addresses
mitigation measures and .therefore he was concerned about violating Federal or
State Law. Regarding the memo dated April 1, 1992 from the Planning'
Department he stated his agreement with all conditions except Condition #9
requesting it be rewritten as follows: "The R-2 zone designation on the southwest
corner of Highland Knolls Avenue and Morning Drive shall be applied for
rezoning to R-1 prior to recordation of Phases G, H, I, J or K." He felt that just
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 9
applying for a zone change does not allow for automatic aPProval. Mr. Grady
said zone changes haVe consistently been required on tracts for single-family
development on R-2 zoned property. He stated his inclination to allow the
change so that it be required prior to recordation of the phases as stated by the
applicant, however he would not be inclined to change so that they are required
to make application only, unless the Commission feels otherwise.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. McIntosh said the
park is 20 acres with a 3-1/2 acre cactus preserve within it. Greg Way said the
intention of the powerline easement is that it remain in a natural state. Mr.
McIntosh said they are currently working to facilitate the land trade which will be
accomplished with the final map.
Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she did not recall a development backing up to a
water tank therefore there are no requirements for it. She felt it would be a
double-fence-situation abutting the Water tank fence. She asked if water tank
sites should be looked at-the same as oilwell sites and should a block wall be
required for those residences backing up to it? Mr. Grady said requirements are
available for block walls abutting commercial zoning. The ordinance requiring
the' block wall is tied to the development on the commercial piece, not on
residential. However, both have been done.
Chairman Marino-read staff recommendation.
Chairman Marino said he would be inclined to add the following wording in front
of Condition XI.F. as follows: "At the-discretion of the City Engineer, ... Mr.
Kloepper was agreeable to this. He also pointed out a necessary revision to the
April 2, 1992 memo under #III Fees section so that numbers I and 2 will be 4
and 5. -
Commissioner PoWers felt possibly the applicant should deed the easements to
Southern :California Edison. Mr. McIntosh said they would be happy to try this,
however he did nOt feel it ~would be accepted.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 10
Regarding Public Works Condition #XI.F. he asked if'the reason for this is for
safety purposes. Mr. Kloepper said this Was correct and also for aesthetic
purposes. Mr. Movius responded to a question by Commissioner Messner saying
the mitigation management agreement was for 282 acres which includes the
easementS. It does not specify management practices within the towerline
easementS, therefore he felt Fish and Game would be hard pressed to say they
are required to manage the cactus within the towerlines as well as setting up the
preserve. Commissioner Messner said for safety purposes he would be agreeable
to Condition #XI.F. with the wording suggested by Chairman Marino.
Mr, Kloepper .Clarified for the Commission it is not the. intent With Condition
#XI.F. that the developer be allowed to grade the entire area, but only enough to
facilitate the mowing operation. Mr. Mclntosh recommended the following
wording for the laSt sentence: "The Subdivider shall remove loose rocks to
facilitate'such maintenance.''
Regarding a qUest!on by CommisSioner C°hn, Mr. Pacheco, Assistant Fire Chief,
said fire hazard is a Concern with wood fencing and there are other concerns such
as litter. Commissioner Cohn stated he was unsure about whether:the
CommiSsion was adequately dealing with the eaSements and protection of the
homeowners and aeSthetics. He said he was in favor of the committee looking at
these isSUes.
Commissioner Anderson asked regarding maintenance of the easement if Mr.
Mclntosh is trying to organize or avoid a maintenance district on this property.
Mr. McIntoSh said they are trying to figure a way to dispose of the property
without disturbing it.
Discussion continued regarding the fencing of the easement. Mr. McIntosh said
he did not feel a chainlink fence would cause a problem concerning Southern
California Edison. He did not feel they would'be willing to allow access to the
easement for recreation purposes as Commissioner Anderson asked.
Commissioner Anderson felt the need for maintaining this area saying he felt this
could be worked out between the applicant and the Public Works Department.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Kloepper said he
could work with the applicant on this issue. Commissioner Anderson stated his
preference to take action on this item rather than it going to committee.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 11
Commissione~ Rosenlieb stated she would have liked to take action on this item,
however there are uncertainties about the aesthetics of the area upon bUildout.
She felt this item shOUld be referred to Committee. She said there is nbthing in
the staff report to require a fence between the park and easement. Mr. Kloepper
resPOnded to a question saying eventually the maintenance of the easement will
default to the City. COmmissioner Rosenlieb felt some issues need further
investigation. Mr. Mclntosh responded to comments by Commissioner Rosenlieb
saying he fully intends to construct a block wall along Freeway 178 and Would
agree to this as a condition.-
Mr:: Grady responded to a question by Commissioner.Cohn that development has
been approved in the past abutting tower line easements, however he was not
aware of anY with easements on both sides. Mr. Bidwell cited an example of the
same type of situation as this project.
Commissioner Powers agreed a solution would probably not be found at this
hearing for.problems which exist stating he felt a committee meeting was in order.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner
Powers to send this item to the Subdivision Committee and continue this item to
the regular meeting of April 16, 1992. She requested that staff note the
Commission's concerns on the block walls for the commercial site, water tank site
and abutting the freeway, fencing along the park and the long-term maintenance
of the easement, estimates of inclusion of it in a maintenance district. She asked
that Southern California Edison be contacted for more information, and invite the
applicant to the meeting.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Grady' said the time limit
begins when the negative declaration is approved, which has not been done.
Discussion continued regarding the applicable date.
* 10-minute break was taken at this time.
Attorney Sherfy cited Government Code 66452.1 subsections B and C saying the
time period is 50 days which begins from the date of adoption of the negative
declaration.
Mr. Mclntosh said regarding Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments about a block
wall that a noise study prepared showing the need for this wall up to a height of
12 feet in some places because of terrain. He asked that action be taken at this
hearing.
Motion carried. Commissioners Anderson and Marino voted no.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 12
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-92, SEGMENT IV,
KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT 1-92, SEGMENT II AND
PREZONING #5275
Staff report and committee reports were given.
Public portion of the hearing was open.
Rich O'Neil spoke on behalf of the Kern River Parkway Committee. He stated
their opposition to this project. He asked that the negative declaration be
declared inValid and asked that an EIR be prepared to cover the annexation of
Rosedale #5~ He said they were told that the zone changes were both consistent,
but in fact are not.
Dennis Fox spoke saying he would prefer the alignment be located as far north
from the river as-possible for safety purposes. He felt the addition of the
following language would be appropriate for the entire area: "Consider the
retention or obtaining of appropriate areas adjacent to the rail and freeway or
highway areas for use of a park and ride facilities."
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the
Negative Declaration and approving the requested SI (Service Industrial) land use
designation and recommend same to City Council.
Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked those who spoke for taking the time to do so.
Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Gauthier stated staff did not
agree with Mr. O'Neil that an EIR should be prepared for this project. No other
agency or private individual wrote with any evidence that there was a significant
effect which requires the preparation of an EIR.
MOtion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb
NOES: Cohn, Marino
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 13
Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by CommissiOner Anderson
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the
Negative Declaration and approving the requested 8.4/2.5 land use designation
'and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYEs:
Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, MeSsner, Powers,
Rosenlieb, Marino
NOES: Cohn
MotiOn was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the
Negative Declaration and approving the requested M-2, M-3, FP-P and FP-S
zoning districts and recommend same to City Council.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Chairman Marino stated
his no vote on the first motion was due to his concern about the negative
declaration being brought-into question. Commissioner Cohn stated he agreed
with Mr. O'Neil's comments and therefore supported his position.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Messner, Powers,
Rosenlieb, Marino
Cohn
8. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 -
SUBDIVISIONS·
Committee report was given by Commissioner Bjorn. She stated agreement had
been reached on everything but status of the mineral owners signatures which is
being recommended to be put aside and resolved at a later date. Regarding lot .
sizes and widths there seemed to be an agreement among committee members as
to the 6,000 square foot minimum, however debate as to deviation from this
minimum.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 14
Barbara Don Carlos ~epresented the Building Industry Association of Kern
County. She stated they concurred with changes in the staff report and took a
position of support.. She said they are in support of the statement of the staff
report regarding reduction of minimum standards contained in the staff report.
They are supportive of the ordinance with these changes in addition to the
incorPoration of this paragraph. If the Commission chooses not to incorPorate
this paragraph they would not be in support.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Ms. Don Carlos stated she
assumed their committee was in agreement with Section "0" relating to lot width
frontage because the issue was not raised by the committee.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rosenlieb felt possibly a task force should be organized to study
the issue of mineral rights, stating she would like to see Commissioner Bjorn on
this task force. She felt having rules on deviation of lot standards would speed
up .the process. Mr. Grady cited the issues surrounding reduction of lot sizes. He
stated staff's feeling after receiving information from the public is that the
Commission folloW the State's lead on density bonus to bring about affordable
housing. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see the Commission
support staff's recommendation without the additional wording supported by the
BIA.
Commissioner Powers agreed there should be a typical standard, however-
instancesexist which would require deviation. He cited examples of smaller lot
sizes saying these are areas of the community which reflect pride and felt other
areas could work the same. He said he would support the motion, however was
not sure the language recommended by the BIA is the correct language, feeling
the 'Commission needed to be more firm about the standard. He felt perhaps a
fourth method could be accomPlished.
Commissioner' Bjorn said she was leaning toward developing a fourth method
beyond P.U.D., density bonus and optional design to allow deviation of minimum
standards. 'She was in favor of #2 for 80.percent requirement because if there is
a proposal for smaller lots it is on a tract-wide basis and will not be for one or
two so that the applicant can squeeze more lots. She was in favor of #3 in-terms
of maintaining setbacks. Regarding #4 she said she would like to see some
'justification in allowing a reduction giving some direction to the Commission with
respect to standards, affordable housing, topographical and physical constraints.
7
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 ' Page 15
Chairman Marino felt Smaller lots could provide more liVing space. He felt the
modification process would take some of the risk out of trying to develop a
smaller Plot, however he. did not want to encourage this, but wants some way of
ensuring that the developer provide jUstification. ·
Commissioner Messner said he agreed with all goals presented at this hearing.
The P.U.D. option is sometimes an expensive option, however he felt the existing
modification process is too' lose and subjective. He said he would not be opposed
to remoVing .this item and sending it back to committee and setting up a task
force to deal with the mineral rights issue.
Commissioner Cohn Stated his difficulty with reductiOn of lots without
justification such as affordable housing or qualifying for optional design. He
stated he felt the need for some very clear standards. He said he is comfortable
with Page 43, Subsection "O":
Commissioner Powers asked if a limit could be set on the pricing based on FHA
lending limit or set a ceiling on the pricing to be increased by a fixed percentage
each year. '
Commissioner Bjorn said she would be in favor of a motion that would delete the
portion of the ordinance dealing with lot sizes and sending it back to committee.
Chairman Matin° echoed Commissioner Powers' comments regarding smaller
lots. ~
Commissioner Bj0rn felt the Commission must be sensitive to what developers
want t° construct. 'She was hopeful that the proposed minimum standard can be
adhered to, without haVing a large amount of requests for modification.
Chairman Marino did not want to be in a position of requiring develoPers to
apply for modification only to be denied, nor did he want to encourage
developers to expect these modifications to be approved on a large scale.
Commissioner Rosen!ieb responded to previous comments saying the current cost
for modification is not $10,000 as preViously stated. She also said if the
Commission does not want to .encourage modifications, perhaps a modification
process should not exist. She'was in favor of sending this item to committee to
be back before the Commission in two weeks.
Commissioner Cohn felt most requests for modification haVe rarely dealt with the
entire Project.but' have been a situation in which a developer is trying to squeeze
a few more lots. Mr. Grady recalled seeing both situations.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 16
Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner
Rosenlieb to send this entire ordinance to the Subdivision Committee and
continue it to the next regular meeting 0f April 16, 1992. Motion carried.
o
CommiSsioner Powers encouraged Ms. Don Carlos and Association of Realtors
representative to participate and attend the committee meeting bringing with
them as much information as possible regarding.solutions to developing a fourth
criteria in order to bring this to a resolution. _.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ADDITION - RELATING TO
DRILLING FOR AND PRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES
(PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND RELATED
DRILLING/PRODUCTION)
Commissioner Messsner abstained due to a possible conflict of interest due to his
past work for his employer on this ordinance, stating he would not participate.
Staff report was given.
Public portion, of the hearing was opened.
Rich O'Neil represented the Kern River Parkway Committee. He stated they are
opposed to the oil drilling ordinance Changes that'would create class 3 well sites
within the Fruitvale oilfield. If allowed a proper permitting system for air and
aesthetic standards does not exist. He asked that an EIR be processed on this
project.
Mike Couchot, Stream Energy thanked the Commission for allowing written
comments. He said this ordinance is-one that the indUstry .will have to live with
for quite some _time. He requested that a continuance be granted so that
everyone concerned would have further opportunity ~to look.over the final version
to come to the best solution possible.
Brad Greenleaf, Shell Western E & P, spoke saying he is responsible for
approximately 2,300-acres of the Kern River Field, 50 of which are under the
City's jurisdiction and within the primary floodplain of the Kern River. Under
the proposed ordinance these wells would be precluded from further operation.
He asked for continuance on this item.
Lisa Smith, 5113 Marina Drive, gave background on this issue. She submitted
photos of a well site-that is to the north of her home. She was concerned about
the environment, saying an environmental impact report was completed regarding
the effects of oil wells. The Department of Fish and Game wrote a letter
recommending adding language .so that projects that would fall under this
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 17
ordinance would not fail'through the loophole of not-requiring an'EIR. She
strongly recommended this language be added to the ordinance to protect human
beings and other endangered species. She was concerned that setback distances
have been changed to 500 feet, saying she felt the people affected by this
proposed ordinance can live 1,000 feet away and receive a high volume of noise
from the rigs. She was opposed to sensitive uses abutting oil fields.' She was
opposed to the Fruitvale fields being a class 3 site, saying she felt a buffer could
be formed around this field as an alternate proposal.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Chairman Marino recommended the request for continuance be granted.
Regardingdrilling within the Kern River field, Mr. Eggert said the ordinance
contains wording for-exemption of existing wells.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see a two-week continuance on
this item saying she would like staff to research Mrs. Smith's request for a
possible 1,000 foot buffer around the Fruitvale Oilfield. She-thanked those
speaking at this hearing.
Commissioner Powers echoed Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments, saying he felt
a committee meeting is in order.
Commissioner Bjorn stated-for the record she had spoke with Mrs. Smith. -She
asked .that when this is returned to the commission, with regard to the fields being
proposed for Class 3 exemption, a showing of the surrounding uses being
provided.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to
'send this item to the Zoning Ordinance Committee and continue this item to the
next regular meeting of April 16, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioner Messner
abstained.
Commissioner Bjorn said she would like to see those who spoke be invited to
.attend the committee meeting.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 Page 18
10.1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - REQUEST BY CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD TO FIND THE PROPOSED SALE OF 20,000 +/- SOUARE
FEET CONSISTENT WITH THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET AT WESTWIND
DRIVE.
Staff report was given.
In response to a request by Commissioner Cobh, Mr. Sherfy gave information on
the terms of a lawsuit regarding the COurthouse' Racquetball facility.
Commissioner poWers stated his support for this item. -
Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she would make two motions, explaining the
latter by saying the property is zoned R-1 with a general plan designation of OS-
P, a situation in which the zoning is not consistent with the general plan. She
therefore made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messner to make findings
pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed sale of real
property located on the north side of 21st Street at Westwind Drive is consistent
with the General Plan. Motion carried.~
Motion was made by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by· Commissioner
Anderson to send a memo to the City Council requesting Council consider
requiring a zone change to Open Space in order to make this property consistent
with the general plan as either a condition of the April 8th Conditional Use
Permit request or to be directed that Planning Commission initiate it in the
immediate future.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr.. Don ~Anderson,
Property Management Department stated he felt anything that would delay the
close of the sale would jeopardize it. '
Commissioner Rosenlieb said her second motion would simply be an advisory to
Council to flag the inconsistency.
Discussion continued regarding the inconsistency of zoning and general plan.
Commissioner Bjorn felt this was a good advisory motion to pass onto the
Council.
Motion carried. Commissioner Marino voted no.
MinUtes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 19
10.2
11.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - REQUEST BY MARTIN-
MCINTOSH SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING FOR A SUMMARY
VACATION OF A PORTION OF OLD RIVER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT
MERCY WAY '(MERCY HOSPITAL)
Commissioner Powers abstained from voting on this item due to a possible
conflict of interest.
Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is
providing services for an adjacent property owner.
Staff report was given. Mr. Kloepper stated an alternate motion was provided in
the form of a memo taking into account the possibility of signal facilities.
Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner
Messner pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the summary
vacation of a portion of Old River Road right-of-way at Mercy Way (Mercy
Hospital) consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, with a
recommendation that the easements be reserved for traffic signal facilities and
public Utilities. Motion carried. Commissioners Powers and Anderson abstained.
STATUS REPORT - ZONE CHANGE #4709
Mr. M°ViUs,'staff planner, gave a staff report on this item saying under provisions
of the new ordinance staff is to provide the Commission with a staff report. The
Commission could then give staff direction.
Rick Coop, Officer of First City Properties, Inc., owner of the property, asked
that the P.U.D. be extended for 11 months, hoping during this time to find a
buyer. He stated he was in favor of Option A of the staff report.
Chairman Marino said he leaned toward Option B because the property has been
idle for 12 years and he did not want this to come to another hearing.
Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was concerned because a number of people
spoke against this project when a public hearing was conducted previously on it
and now the applicant is asking for a continuance.
Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Grady said under the
new ordinance the Commission has the option of reviewing the project once it has
expired and making a recommendation on a new zone change or taking other
action.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92 -
Commissioner Powers said he would be in favor of Option C.
Page 20
Mr. Movius responded to a question by Commissioner Anderson saying staff
visited the site and saw no real trash problem.
Commissioner Anderson felt if the P.U.D. were to expire completely it would
result in an "R" zone. He felt the .Commission stands a better chance of
controlling the development by maintaining the P.U.D. status and therefore
suggested that Option "B" would be the appropriate action to take.
Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Cohn
to utilize option "B" of the staff report thereby leaving the P.U.D. zoning in place.
Staff to provide an other status report in June of 1992. Motion carried.
Commissioners Powers and Rosenlieb voted no.
12. COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
A memo was Placed in the Commissioner's packets to which Commissioner
Anderson gave-a report on the school task force saying alternate methods
of funding schools is being looked into. The sub-committee is scheduled to
provide a report to the task force the last week in APril.
B)
Verbal
Status of Traffic Impact Fee
Mr. Grady said a report would not be available on this item due to the fact
the Board of Supervisors has delayed their consideration on this matter
until April 6, 1992, with June 6, 1992, as a possible implementation date
metro-wide.
Mr. Sherfy clarified debate should take place on the motion being
considered to be consistent with Robert's Rules of Order.
Chairman Marino recognized Mr. Dennis Fox who made a statement
regarding the finalization of the Master Tree Plan-for the downtown area.
He cited the ordinance which requires 1 tree for eyery 6 parking spaces,
however the City's own lot is being paved without any landscaping. He felt
the City ought to lead by example, saying the disparity of city regulations
will. probably:be further noted by those being regulated. He proposed that
wells with 1" ~trees be placed in the city parking lot. Chairman Marino
agreed with Mr. Fox's comments.
Minutes, PC, 4/2/92
Page 21
13.
14.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chairman Marino commented on noise study for Mesa Marin saying he would
like a copy. He also asked for status of 4-H ordinance, which Mr. Grady said is
on the way to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was
adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
Laurie Davis
Recording Secretary
Assistant Planning Director