Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday,-February 6, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 TruxtunAvenue, Bakersfield, California. I. 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: JACK HARDiSTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, 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. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS - TENTATIVE TRACT 5545 Commissioner Anderson abstained from participation on this item due to a possible conflict of. interest in that his company is providing services to an adjoining tand owner. - Commissioner Powers abstained due to the fact the applicant has been a source of income during the last year. Minutes, PC; 2/6/92 ' ' Page 2 -Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to the' fact the applicant has been a Source of income during the last year. Staff report was given. Kenneth Mettler was present, as the applicant. He said he provided examples of all materials to be used. The signage he is proposing is very Iow maintenance and easy t° _repair. He-asked that they be allowed to use the corner treatment as shoWn on the plans and utilize' the same paint products used immediately to the west of this subdivision. Mr. Ha~disty said staff would prefer not to allow the corner treatment, because it is not the entrance to the subdivision but a collector road~ Regarding the use of Paint on the wall, Rob Cramer representing the Parks Department said they have. not ~had any problems with' the painted signage and he would not recommend denial on this. Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said other subdivisions do not have-as much entrance signage.as this subdivision is proposing. Responding to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty clarified Condition # 1 of~Planning Department conditions was worded with the thought that none of the signage would be approved given a recommendation against paint. HoWever if the Commission is inclined to approve the use of the paint proposed, .the first sentence could be deleted. ~Mr. Movius clarified that under the present conditions the applicant would be allowed to place signage at both sides of the entrance, therefore the Commission would, have to limit it if they so desire. Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn~ Mr. Movius cited a subdivision to the west which contains. signage on both sides of the'entrance. · MOtiOn was made by' Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5545, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the exception that the applicant may use painted lettering as proposed and allowed to locate signage at both sides of the entrance, at White Lane and El Sueno, and with the deletion of the first sentence of Condition #2 of Planning Department conditions. Motion carried. Commissioners Anderson, Powers and Rosenlieb were absent. Minutes, PC, 2/6/92 4. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9723 CommisSioner Powers abstained on 'this item due to a conflict of interest. Page 3 Commissioner Anderson-abstained on this item due to a conflict of interest. A request was received from the applicant to continue this item to the regular meeting of April 1-6, 1992. Public portion of the hearing was-opened; no one spoke on this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to continue-this item to the regular meeting of April 16, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioners Anderson and Powers were absent. 5.1) 5.2) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5559 A request was received from the applicant to readvertise this project at a later date. -Staff report was waived. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to refer this item back to staff for further consideration. Motion carried. '.' PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5581 Commissioners pOWers, Anderson and Marino abstained from hearing this item due to a posSible Conflict of interest. Motion was made by .Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to appoint Commissioner Rosenlieb temporary chairperson. Motion carried. COmmissioner Marino abstained. -Staff report was given. Public portion of.the .hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. .Minutes,:PC, 2/6/92' Page 4 Greg Owens was present representing the applicant. He stated, they concur with all conditions of the-staff report. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked if he would .agree to a requirement for meandering sidewalk. He said the developer would like to have a straight sidewalk with 30 feet of landscaping. Judy Salamaeha represented Castle and Cooke Development Corporation. She said their preference is for a meandering sidewalk, however they would prefer to keep it as an option rather than a requirement. Public portion-of the hearing was closed. Mr. Kloepper cited the letter from Castle & Cooke regarding the payment of regional circulation impact fees saying the city agrees their proposal as outlined in the letter .will satisfy the regional traffic impacts associated with this project. Secondly/in the event'the fees are raised by the Council before a building permit .is applied for they would be subject to the higher fees. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see some thought given to landscaping, sidewalk and streetscape in light of the existing development in the area. Ms. Salamacha said the issue of meandering sidewalks is one that will definitely be considered. Responding to a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Commissioner Rosenlieb said there would-be no wall in~ this development. The landscaping would be addressed through the site plan review process. Commissioner Rosenlieb cited her concern about the tower line area not being integrated intO.the project. The applicant said the northern portion of the tower line-would be used for RV parking and the center piece would be used as a sump. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5581, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion carried. Commissioners Powers, Anderson and Marino were absent. Minutes, PC, 2/6/92 Page 5 6.' GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CAMINO MEDIA AND OLD RIVER ROAD Staff report was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed acquisition of real proper~ty for the proposed Old River/Camino Media water well site is consistent with the general plan. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained from voting due to a possible conflict of interest. 7.A Communications- Written Mr. Hardisty cited copies of articles of interest submitted to the Commission. 1) _ Memo from Attorney Marino regarding conducting of meetings Commissioner Rosenlieb said she did not like the portion of the memo stating in order for the Commission to debate they must put a motion on the floor. She said she would rather handle it the way in which-the ' Commission has been which is a debate and then a motion. She cited the portion of the memo which says comments should be discouraged until all testimony is taken and public hearing is closed, saying there are occasions when during the public hearing in order to expedite it, it becomes necessary to ask staff a question. She asked if this is permissible. Ms. Marino said this ties into the same rule under Roberts Rules which states no discussion should occur until a motion is on the floor. If the Commission does not wish to follow this rule then the by-laws need to be amended to. this effect. She' felt the Commission should Consider some of the Consequences ofthis; that the discussion gets out of hand andthere is no way of getting back on track if there is no motion on the floor. Regarding the conducting of Monday pre-meetings COmmissioner Rosenlieb said she had no problem with this. Regarding recommendation of time limits she stated she asked the Commission when she was chair if time limits could be placed on speakers and the Commission did not want to support this. She felt this memo was a direct result of problems arising ai the last meeting. She felt this'maybe an over reaction. Minutes, PC, 2/_6/92 Page 6 Responding to comments by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Marino clarified the procedure for placing a motion on the floor. She clarified that under the Brown Act all public meetings require the Commission to permit public statements. He felt possibly speakers cards should be filled out for anyone wishing to speak at a pre-meeting. Commissioner Powers said he had not felt since his tenure on the Commission that a pre-meeting has gotten out of hand or that a debate has taken place. He felt regarding time limits it wOUld be more productive to allow those wishing to speak but possibly a 3-minute time limit would be appropriate if applied evenly. Regarding making a motion before beginning discussion he felt the reason the Commission is able to ~accomplish what they do is their ability to work out a solution at the time. He felt following Roberts Rules would confuse the situation. CommiSsioner Anderson was concerned about the process becoming redundant:-' He agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comment regarding occasions when the Commission must ask a question of staff during the public hearing in-order to clarify the situation for the neighbors. He felt motions tend to become technical which is after the Commission has a chance to debate amongst themselves. He felt it would be cumbersome to put themselves in a position of not having a free-flowing forum.' He said he is in favor of anything which wOUld shorten the process. Commissioner Bjorn said she shared all concerns raised by other commissioners, asking the City Attorney if the by-laws needed to be amended in-order that the Commission not have to comply with all requirements of Roberts Rules. Ms. Marino said the Commission's bY-laws state the Commission will follow Roberts Rules except where changes have been made~' She suggested the Commission do this but consider how it may'be done without dropping every forum of order. Commissioner Bjorn said she would be in favor of amending the by-laws. Commissioner Powers felt possibly a short workshop could be conducted before the next meeting. Mr.. Hardisty said the by-laws would be placed on the next agenda. He said under Roberts Rules the Commission already has the ability to set time limits on-hearings. Commissioner Marino suggested as an alternative the Chairman could read staff's recommendation before the public hearing. _ Minutes, PC, 2/6/92 7. B.i) ~Communications - Verbal ' Page 7 DiscUssion regarding School Task Force Mr. Grady stated he had attended the last meeting and a letter will be formalized and sent to the Commission outlining meetings conducted by the task force and issues that the.executive committee will be looking into. He cited some of these issues being year-round school systems and construction needs for schools, cooperation of school districts, reducing · administrative costs, use of standardized construction plans and the effect of cost on .new schools, evaluation of prevailing wages for workers, fiat fee, and the use of Mello-Roos districts. These issues Will 'be looked into in greater detail to be presented at a meeting scheduled for May 1, 1992. ' The executive committee Will meet next wednesdaY. He outlined the nexus requirements of the fees. Commissioner Anderson stated he had been asked to participate in the sub-committee.looking at the technical issues. He said they are trying to avOid sending this issue onto the Council without finding some possible solutions to problems. B.2) Transportation Impact fee status report 'Mr. KloepPer Stated the Commission had each received a copy of Ordinance 3429 which the City Council adopted on January 29th. Minor modifications were made to the fee schedule. The fee would go into effect 60 days after the County adopts a similar ordinance. It looked as if it Will be adopted by the County in the middle of March. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the indication he has' received is that the County will probably adopt this fee with the same optimism and reservations that the Council had in adopting it. B.3 DiscussiOn regarding Electro Magnetic Fields Mr. 'Hardisty s-aid this issue has been one of recent community controversy. P.G.&E. and the Planning Department have enter'ed into a closer and more cooperative working relationship in terms of the advance planning for the need for transmission lines and will be concerning themselves with these routes while approving 'major projects in the future. Planning staff Will try to' incorporate the .poli6y of prudent avoidance to minimize exposures. Staff will be getting back to the Commission in-the future regarding ordinance revisions. Miriutes;~PC, 2/6/92 Page 8 Responding t~-a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said P.G.&E.., only needs to respond to the Public Utilities.Commission's general rules and orders and as long as they comply they are exempt from local control. Responding to discussion, Mr. Hardisty said there are no other limitations to what may be erected-in a public utilities easement by the utilities. o COMMISSION COMMENTS' Responding to comments by Commissioner Powers regarding the League' of California cities Planner's Institute, Mr. Hardisty recommended attendance by those who have not had a chance. commissioner Rosenlieb cited the denial of the annexation req.uest by LAFCO on Buena Vista #5. She said her understanding for the denial was because:it Came to the Commission zoned agriculture. Responding to a question by her, Mr. Hardisty said' staff's position is that LAFCO went beyond its reasonable purview in the denial of the project. Their rules require that the property be prezoned. Thepoli¢~ of not allowing annexations which are zoned agriculture is one which was made up in the staff report. It is not unusual for the city to annex agriculturally zoned 'property. Mr. Hardisty said an option is to create an urban reserve zone designation, however he was not sure LAFCO would approve annexations with this designation either. 9. ADJOURNMENT There beling no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:01 p.m. Laurie Davis fetary