Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/91 - - - [~IINUTES OF THE REGUI_AR MEETING .... ~. OF THE '--' PLANNING COMmISSION OFTHE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday,'July 18,:1991, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, 1501Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. City Hall, COvMISSIO~: Present: JIM MARIhD, Chairperson KATE ROSENLIEB TERI BJORN *DAVID CCE{N STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS C~ RDBERT FRAPWRLL, Alternate Absent: STEVE ANDERSON Present: -Present: IAURAMARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, PrinciPal Planner MABC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner ~LIKET.RE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS There were no public statements on items not on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 6, 1991 Chairman Marino noted the correction to Page 3 of the minutes which was by Commissioner Frapwell, distributed to the Commission and filed~ Commissioner Powers stated that item 3 of the minutes showed the motion being made and seconded by him and asked that the appropri- ate correction be made. was made byCommissioner Bjorn, seconded byCommissioner Powers to approve the minutes as amended above. Motion carried. Minutes, PL/C, 7/18/91- Page 2 4. CO~P~SIVE SiGN PLAN ¢1-91 (CEbTI~2%CAL PBOPERTIES) This request is for a comprehensive sign plan for a retail shopping center located at 600 Coffee Road. This hearing.was continued from the meetfng Of June 20, 199i. Staff report _was given. Public portion of the'hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition~ Jim Carstensen was present representing the applicant. He stated-he is in disagreement with 'some of' the conditions. They submitted a compre- hensive sign planwhich"was respondedtoby staff with a more restric- tive sign program. He Submitted a copy of his summary of the plan to the commissioners, which'is on file. He said all tenants meet the cur- rent code'. Under-the comprehensive sign plan, by-staff, which is more restrictive, 9 Of the 12 tenants no longer meet the criteria. Th'e sole purpose of submitting this sign plan is so that they:can have 8 banners, 2 on each of 4 light poles. Staff's comment that this' plan is for legal status of' existing signs is incorrect, all signs, excluding the banners are in compliance. He clarified his summary of what would be allowed for the eommission. He proposed that on Item ¢3 condition that 1 square foot 'of Signage in front of a road be allowed with a minimum of 32 square feet which is identical to what is allowed under the current C-1 zone. Sign #2 that it reflect that the banners be lim- ited Go seasonal, public interest, special event messages only. In response to.a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Carstensen gave an example of seasonal banners such as 4th of July, Christmas, Happy Holidays. He said Sign ¢1 should be plural. Mr. Bidwell, Building Director stated it is the intent of staff that the two monument signs as proposed be included in the plan. Staff feels the seasonal .banners are appropriate.- He asked that Sign ¢3 read as the current 'code does. Mr. BidWell stated staff is typically not used to dealing with tenant spaces as narrow as these and the minimum of 32 lineal feet was overlooked. Staff is suggesting a change be made that those_frontages of less than 32 feet in width,-be allowed the 32 square foot minimum signage. In response to questions by'C~mmissioner Messner,. Mr. Carstensen sup- plied examples of publiq interest'advertising beingperhaps Bakersfield Symphony,.sports events, etc. There maybe a few major sales or spe- cial events for the shopping center which may last a week. The'banners are expensive, therefore there will not be many.- ._ In response to questions by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Bidwell stated,the advertising should be limited to seasonal type.activities and felt. a precedent could be set-withthe 'allowance of this.- The ordinance~is being changed as it is written and someone else-could propose the--erec- tion of something Other than banners. Mr. Cohn stated he could see a property owner possibly doing this for financial gain which would be one of his concerns. Member Bidwell stated that the comprehensive sign plan includes a provision for temP°rarybanners whict couldbe used by individual tenants or the center. Minutes, PL/C~ 7/18/91' Page 3 Comprehensive Sign Plan 11-91' (continued) In respOnse to question by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr..Bidwell propOsed the following wording for Sign #3: Those tenant spaces of less than 32 feet of_frontage .will be permitted a maximum 32 square feet in signage. 'If the space is over 32 square-feet of lineal frontage it could have 1 square foot-per lineal foot of signage as per the ordinance. Mr. Carstensen stated he has one tenant whose lease requires the exist- ing signage. Commissioner Powers stated-he'is inclined to support staff's -recommendation, however he would like to see this item go before the sign-ordinance committee after which it would come back to'the commission. Chairman Marino stated he was in agreement.with this. In resPOnse to a question byCommissioner Rosenlieb, rMr. Carstensen stated he would have no 6bjection to this item being referred to the sign committee and returning to the Planning Commission at. the next regular meeting-of August 1, 1991, however he currently has banners which are up and expensive to take down and asked that those be allowed to be left up until this item is heard. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner ~Cohn to refer this item to the Sign Committee, after which it will be placed on the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 1, 1991 and also t]~at the al~plicant be allowed to continue his current sign program until this item is heard at the August 1, 1991 meeting. Mo~ion carried. I Motion'carried. . WALL AND' LANDSCAPE PLAN~ TENTATIVE TRACT 5488 Staff report was given. David Gay was preSent to speak in favor on this item... He stated this was requested to buffer their future residents from the industrial zoning. They concur with the staff report and will work with the Parks Department in order to provide additional evergreen trees and screening wall. In response to a question byChairmanMarino, Commissioner Rosenlieb stated the original condition on the approved tentative tract required 4-1/2 feet.~of landscaping. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapweil to aPProve wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5488, subject to conditions on Exhibit "A". Motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN ~REVISW #50-90A(B.T.A., .~ENT ~OR BAKERSFIELD M~RIAL HOSPITAL) Chairman informed those present that this item hadbeenwithdrawn. Minutes, PL/C, 7/18/9! ~ - ~ Page 4 7.~ PUBLIC HEARING --CONDITION CHANGE T~I~TATIVE TRACT 5488 .(MARTIN-MCINTOSH) This request~is for ~approval of a change of conditions to eliminate the requirement of PaYing-' Fish ~and-Game fees as required by AB 3158 (Section 10005 Public Resources Code) on Tentative Tract 5488 located on ~the west Side of.windsong Road,~approximately 600 feet north-of Brimhall Road~ Staff report was given. Public portion Of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in-opposition. Roger McIntosh was present to speak in favor. He gave the.back~roUnd. on this request being-that'Tract 5073 which was approved-bythe Planning Commission-in the middle of 1988. It was a three-phase subdivision. Approvals-were obtained, improvement plans approved, grading.plan approved. The entire 3-phase project was graded about the of_1989. The ground has been disturbed, The developer built the first phase Tract-5073 and waited on phases 2 and 3' The'tract which required~them to come back before the commission with new Tract 5488 which was the same as the previous Tract 5073. During the approval there was a condition added that prior to recor- dation of Tract 5488 Fish and Game Fees had to be Paid. This was dur- ing a time when there was substantial confusion as to how the Dn of.AB 3158 was going to take place. City staff had dif- fering opinions than the~State. In April of this year he spoke to Dick Daniels who agreed that there probably was disturbance and.the new tract would not require any new disturbance of fish or game. He recom- mended that a di-minimus finding be obtained fromthe lead agency, how- ever nothing could beobtained in writing, therefore helrequested the change of condition. _ After these developments Fish and Game sent a letter dated July-i, 1991 from George Nokes which was in direct con- flict to the conversation he had with Mr. Daniels. He stated the.pro- vlsi°n of the law states if there is only one project only one fee must be~paid. He felt this project falls under that category and therefore is asking for a di minimus finding.. He commented on the following statement from the letter "We therefore believe the project cannot be exempted, on the basis of its precursor entitlements. This would be true, even if the first phase had occurred after January, 1991 and had paid filing fees." stating this disturbs him because regardless.of whether.or not the fees have beenpaid previously any time another neg- ative declarati0n~ is prepared another fee must be Paid. He stated he understood under the law a project could consist of several applica- 9ns only Paying one fee. However under the scenario outlined in the letter if there are four applications .for the same site four fees must be paid. -Minutes~.PL/C, 7/18/91' Page 5 COndition Chanqe Tentative Tract '5488 (continued) He stated he fel~ Fish and Game was interpreting_the law the way they would like .to see it',~SO that additional funds could be collected. He felt~this interpretation has a huge impact on all development through- out the entire State-of California. Nowhere in the letter does it say that the 'State is mandating the City to not make a di minimus finding. They say they believe the city should not certify Tentative Tract 5488 as di minimus and filing fees should be paid. In the guidelines there is a sectiOn that allows a fee exemption if the lead agency finds that as a result of the initial study the prgject involves no potential for any adverse effect either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources. Wildlife is defined in the.guidelineS. It lists the find- ings of fac~. It is clear by the guidelines that the COmmissionhas the ability to make the di minimus 'finding. He stated he felt it was time that a stand should be taken against Fish and Game because they have gone beyondthe intent of the law.~ He asked that the Commission make the di minimus finding based on the fact that there.is no impact on fish or wildlife. He'reviewed a letter he received from Mr. Hardisty-which sta-tes that fees will be collected at 'the time of application. Alsoin61uded is a copy of final regulations from the state which includes a paragraph which he felt made it clear that the City can make the di minimus finding. Public portion of the hearing was closed. C~tmLissi°ner ~osenlieb stated she concurred with Mr.~ McIntosh wholeheartedly, however the Commission was informed-by staff that if they-take a stand against the Department of Fish and Game representing the citY it places the City at risk thereby making the Commission neg- ligent in doing their job. In response to a request for clarification of this, Ms. Marino, Deputy. City Attorney Stated both the applicant and City are responsible for~paying the Fish and Game fees. While it is true that the lead agency has the responsibility for making the deci- sion she cited the State regulations dated June 20, 1991, Page 7, Section 3 stating the state can overturn the decision as far as the fees are concerned, .thereby making the City responsible for payment. While Fish and Game objected to the di minimus finding staff also:rec- ommended that this finding not be made. Mr. McIntosh cited a similar situation on the Seven Oaks Golf course Which was a disturbed area that had been graded a year earlier. He stated the Conditional Use Permit had been changed and a di minimus finding was made on both of these applications. He referred to the guidelines cited byDeputyCity Attorney Marino, stating there is a section under collection procedures which says only one fee will be paid per project. In the event the project requires multiple notices of approval by lead agency the fee shall be paid at the time of filing of notice of determination. He felt'the guidelines are unclear and in direct conflic~with the letter received from Fish and Game. Minutes,. PL/C~ 7/!8/~1~ Page 6 -Condition-~chanqe Tentative Tract 5488 (continued) Commissioner Rosenlieb said she does not want-to-take the chance of the CitY at'!ris~. Mr.'M¢Intosh stated he would b~ willing to ~place the moneY for.the fee in a trust account in the event Fish and Game should overturn the decision of a di minimus finding. MS. stated she had no probiem with this,-however .substantial evidence needed to be on record that a di minimus finding can be made. A condition would have to be worked out in which the money could beput into a trust, until, the Department of Fish and Game would make a determination~ CommissIoner Bjorn asked if the State is saying that staff.cannot over come the presUmption with substantial findings. Ms. Marino stated her of the letter, is that this is what th~-~State's determina- Dn would be inlthe end. Staff's recommendation was made before the was written. Mr. Messner stated it appears the State's determination'rests upon the fact that they feel this project is phased, however ~he does not see this. It that part of a tentative tract eXPired and has been He stated he is confused and did not know if he could support the request for ~enial, if this is the State's determination. Mr. Hardisty felt in this situation where no fee has been paid there -has not been the COverage of one fee per project. He stated~he believed on a big project covering several applications it should be considered one project with only one fee being reqUired. Mr. McIntosh clarified the original tract was subject to review by the State, but was not subject to the fee. Commissioner Messner stated.he felt this was somehow part of the original project because the original is being updated or .revised and a fee should not have to be paid. Ms. Marino stated_staff's recommendation was not based on the same 9ns as the letter from Fish and Game. CommissIoner Powers stated he agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb's ini- tial comments. He asked for clarification on whether the finding could be made that this .is part of the original project and could be exempt. Ms. Marino stated since the original project expired this is not part of that. In to a-questionbyChairmanMarino, Ms. Marino stated it appeared that the State'~s audit would have to be performed within 9 months. Ms. Marino agreed with Chairman Marino's comment that if a check was received from the applicant and held for this period of time the city would not be at risk of loss. Minutes., pL/C,. 7/18/91' ' Page 7 7. Conditions Change - Tentative Tract 5488 (continued) In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mri Hardisty said he would not feel comfortable with using the fact that the map expired and this is an extension of the previous map. He stated he would feel more comfortable if the applicant had gone down the list of findings and rebutted them. Chairman Marino felt i~ would be difficult to-make a di minimus finding on anything. Mr. Hardisty felt the issue is one of recovery time. Mr. McIntosh stated in his experience when a subdivision is graded endangered species will 9ot come back into the project unless utilities or other excavati6nhas occurred in which the compaction has been dis- turbed and has not been recompacted. There is very little probability that .thewildlife~has. repopulated the area. · Chairman Marino Stated he felt this was a situation where a State agencY is running amuck.- If the applicant is willing to cover the only risk to the City which is monetary and staff is willing to file a di minimus finding after looking at the site he would be inclined to risk it; so to .speak.. Mr. Hardisty stated it is his duty, as secretary to the Co~nission, to file whatever document the-Planning Commission chooses to adopt. . In response ~o a question byCommissioner Cohn, Ms. Marino said this-is- not an extension of.the original tract and is viewed-as a totally new. -project because of .the .lapse in the original project. Mr. Hardisty said his readings on this isSue indicate that other jurisdictions are filing di minimus findings on any project that has a negative declara- tion attached to it ~nd others are picking their way through the cases as the City of Bakersfield is. A Negative Declaration is addressing- significant impacts to the environment, however this ruling the City is looking' at has to do with whether the project has an impact on plants and animals under the jurisdiction of the State Fish and Game Department.- Mr. Cohn stated he is sympathetic to the applicant, however he is con- cerned if the Commission'chooses to make a di minimus finding. Under the definition anything by its nature creates an atmosphere in which a di minimus finding cannot be made. This creates aposition where the Planning Commission is not interpreting but legislating. At same point some organization has to be the one to say we don't agree with this and bring it before the courts for their determination. He did not feel this body shouldbe the body to make the stand. ~- Commissioner Powers stated he ~ould see the developer's and staff's points Of view but w0uldbe willing to try to reach a compromise, which would possiblybe a bond.for the audit period Or ~'time determined by ~taff.whichever is greater and to make the findings outlined in the' State's letter, page 3, Paragraph d, items A through F that these find- ings do not'exist on the_site. - Minute~, i PL/C ~ ~ 7/18-/91 7. Change of Conditions - Tentative Tract 5488 ( continued ) Page 8 In response to 'a~qU~stion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated there are ~findings of fact, however an approval of this may be .dealt with a~re simply 'in making a declaration that when considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before the agency that the prop(Ssed project :wi]'l have potential for~ an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. If the find- ings 'on Pages 2 and- 3 are made, based On the evidence submitted~ during this evening's discussion the Commission has an:arguable positi°n. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked if the finding is made by the Commission and' the State' finds_ that the~ Commission's decision was wrong, is the money due. Mr. HardistY stated there are no guidelines abo. ut how the City can appeal a decision by the State. Commissioner Rosenlieb §tated she concurred somewhat with Commissioner Cohn in that. ultimately Fish and Game is out of control, h~wever she :does' not~ feel comfortable suPPOrting the request. Chairman-Marino felt it _seemed the standards and rules are confusing. The Commission is looking for some type of definition. In reading their, findings it:seems a di minimus finding cannot be made on anything,-which he~ felt was incomprehensible. He felt it needed to be more clear as to what is an impact and what is not. He stated he did not see .a risk with going along with the applicant's request so long as~ he posts a bond. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve the request for the change of .condition removing the requirement of payment of Fish and Game fees, subject to the following condition: The applicant shell post a bond in the amount of theIFish and Game 'fee for ~he duration of the audit period or a time determined by stafflwhichever isgreater. and~made the following finding: When considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Motion carried, commissioners Rosenlieb and COhn voted no. - M~nUtes~ PL/C, ~7/18/91 8. PUBLIC HEARING _- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9633 PORTER-ROBERTSON Page 9 Tentative Parcel Map is located on both sides of Highway 178, between Commanche Road and Miramonte Drive, containing 3 lots on 269 acres, ZOned R-l, C-l, C-2, and M-1. -Staff report was given. PubliO Portion of. the hearing was opened. Jack Colvard was present representing Neil Olson who is a property owner-to the east of this site. He stated Mr. Olson is quite concerned regarding the subdivision of homes to the east of this site because to i-~.the west there is a large area zoned M-1. Mr. Olson would like the Commission to look into the aspect of what this zoning will do to the surrounding properties to the east, which are of substantial value. Randy Bergquist was p~esent representing the apPlicant. He requested a change, to Condition #1 of Building D~partment Conditions, Page 3 of 6 asking that the g~ading-planbe allowed to be submitted prior to issu- ance of~a building permit .rather than a final map, since there are no plans to develop at. this time. Mr. Bidwell stated Building Department has no objection to this request. In response to a questionbyChairman Marino, Mr. Bergquist stated the conditions Isubmitted in memo from the Fire Department dated July 18, -1991 are accePtable. Mr. Hardistylrecommended the following change to Condition #2 of the memo: The~first sentence shall be struck and along'with the words "dry hol~'¥ from the second sentence. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb expressed her concern at adding conditions to the approval at'the meeting when the applicant has not had a chance to see them previously. CommaisSioner Powers stated he drove out to the site and did not feel comfortable with the industrial zoning adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Motion was made byCommiSsioner Messner, seconded byComm~issioner Rosenlieb to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9633, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit ~"A" attached to the staff report, with the fol- lowing changes to conditions: Minutes, PL/C;' 7/18/91 8. Tentative parCel Map 9633 Page 3 of'6: ( continued ) Page 10 Building Department Condition #1 shall read: A Preliminary:Soils Report and Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Incorporating'Fire Safety Control conditions dated July 18, 1991 the following change: -- Item ~2 of requirements: The first sentence shall be stricken and the second sentence shall -have the WOrds "dry.hole" deleted. He also ~ecommended.-that staff conduct a review of the M-1-D zon- -lng and report-back to the Commission on the appropriateness. Motion 'carried.' In response to a question by Mr. Hardis~y, Planning Director regarding the request for:review of 'the M-1-D Zoning, Chairman Marino stated his preference would be to have the opinion of Mr. Hardisty as to whether this should be sent to COmmittee. Commissioner Messner stated this was his making the motion. Mr. Hardisty stated he does not recommend using-industrial zoning, as a buffer between a shopping center and a residential development. -Mr. Hardisty stated the General Plan Committee is-the appropriate committee to begin this review, to set a policy of how to treat adjacent land uses in the future. In response to discussion, it wasdetermined that this item is referred to committee. 9. PUBLIC HEARING . TENTATIVE TRACT 5504 (PORTER-ROBERTSON ENGINEERING) Tentative tract is located on the northwest corner of Meacham Road and Calloway Drive, .being annexed into the City of Bakersfield, containing 71 lots on 20 acres, zoned upon ~nnexation as R-1. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith was present representing the applicant.. He commented on Page 2 of Conditions, Condition V-C-1 stating there is anleXisting ~farm house on this property and this-'condition would require it to access through the subdivision to Meacham or Calloway. They do not have a problem with this, however' the'first phase of development' does not con-. tinue all the way and they..WOuld like to be able to'access Meacham. He therefore proposed the wording from a letter from Sequoia Engineering, Inc. dated July 17, 1991 .which is on file.- Mr. Kloepper stated the proposed change does-'achi%ve the Same result, as the previous cond%tion and he would support this change. . ..-~ ~ Minutes, 7/18/91 9. Tentative Tract 5504 (continued) Page 11 Mr. Smith co~nented on COndition #viii-B-ia., Page 3 of the staff stating this condition requires full improvements of Calloway Meacham with the first phase of development which they would like to reduce to the frontage with the first unit and full paving, curb and .gutter around the intersection. He proposed wording from the letter dated July~17, 1991, on file. Mr. Kloepper stated he would have no ection oto this substitution because it does accomplish the goal Of having the construction of MeachamandCalloway completed for full traffic use of the area. Regarding Condition VIII-B-lc Mr. Smith stated this condition requires a transition south of Meacham Road from the fully improved Calioway · and back to.the existing minimum paving south of Meacba~m Road off the property. There are~power poles south of the property which would require removal to make the standard transitions required by traffic. In wit~ Mr~...Kloepper he said if a minimal transition could be made without moving ~the pOWer pole it might be acceptable. Mr. Kloepper asked that rather than deleting the item as requested in let- ter he recommended .the fOllowing addition to the wor~ing: Off-site utility relocation will no%berequired. Mr. Smith was agreeable to this addition. Regarding Condition #VIII-D1 requiring an infiltration test for the drainage basin he felt since they are expanding an exist- lng drainagebasin it would not be necessary. Mr. Kloepper stated he would not support eliminating this condition because some criteria is needed-to evaluate the size of the proposed drainage area, percolation rate a criteria that is necessary to rely upon. PubliC portion of the hearing was closed. In a question by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty said he would the .same change be made to the Fire Safety Control .Conditions as ~was previously made on Tentative Parcel Map 9633. _Motion was made byCOmmissioner Bjorn, seconded byCommissioner Rosenlieb to approve Proposed'Tentative Tract 5504, subject to the con- ditions outlined in the ~Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report,, with the following changes toconditions: The fire safety conditions dated July 18, 1991 to be'substituted with the following further revision to Condition #2: delete the first sentence and delete the words "dry hole" in the second sentence. Condition '#8-B-lc. add the following sentence to the end of ~e condition: ~Off-site utility _relocation would not be required. The .changes to paragraph v-C-1 and'_VIIi-B-la will be revised p~r {he' applicant s letter dated July 17; 1991 which is on file. Motion carried. '- Minutes,-PL/C,- 7/18/91' Page 12 10.1 '- a,b PUBLIC HEARING ZONING UPONANNEXATION #5202 (NORIEGAN~, 1 ANNEXATION) Chairman Marino abstained from participating on this item due to a pos- sible COnfliCt of interest. Since vice chairperson was not present, motion was made byCommissioner Rosenlieb, secohded~Commissioner Powers to appoint Commissioner Bjorn to chair this item. -- Staff report was given. Public portion of thehearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Diane Fredericks Was present rePresenting the applicant. She'stated all conditions-of the staff are satisfactory. Public portion of'the hearing was closed. Motion was made byCommissioner Rosenlieb, seCOnded by Commissioner Messner, to adopt the resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Zoning Upon Annexation #5202, consisting of a change 'from County A (Agriculture) zone to City A-20A (Agriculture 20 acre minimum) parcel size zone with the Condition as listedin Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. AYES: Commissioners-Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Bjorn, Frapwell ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson ABSTAINED: Commissioner-Marino Motion to adOPt resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report and approving Negative Declaration and approving Noriega No. 1 Annexation and recommend same.to City Council. AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell, Bjorn ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino Minutes,-PL/C; 7/18/91 -:" 10 .'2 a,b PUBLIC HEARING Z~NING UPON ANNEXATION ~5175 Page 13 ANNEXATION) commissioner. Powers abstained from participating on this item due to a possibleconflict~ of interest. Staff was given. Public portion of t~e hearing was opened. George ica stated he lives in the area and is against this annexa- tion because of possible tax.increase and ordinances he does not ~agree with. John Gonzales stating he is representing his parents, who-are.against this annexation. He cited possible property tax increase as a concern of his parents. He asked that. the Commission deny this-annexation. Stan Harris was~present representing his mother who lives in the area. 2 years ago they held a neighborhood meeting which had tremendous opposition. He stated his mother received no-survey and he haS not results of the survey. They have no infOrmation about what the effects of-the annexation will be, concerning~taxes,~parks, etc. He the commission to postpone .this hearing until the people of the area are made aware of what will take place. Chairman'Marlno gave Mr. Harris a copy of the results of the survey.- Mr. M~rino stated his understanding of garbage collection assessment in the City would be substantially less. Mr. Kloepper stated the City of Bakersfield sweeps Streets which differs from the County in that the County only sweeps_those-streets of county service areas in .which addi- tional taxes are~paid for this service. There is no increase in taxes for this service. .Senior citizens get a break on garbage collection fees. There are efficiencies resulting from annexation such asbeing in a treatment area, and city provides street lighting. included in the basic tax rate .and the county does not. John Gonzales Stated he did not receive.a survey in the~mail. In response to a question byCommissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the survey-was sent to bDmeowners using the listing of homeowners On the.tax assessor roll and registered voters. He stated staff tried to have surveys sent to-all ~known addresses. George ica also stated he did not receive a survey. Public portion or'the hearing was closed. Minutes, PL/C,. 7/18/91 Page 14 .10.2 ab ZUA' #5175 .L Haley #1 Annexation (continued) In to a-questionbyCommissioner Rosenlieb regarding grandfathered uses, Mr. Hardisty stated in the County they are left as a permitted use, however there is no time cut-off as long as they do not discontinue use for one year. In the city they are a non- use for a period of-10 years if they wish to continue after this time they may applY for a conditional use permit. At .this time it is taken into account whether or not the building could be put to-a use. Mr. Hardisty outlined the contents of the survey which was sent out, stating it-is very informative. CommissiOner Messner stated for the record that one letter was received in opposition to this request which is contrary to the statement in the staff report. In-response to a question by Commissioner Messier, Mr. Kloepper stated it was Public Works Department recommendation that .River-Boulevard be excluded for annexation at this time. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question byCommissioner Messner saying varyl-ng degrees, of response were received from this area for annexation. It was felt that those areas wishing to annex should be treated independently, those who were more marginal would be.given their_own opportunity for annexation. . Rosenlieb stated she would like on future annexations where a study has been conducted on benefits, to have it in the commis- sion and -.copies available for those speaking. She thanked those-speaking on this item and stated she felt it would be extremely beneficial to their'neighborhood and to the City, therefore she would support this annexation. Coh~ said he felt even though these residents are in a county island they are in the city and use a lot of city services because they. are-surrounded by the city. He understood their reluctance, however he did. not feel taxes would increase. -Chairman Marino :encouraged those speaking to contact the Planning Department to obtain'a copy-of the survey of benefits. was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution 'making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommend same ~o City Council. AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner; Rosenlieb, Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson ABSTAINED: CommisSioner Powers Minutes, PL/C,' 7/18/91 10.2 ' a,b ZUA'95175' Haley No. i/Annexation (continued.) Page 15 -Motion Was made byCommissioner Messner, seconded byCommissioner Rosenlieb, to adopt a resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5175 consisting of a change.of zone from' County zoning of R-1 (Low Density Residential), R,2 (Medium Density Residential), R-3 (High Density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Co~nercial), C-1 PD (Neighborhood Commercial - Precise Combining) and C-2 (General Commercial) to the City zoning designations of R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling one dwelling per 2,500 square feet), R~3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling one dwelling per 1,250 square feet) and C-1 (Limited ) zones,~with conditions as listed in Exhibit "A", and recom- mend same to City Council. AYES: commissioners Bjorn, Cob_n, Frapwell, Messner, ~Rosenlieb, Commissioner Anderson commissioner Powers Motion was-made by Co~nissioner Messner, seconded byCommissi°ner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report,- approving the proposed Haley No. 1 Annexation and recommend same to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Bjorn,~Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Rosenlieb, .Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson .ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers An 8-minute recess-was taken at this time. Minutes.,- PL 11. PUBLIC HEARING - PI~POSED NB3ATIVE Dt~,_g~TION ~ blODIFIC~TIO~ TO TEXT OF'COFIMERCIAL (C-2) ZONE DISTRICT Staff report was given. Public-portion ~of the hearing was oPened. Bob Devereaux was preSent representing the Bakersfield Association of Realtors and sPeaking on behalf of the Building Industry Association. Both are concerned with the reVisions regarding commercial zones. They are hop%ng the commission will refer this matter back to the 'appropri- ate committee so that'~th~y can meet with them to discuss what they feel 'are problems. They intend to go before the Council to ask that they do the same with the zone changes-they are currently considering. They feel the zone changes-directly affect private proPerty rights, proPerty owners will no longer be able to build residentially within commercial zones unless .a conditional use Permit is granted. They feel this ' requirement will be an additional burden on the proPerty owner's time and money. The Value of a property could be negatively impacted.' The is concerned~ that this is an attempt to chip away at zoning which many proPerty owners feel is abenefit of invest- lng in Bakersfield property. They requested that their Association and BIA to meet with staff before this is approved, which would allow the entire matter,-including that before the Council to be dealt with at one Public portion of the hearing was closed. In response to question.byChairmanMarin°, Mr. Hardisty stated the Zones, Church Zones and Site Plan Review amendments were adopted by the City Council on July 17, 1991, and the C Zones were held -until the July 31st Council meeting. Mr. Hardisty clarified the proce- dure for these amendments being the hearing is before the Planning Commission and this is the appropriate forum to bring any problems to the fl~or for discussion. The Council gives these amendments first and second reading_only. Cohn said the Zoning Ordinance Committee has dealt long and hard with these ~amendments. He felt pyramid zoning is not a good idea; in that the City has at times found itself in situations where is a development'which is not compatible With surrounding-devel-. opmentbecause of it. These amendments do not completely eliminate zoning bu~ do however try to solve those problems. He stated he is in favor of'sending these-revisions to the City Council_for. their decision. ~ Commissioner Messner said he is.in favor of these amendments and felt nothing new has been-raised Since that time. All Commission members were in favor of. ~doption .... Minutes, 11. C-2 Zone District (continUed' Page 17 Commissioner Powers fe~t nothing has come forward concerning the effect' .this amendment will have on the private property rights, except that some rights are being taken away. He felt possibly it would be produc- tive to listen to the sPeCific comments of the BIAand Board of 'Realtors. In response. to a question byChairmanMarino, Mr. Devereaux said both bodies had committees who have discussed this. They did not catch this the first time beCause of confusing notices, which is why they. would like the opportunity to discuss this. There are specific concerns by both bodies, which he declined to discuss because he was notgiven the authority. In-response to a questionbYChairmanMarino, Mr. Hardisty said if it is the Commission's desire this item can be discussed with the BIAand Board of Realtors. Mr. Marine agreed withMr. Hardisty's previous com- ments that this is the .forum for hearing problems with the ordinance. He felt it may.bebeneficial for the Commission to hear the comments of the BIA and Board of Realtors. was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by-Commissioner Messner to adopt the Negative Declaration for'this project and approve the amendments to the C-2 Zone as proposed and recommend same to ~he City Council. -Motion cafrried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino -'- ABSENT: Commissioner AndersOn 12. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED NF~ATI~ DECLARATION OF MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS ON TRUXTUN~AV~NJ3E Staff report- was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Norman Walters was present to speak.in opposition.~'~He stated he: does not oppose any safe movement of traffic or increase in beauty to the City. He said he has seen a deterioration of the beauty of Truxtun Avenue. His concern is for the sacrificing of trees for traffic He felt the turnouts could be accomplished without'remOving .trees. He said the trees should not be destroyed. He felt the speed limit couldbe reduced eliminating the need for removal of ~the trees. Carol Miranda spoke Saying these trees are about-60 years old. She disagreed with the staff report that cutting these trees will not have an effect on the environment. She felt the community was'being destroyed and not being made better. She felt the "no trees removed" option should be approved. MinUtes, PL/C, 7/i8/91 12. Page 18 Proposed Negative Declaration Median Modifications Truxtun Avenue ( continued ) Dennis F~x spoke saying he' is in favor~ of trees, and~ asked about the status of the tree ordinance. He felt trees should be' replaced as they are removed. Chairman Marino clarified more trees are being planted than removed. Mr. Hardisty said he is aware the CDDA is working on. a master tree plan, and recommended that he speak to staff about this. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In-response t(~ a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer said two. projects for improvement of Truxtun Avenue were split and-he was not aware of any other locations-in the downtown-area where tree relocations .would be needed. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she felt the City is not sacrificing the trees for parking, but for safety reasons. She thanked those who spoke on this item~ Ccx~missioner Messner-reiterated that the positive environmental~effects of plan~ing six new trees should be recognized. The safety improve- ments'offeredby this plan cannot be ignored. Con~nissioner Powers felt ~the City rarely gets the opportunity to miti- gate something of this nature in a positive way such as in this case. Commissioner Frapwell felt if the traffic situatiOn'dan be alleviated it shouldbe done. He asked that additional tree planting be looked into for the area located?between "Q" and the overpass because there are some.bare spots in this area. Moti0nwas made by.Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt the negative declaration and approve landscape and median improvements for Truxtun Avenue between "L" and "Q" Streets and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried. Commissioner Cohn voted no.- Minutes;' PL/C, 7/]'8/91 13; 'PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANC~ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.52 (PLANNED 19 14 -DEVELOPMENT)~ Staff report was_giyen~ - Publicportionof the hearing was opened; no one spoke in Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Marino.felt this' ordinance amendment made a lot of sense felt staff did a good job on. it-. Motion was made by Commissioner 'Powers, seCOnded by Commissioner Frapwell to_ adopt Resolution making findings set forth in the report, apProving the Negative Declaration and apProving the to ~the PUD zoning-district, amend Sections 17.52.080-A., 17.52.080 delete Section 17.52.080 C: and add Sections 17.52.080 C, D. & E. recommend same to City.Council. Motion carried by the following call vote~ - ' AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino .ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - VACATION OF KING STREET.~AND ADJACENT TRAFFIC ISLAND BE~WES~ EAST 19TH STREET AND FAST TRU~iT~ AVENUE Staff report was given. Motion was made by'Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner .Pow pursuant toGovernment-Code Section 65402 to find the vacation of 'Street and adjacent t-raffic island right-of-waybetween East i9th Street and East TruxtunAvenue consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010.General Plan and report the-same to the City Coun with the recommendation said vacation shall be subject .to the cond tions listed as items 1-4 in project analysis of the staff report. Motion carried. rs ling ,il Minutes, PL/c,-7118191 - 14 '' b. GENERAL-PLAN CONSISTENCY . Page 20 FINDING - ACQUISITION OF 19.5 +/- ACRES FOR A PROPOSED PARK-SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOSKING AVENUE AND MONITOR STREET Staff report Was given.i In 'response to questions by Chairman Marinol Mr. Hardisty stated there is a tentative map-on this site, which will be in place until expiration. It was discussed that the adjacent lands may be acquired in.order to give the par~k .a better shape and more utility and it could be developed as a community park. The neighbor has considered selling it. for a park. site in' the future. The maintenance would be assessed to the degree as it serves 'neighborhood needs with the balance being picked up out of the general fund. chairman Marino felt there is a real need for the larger sized parks. Mr. Hardisty responded to questions by Commissioner Messner saying the additional acreage 'to make up the 19.5 acre site would come from the adjacent R'I zoned property to the East. If the additional acreage is .not acquired this would not have to come back before the Commission for another consistency finding. In .response to questions by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said it would not ~ difficult, to turn the site into a neighborhood park if the property to the east was acquired. It is known that there is sufficient demand immediately around the area to support the need for a 9-acre park site and the community park is an achievable goal. Mr. Hardisty clarified the acquisition of additional 7.33 acres. Discussion continued regarding the acquisition of-additional 'lands. Bob. Jackson stated the two strips of land to the east of the 9.78 acres is under one OWnership. The property owner has expressed a desire to deal' with the city on this acquisition in the future. Mr. Hardisty answered a question by Commissioner Cohn saying 'if Mr. Jackson chooses to dedicate land it would take care of the in-lieu fees-charged to the development. If not he would hold the park site available for their purchase as he records. Additional funds will be picked up to negotiate the other acreage adjacent to the site, however development tO the north will not occur in the very near future. Mr. Hardisty clarified the requirement for using park fees allocated for- this site. Mr. Powers said he is concerned about the guarantee for future purchase of the adjacent property. Notion was made byCommissioner Rosenlieb, seconded bycommissioner Messner to find the acquisition of the 19.5 acre site located on the northeast corner of Hosking~Avenue and Monitor Street consistent with fhe General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65402 (a).. Motion carried. _ ~ Minutes, PL/C, 7/18/91 Page 21 15. ~ OF BYLAWS- CONCERNING ALTERNATE PLANNING ~ISSIONER Staff report was waived. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Laura Marino stated the change to Subsection 1-H was included in the resolution. She clarified when the parameters were set up for the alternate commis- sioner to participate only specified that alternate may participate when fewer than 7 are present or eligible. The alternate commissioner continues to participate in any hearing in which he began the public hearing. In .the case of a continued public hearing he would continue to participate and those not there would not participate Unless their participation was legally 'required, which is outlined in Article 6-H and~j: Mr. Hardisty commented that if this is something that needs, to be fully authorized .through an Ordinance amendment the commission is in a good position to do this, becauSe the appointment procedures of all boards and commissions .are being reviewed to develop Uniformity. It could be clarified at this' time. Ms. ~Marino said under Section H the following sentence should be added: "The alternate commissioner Shall continue to participate in all Public hearings in which he origin_ally began participation." -Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt Resolution of the ~Bakersfield Planning Commission amending Subsection H of Article 1 .and Subsection J of Article 6 of-the Planning Commission Bylaws relating to alternate Planning Commissioner and hear- ing procedures, with-the following addition to Article 1, Subsection H as follows: The alternate commissioner shall continue toparticipate in all public hearings in .which he originally began participation. Motion carried. 16. DISCUssION ~ING 'COkAfERSIONOF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE PROVISION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES Planning Director. Hardisty stated the information regarding agricultural lands would be forwarded to the Commission at a later date. Planning Director Hardisty stated a workshop has been'scheduled August 12 to discuss schools. ~Staff's endeavor in the. report was-to raise information and tune the commission, up to the issues. ~Staff is not in a good poSition to explain in detail the fUnding difficulties the schools are exPeriencing or justify their concerns. Staff report was giv~en'.- -Minutes,_ PL/C,' 7/18/91 -16. Discussion -"Provision~of School Facilities Page 22 ( continued ) chairman Marino stated he had a concern with mandating Marks-Roos, Mello-Roos~ bonds beca6se they both require a vote of the property owner a~d he is v-ery_nervous about the government mandating citizens to vote a certain way. Mr. 'Gauthier said staff does not want to ~restrict sources of funding, but to address and explain 'an issue. ~r. Hardisty said the city is not-imposing one partic.ular form of -funding~ -~ _~ICATIONS-' CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE U.S. DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME RB3ARDING FINAL -b. REGULATIONS REGARDING IMPL~ATION OF AB 3158 Mr. Hardisty stated the commiss-ionhasbeen supplied with the latest gUidelines from the State. He'cited a. copy of the res.ponse received and distribUted to the Commission on the establishment of regional equestrian trails from the Kern County Planning Director. Mr. Hardisty commented on zoning ordinances heard and approved at the Council meeting of July 17,'-1991. He commented on the Hughes Lane Transfer station heard before the City Council citing the denial of the encroachment permit'. The problem was referred to the Urban Development Committee fo~ resolution. In response to discussi°nby Chairman Marino regarding.the freeway, Mr. Hardisty said the sPecific plan alignment concerns of the Board of Supervisors .on the possible realignment of the portion of the specific plan linebetweenMohawk and Coffee was referred to the Commission. 'The-location being more northerly with a less direct relationship to the-river. Most of the alignment being in the County, the County con- ducted a-workshop with property owners who would be affected by such a move, taking their comments 'and explaining the.procedure. Various - alternate alignments have beenmapped out which will be considered by Cal Trans and City staff regarding environmental and fiscal impacts and Will-be brought back to ithe Commission. Minutes,..PL/C,~7/18/91~ 17. b~ Page 23 verbal-COmmunication (continued) Concerning the adopti°n of the Habitat Conservation Plan Commissioner Messner asked how long it would take to obtain the 10a and 2081 permits and if the implementation trust is being formedin the near future. Mr. Hardisty Said this plan-waS adopted with support from varying interest groups 'and well received by the Federal~Government.. The City is at a sticking:p0int with' the Department of Fish'and Game in that two letters have been received indicating they have not participated in the develOpment of the program, although their representatives attended-the meetings f6r four. years and agreed with the published program. Staff wi%l be meeting with them to respond to their comments. The City does need their cooperation in that they are going to'be~taskedwithmoni- :toring compliance With the permits.. The Federal Government felt it would be futile t~ apply, for Section 10a permit without concurrence of the~State. In the meantime the interim agreement is in place. 18. C(Iv~4ITi~EEASSI~S.- In reSponse"to a question byCommissioner Rosenlieb regarding the rea- son for change of the ~oint City Council/Planning Commission COmmittee .to add Annexations, Chairman Marino said this is one of the areas the commission works on that is not covered. Commissioner Rosenlieb said it .has been the policy of the Commission toreact to proposed annexations. She cited a conversation with Mr. Marino in which he com- mented that-he wanted to work toward annexing some already developed areas and said it was her opinion this is outside the perview of the Planning Commission. She felt Annexations are rather political and would rather the COuncil continue to work on annexing County islands, developed areas and the COmmission to continue to respond to developer requests. Commissioner ~Rosenlieb said she has received an unusual num- ber of phone calls regarding this issue and relationship to Chairman Marino'~s involvement on an annexation. With the concern expressed and her b~_lief that annexation shouldremain in the political arena she asked that the Annexation portion be dropped from the commit- tee assignments continuing to allow Council to deal with this issue. Chairman Rosenlieb made the~motion to approve the Committee Assignments proposed by Chairman~ino, with the exception that Annexations will be dropped from Item ~7 to remain in the Council's hands. Cb~irmanMarino questioned'staff as to the correctness of the Group Vote'under this item, asking if this item was voted upon last year. Ccmmissioner Rosenlieb said it was voted upon with changes. Mr. Hardisty said in reviewing the bylaws and the past procedures,. under the bylaws it is the duty of the Chairperson to make committee assignments. However in his experience they havebeen done with the concurrence of the Com~ission.~'. He said he has never had disagreement of assignments come up as an issue~. It has-always been-the Chairman's. desire for endorsement-by~-the Commission if not~'by-fOrmal ~vote/by~conJ currence of the Commission. Minutes, PL/Ci"7/18~91' Page 24 18. Committee Assiqnments ~i(continued) In to a ~equest by~Commissionerl Messner for ChairmanMarino's on whyannexat~ons should be appropriate for~this~Committee, Chairman Marino said the Commission has been looking into picking up some islands and developed, areas. This started because the equestrian trails were frustrated since they had to go through County areas~ The need expanded when he received several requests to 'annex portions of Greenfield and sat in public hearing listening to people in the area discuss sePtic.tank failures. He felt this is a planning issue in which the future needs-to be addressed. He felt it was-a political . issue which is why the Commission should work with the Council On it. R°senliebs%ated she is basing her opinion.on the number Of phone calls she has received from the public concerned about a per- ceived conflict of interest because of Chairman Marino's involvement in the 28 square mile annexation before the City. She felt it is impor- tant that the commissio~ avoid anY semblance of wrong-doing or conflict regardless of whether it is real or not. Motion failed forelock df second. Motion was made byCommissioner Messner to adopt Committees as proposed. Commissioner Bjorn stated she is perplexedbecause there-seems, on Chairman Marino's Part, robe the need for an added responsibility to an existing committee, however she cannot remember a time when the com- mission has had an annexation matter requested to be referre~_ to Committee. She asked if this was requested by staff or the Council. Mr'. Hardisty responded that issues have revolved around land use issues and general plan issues and not jurisdictional issues. He'cited an of Renfro #2 Annexation being referred to Committee because of -the relationshipof adjacent properties to urban areas, freeway going 'through and where shopping center should be. 9her Bjorn said She generally perceives annexations as~some- thing the Planning'Commission is reviewing and reacting to as a plan- nIng issue rather than getting involved in the pursuit of it. Motion by Commissioner Messner died for lack of second. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt the Pla~nning Commission Committee assignments proposed by ChairmanMarino for 1991-92 and that Committee 97~continue to remain -Joint City .Council/Plann.~ng Commission committee and that annexation 'matters will be handled by Council. In response to a questiOn by Bjorn, Commissioner Rosenlieb stated the Commission will continue to look at land use designations on annexations which will.be ~referred to the General Plan Committee; that annexations continue to be acted' upon by-theCommission in the current manner. Motion carried. ~Minutes, PL/C, ~/18/91 Page 25 19. COF~4ISSION ~S Commissioner Rosenlieb shared with the Commission the results of a meeting she had at the Kern Economic Development Corporation the previ- ous Mondayf Of the 28 sections of land proposed for annexation to the City, one developer controls 14 of those which is the property the fur- thest away from th~ city. The property is located near'Buena vista Lake-and Interstate 5. ~e said her comment to them was that she felt Annexati°n~tobe a political issue which should be up to Council to decide. She said she was COncerned with land use designations bein~ premature far away from existing development. Her impression from LAFCO was they were not interested in expanding the Sphere 'of Influence far away. In response to her question Of Mike Ahmon he said the EDC's support for this group came from their feeling that they are offering an alternative way of developing a community and the creating of about 72,00 jobs. His support~was fOr this alternative way and not so much the development. -She cited from ideas frc~ the letter. Their proposal is to develop as soon as possible with basically a self-contained city within the City. Commissioner Powers commented on the Committee Assignments, saying he reviewed the July 19, 1990 minutes in which the committee assignments were made-and there was no motion or vote. Chairman Marino said if the'Cc~ittees would like to they can talk to Ccm~nittee Chairpersons in order to come up with a list of objectives. for the coming year. In response to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said the City has not gone to an ordinance level for recycling at this time. However, the solid waste division of the City has initiated recycling efforts. The City is,~however, faced with the mandate-to reduce the flow of refuse in the next 1-2 years and alternate methods of collec- tion are being worked-on by the Sanitation Division. Commissioner Powers asked if a report could be obtained from other communities in the valley on the-reduction of solidwaste. Mr. Hardisty felt it would be beneficial for the Commission to possibly attend a workshop to make them aware 'of some of the City's efforts. It affects'planning in that -there are mandatory buffer zones around disposal sites. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave the commission information on a contact person for recycling efforts. Commissioner Cohn~ felt containers should be placed city-wide for col- lection of recyclable items. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt a workshop couldbe conducted at a Pre-meeting. Mr. Hardisty said it~wouldbe scheduled for a pre-meeting workshop to be carried on the agenda for action to be taken du~ing the formal meeting. ~ Minutes, PL/C~ 7/18/91~ ~ · 20'. ADJO~ Page 26 There being no further business to 'come before the Commission, meeting was ~adjourned at 9: 50 p.m. Laurie Davis- .Recording Secretary