Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/91MINUTES OF THE Pd~GULAR MF~TING OF~HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, August 1, 1991, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. C05~ISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson KATE NDS~lVLIEB TERI BJORN DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER D~ POWERS C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate Absent: STEVE. ANDERSON ADVISORY MR~BERS: .Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWE~L, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM~DVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM tI~GER~, Principal Planner MIKELRR., Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC S~AT~4ENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. WORKSHOP -MONDAY, JULY 29, 1991 - RSEYCLING Workshop was held. recycling efforts. Greg Sanders presented a review of the city's Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 2 COMP~SIVE SIGN PLAN 1-91 (CENTERCAL PRDPERTIES) Co~missioner Bjorn abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Messner gave a summary of the sign committee report before the Commission, saying they were in agreement on several issues, however several they did not agree upon. They were not in agreement with the applicant regarding light pole banners on which the applicant wanted sales related text to be allowed up to four weeks per year. The Committee decided that this'may create a prece- dent for other similar requests. The second item in disagreement was the rule regarding wall signage along frontage streets. The key issue was an agreement that all non-conforming signs be removed with a change of business rather than in three years. Staff held to the 1.5 foot maximum lettering and 67 percent of linear frontage. In response to a question byChairmanMarino, Commissioner Messner said the applicant had not expressed a desire to meet again with the committee. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to continue this item to the next regular meeting of August 15, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn abstained. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - (WALMART PHASE II) Staff report was waived. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the next regular meet- ing of August 15, 1991. Motion carried. PUBLIC HKARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW 19-91-A (ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH) Staff report was given. Richard Bennett was present stating he is the project architect. In response to inquiry by Chairman Marino, Mr. Bennett said he agrees with conditions in the staff report. Motion was made byCommissioner Cohn, seconded byCommissioner Bjorn to approve the "A" Class Site Plan Review (Phase I) with the condi- tions in the attached Exhibit "A", with the change to include condi- tion regarding consent agreement from P.G.&E., as stated in Memorandum from Jack Hardisty, Planning Director dated August 1, 1991. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 3 7. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TFlqTATIVE TRACT 5149 (RODINE CC~4PANIES, INC. ) Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Allen Donnelley was present representing the applicant. He said they have a problem with the Parks Department Condition regarding the 4:1 slopes for landscape maintainance. They have had this tract engineered and have approved final grading plan with 2:1 slopes. It would cause a hardship to have to engineer the entire subdivision again. They object to this condition being added at this late stage. He said they have no problem with the change in condition regarding maintenance in landscaping from 90 to 180 days. Ken Trone, City Parks Division was present stating the change in slope condition was a request asking for the developer's cooperation. In response to a question byChairmanMarino, Mr. Trone said they would prefer it would be 4:1, however if he has an approved grading plan there isn't much choice in the matter. Mr. Donneley clarified it is not the entire northern border that has the slope problem; but only toward the eastern side. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In response to a question byCommissioner Messner, Mr. Trone said allowing the 2:1 slope would cause an increased runoff from irrigation. It is more difficult to establish plant material and maintain it once in place due to the steepness of the slope. Mr. Donnelley said they now have extended the establishment for the landscaping to 180 days. Commissioner Rosenlieb cited discussion regarding the possibility of having a community septic tank for this project asking staff for history on the approval of this map. Mr. Hardisty said he recalled the issue of sewage disposal being addressed at the time with the increase in lot size to accommodate the septic tanks being understood. This would be acceptable as an interim to the installa- tion of a sewage disposal system to be installed at a later date. Dry line sewers are required to be placed in the streets to be hooked up to the future trunkline. This was agreed upon by the applicant. It was discussed that eventually an outfall would be provided from this area to plant ~2, however it is at the plan level and not the design level at this time. It wouldbe difficult to impose a condition to hook up to it because a program for implement- ing it is not in place. The applicant has discussed this issue with the Attorney's Office and if an alternative were permitted in the condition in which they could install a master septic disposal sys- tem so that the houses would be connected to a sewer system con- nected to the septic tank as in Rio Bravo they would like this to be an option. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 7. Extension of time - ~T #5149 (continued) Page 4 In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper felt the disposal system couldbe accomplished within a 10-year time frame. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she has a tremendous amount of concern with individual septic tank systems, asking if they would be looking for a master septic tank system for this area. Mr. Donnelley said they think a master system might be appropriate, how- ever the problem is that they havebeen told that the master system must be maintained by a public entity before the Health Department approval. The Olcese Water District and the City have been reluc- tant to take on the responsibility of maintaining a community system. They would not want to have a condition added that they must build a leech field if conditions beyond their control make it impossible. In response to a question byCommissioner Cohn, Mr. Trone said it would probably take about 2-3 years for sufficient growth to take place to establish the slopes. Commissioner Bjorn questioned the reason for Olcese Water District's reluctance to maintain this system. Mr. Kloepper said they probably are reluctant because they do not want to magnify their problems. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question saying Condition #2 would cover the need for consideration of a community water system. The system would have to meet the most stringent requirements of the Health Department. Mr. Donnelley clarified they are only subdividing 60 of the acres available for this tract. Twenty acres are available for the poten- tial community leech field. Commissioner Messner said he is reluctant to support a master septic system after hearing the apparent problems, however he could support it if language was introduced to address the feasibility of the system. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question by Commissioner Messner saying the maintenance of this area would be paid for by the maintenance district, including any excessive costs. Commissioner Powers said he had concerns regarding individual septic systems and with the applicant's permission would like for the City to contact Olcese Water District and initiate discussion on whether or not the City would maintain a community septic system, and possi- ble redesign to incorporate this into the tract. Mr. Donnelley said he did not feel this was necessary. In response to a question byCommissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said he feels condition #2 covers the alternatives. Minutes, 7.. Be PC, 8/1/91 Page 5 Extension of time - ~T 5149 (continued) Commissioner Bjorn said she agreed with the comment made earlier by Commissioner Rosenlieb in that she feels uncomfortable with the individual septic systems, however it was approved in this manner and the City is bound to live with the condition as it is now. She therefore made the motion, seconded byCommissioner Powers to approve the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5149 and to approve phasing of said map, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the deletion of Parks Condition, Page 7 of 10 of the staff report and with a change to Planning Department Condition #17 on Page 9 of 10 to replace all references to ninety (90) days with one hundred eighty (180) days. Motion carried. Commissioners Cohn and Messner voted no. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9664 (CORNERSTONE ~GINEERING) Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Dale Clark was present representing the applicant. He clarified Condition #VIII-A saying the way it is stated the street improve- ments sound as if the subdivider is required to provide additional improvements other than those fronting subject property. Public portion of the hearing was closed. In response to a question byCommissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said drought tolerant ground cover is a new condition in response to the general drought in California. It is an effort to encourage conservation. It is written more as encouragement than a require- ment because there is no ordinance in place to provide for enforcement. Motion was made byCommissioner Rosenlieb, seconded byCommissioner Powers to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9664, subject to the condi- tions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following changes: Page 2 of the staff report, Paragraph 1 comment regarding drought tolerant ground cover, shall be changed that drought tolerant ground cover shall be encouraged. Page 2 of 8 Public Works Condition #VIII~ is clarified that the substandard street improvements shall be required as it fronts the applicant's property. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 9. la,b) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING UPON ANNEXATION #5196 Page 6 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Jennie Caswell asked what the city would gain byannexing this area. Mr. Kloepper said consistency of maintenance, additional state monies from gas tax funds for maintenance of roads. Those people over 65 would have half of their garbage bill subsidized. The city provides street sweeping, which is only provided in County service areas presently. Ms. Caswell was concerned about the city not receiving their share of gas taxes. She did not feel any improve- ments would be gained from annexing to the City. She felt they did not need a street sweeper. They bought in the County because they did not want to be in the City. Mildred Gibson, 2412 Corto Street, was present to speak in opposition. She said she was opposed to this annexation. She felt the City offered no advantages, they have a sewer system, street lights and curbing. She felt City Police budgets are stretched to the limit now and did not believe the City Police would be able to protect them any better than the Sheriff. She said she has requested copies of letters in favor of the annexation and has been denied them. She submitted a petition of 694 signatures of property owners against the annexation, and 794 registered on separate petitions. Jim Hesenhoff, 1809 Locust Ravine, spoke saying he did not feel this should be the way the City should conduct this annexation. He said this was kept very quiet by the City. He did not feel this was fair and did not make him want to join the City and be subjected to this type of treatment. He said in obtaining signatures against this annexation out of 17 homes he was refused by only 3. George Jeffers spoke in opposition. He was concerned about the booking fee which the city must pay, saying as a result of this mis- demeanor arrests are no longer made. Dr. Phyllis Selby Dabbs stated she has been a resident of the County since 1951 and she would like it to remain this way. She said she moved out of the City to end the duplication of local government, the additional restrictions on private lives, demands of permits. She was concerned about additional taxes, and said annexation was unnecessary and unwelcome. Stan Shires spoke saying he tried to obtain a copy of the survey from the City and was told it was unavailable. He asked when this becomes public information. Mr. Marino said he is disappointed in this and his opinion was that most anything from city government is public information. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 7 e la & b ZUA #5196 B. J. Myer asked questions about the tax increase, citing the unfin- ished hotel at the convention center, Moreland settlement and rat tax. He asked about the hookup for sewers, and what their recourse would be if this is approved. Mr. Hardisty said the convention cen- ter hotel and Moreland settlement were items handled by the Redevelopment Agency and would not have any effect on the City tax structure. The rat tax is a tax which would cover them whether they are in the city or county. The garbage fees are evaluated annually and have been set at $107 which was an increase over last year's. If they are in a lighting district and have a fee this would be eliminated. Mr. Hardistyoutlined the City's procedure for ann- exation and the recourse for the residents, saying the residents could attend LAFCO's hearing and the City Council protest hearing. Chairman Marino outlined the motions that the Planning Commission would make. Carla Jeffers asked about the survey referred to previously. Mr. Hardisty clarified staff used the records of ownership from the tax assessor. It was sent to an area around the Country Club which was the initial proposed area. As theboundaries were looked at it was felt the appropriate line would be from Mt. Vernon to the Country Club. Mr. Hardisty clarified this was not initiated by the property owners, but by himself in response to inquiries from resi- dents wishing to be in the City. In response to comment by Carla Jeffers, Chairman Marino said this annexation is not creating any islands. In response to questions, Mr. Kloepper outlined the dis- tribution of gas tax funds to the County and the City. Ms. Jeffers felt the response time of the police is not good and she felt the city government should not take it upon themselves to annex them without their wishing it. Claire Moore said he owns property in the City and County in this area. He said his personal experience is that services are cheaper in the county, and they have everything they need. In response to a request, Mr. Kloepper gave Mr. Moore an estimate of 50-60 percent of increase in gas tax subventions to the area. Mr. Moore felt this is the only valid reason for this annexation. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 la & b ZUA 95196 (continued) Page 8 Rosella Binder, 3878 Dalehurst Drive, spoke saying she resents the statement that the survey was sent out and that half were against and half in favor. This statement makes it sound as if the City has a bona fide reason for annexing, however the survey was sent out to a small area only. She asked for the names of the propertyowners inquiring about annexation. Chairman Marino felt this was not relevant. Mr. Hardisty said he could not recall this information. In response to request byMs. Binder, Mr. Hardisty outlined the election process. Chairman Marino responded to questions saying residents of this area would be representated by Councilwoman Smith and would Continue to be representated by Supervisor Larwood, and Mr. Kloepper outlined the gas tax allocation, and the loss and gain of responsibilites of the City and County. Louie Rambula expressed Concern about the zoning which allows ani- mals changing. He said he saw no advantage in annexation. JoannMeyer spoke saying she has not received cooperation from City staff in noticing procedures. Chairman Marino clarified under State law if more than 1,000 people are residents in the area the City can run an ad in the paper rather than notifying each individual. Mr. Hardisty said the City has and will continue to notify the resi- dents by mail even though under State law it is not necessary. She was concerned about tax increases and cited increases in other areas. Jim Poole, 1816 Locust Ravine, was present to speak in opposition. He said this annexation was defeatedby residents in about 1953 and would be defeated again. Walter Hunter spoke asking why a postcard could not be sent out to save a lot of problems. Jennie Caswell spoke again saying she is confused about the tax rev- enue situation. Mr. Hardisty answered saying the City and County have an agreement based on the transfer of services and responsibilites and that they would not be increased. The City and County would negotiate the fund revenues. The County would retain some of the funds because they are continuing to maintain some of the County-wide responsibilities. She cited her concerns about the length of response time for the Police Department. They built their homes because they wanted tobe outside the City. Phyllis Selby Dabbs stated the petitions with the signatures pre- sented to the Commission more than satisfy the 25 percent requirement. In light of this she asked why the City does not give up. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 9 la & b ZUA #5196 continued Craig Jenkins, resident of Flintridge Drive, expressed his opposi- tion to this annexation. He also asked about the results of the survey. Mr. Gauthier, staff planner cited the number of surveys sent out saying approximately 52 percent were in opposition and 48 percent in favor of annexation. Mr. Jenkins asked if this action could be deferred in order to send out additional surveys to get response from the residents. In response to a question by Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Hardisty said the survey results were obtained in the area east of Oswell, north of College. He emphasized that the sur- vey is not for any other purpose than to get a sense of opinion. It has no legal effect. The issue will not be resolved until the pro- test hearing before the City Council. Mr. Jenkins said this ann- exation addresses impacts on the environment and he suggested the people count in the environment. Kenneth Nyberg, 4340 Flintridge Drive, asked about the association of this with Bakersfield Country Club's effort to develop properties on the Country Club which was made a few years ago. Mr. Hardisty said this has nothing to do with that proposal, which the city objected to. Mildred Lenlark, 2416 Corto Street, asked if this annexation is approved will their homes be reassessed. Mr. Hardisty stated reas- sessment does not occur on annexation, only on resale or remodel. She stated she is in opposition to this annexation. Lynna McCloud asked how many returns were received from the survey, to which Mr. Hardisty responded approximately 240. Walter W. Hunter, again spoke about the landfill site saying the moving of it would increase garbage fees. James Helton, 3414 Pickwick Drive, responded on comments regarding the survey, saying if the response to the survey does not matter he felt the city is saying their opinions do not matter and asked why they then received a letter saying that several residents in the area have inquired about annexation. He felt the opinions of those interested in annexation matter. He stated he has been very pleased with services received by the county, and is opposed to this annexation. Jim Poole asked if the cards were sent out in the County Club area. Mr. Hardisty said they were sent to the east side of Oswell at the time because this was the area interested in annexation. Mr. Poole felt the need to annex this area is not apparent and the City has failed to present a good case for it. He felt the Commission should give consideration to the opinions given this evening and table this annexation until additional responses can be obtained. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 la & b ZUA #5196 (continued) Page 10 Stan Shires spoke saying this is a tough decision to make. He said the Commission has a choice of voting what is best for the City or the residents. Ms. Carr, 2905 PicoAvenue, said she was under the impression that being annexed would help her because the City would allow her to get off the septic systems but the sewer connections wouldbe expensive. She said she is in opposition to this annexation. John McCamis spoke saying they recently purchased a house in the county and assumed they would stay in the County. He stated for the record that he and his wife are against this annexation. No one spoke in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked those present for their input. She felt the Commission is looking at 2 issues rather than 1. The first issue being whether or not to annex and the second issue of how the proposal came about. She stated the City did not do a very adequate job in presenting the proposal. She said the City would like to annex developed areas to eliminate a duplication of services. Government continues to cut back services and at some point it must be made more efficient. She stated she believed eliminating dupli- cation would accomplish this which is why she is in favor of this annexation. The focus should not be on whose services are better and that the residents would not be losing but perhaps gaining something. She said she would like to see the Council's decision on this item. She felt it wouldbe best for the community as a whole for all developed areas to be annexed. Ms. Gibson explained the petitions submitted in response to ques- tions by Commissioner Bjorn. Mr. Hardisty also clarified the pro- test hearing procedure. She felt the Commission's role should be to look at the planning issues and what makes the most sense for the city, however she viewed this as apolitical decision. The Commission should examine this from a planning standpoint and make a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the ultimate decision. Commissioner Messner complimented those present for their presenta- tion of their feelings on the matter. Mr. Messner cited a tremen- dous demand for urban services. If every annexation is blocked the demand for urban services will be growing in a leap frog pattern therefore it must be balanced. He felt the driving force of this annexation was good planning and environmental issues. He stated the efficient use of services and response to growth needs of California is important to the City of Bakersfield. He stated he supported the annexation because it is good planning. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 la & b ZUA #5196 (continued) Page 11 Chairman Marino thanked those who spoke. He stated there is not enough revenue from residential properties to provide the needed services, therefore this will cost the city money. It is the city's responsibility to the community to provide more efficient government. Mr. Hardisty said he would like to forward the petitions to the City Council so that they can make the decision of whether or not to pro- ceed with this project. In response to a question byCommissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty said it is the city's policy to try to bring the city together under one jurisdiction and if this were to be moved away from, it should be a council decision. He then outlined the Council's procedure on this annexation. Discussion continued regarding the procedures following this hearing. Commissioner Cohn stated the Commission has a responsibility to carry out what is best for the city, however this is also a politi- cal issue and the Commission needs to be cognizent of the responsi- bility of Planning Commissioners and act accordingly. He commended those present for their presentations. He felt his responsibility was to do what is best from a planning standpoint. He felt those residents in this area are city residents because they tend to use city services being that they are so close. He stated he is inclined to support this annexation. He felt the City in many respects tries to make an effort to makes things easier on residents. Commissioner Powers agreed with Commissioner Cohn's comments stating he felt the Planning Commission should approve the annexation thereby passing it along to the Council to make the political decision. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 12 la & b ZUA #5196 (continued) Motion was made byCon~nissi°ner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt a resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5196 consisting of a change of zone from County zoning of E (1/4) (Estate-i/4 acre), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 PD (Medium Density Residential, Precise Development) and R-3 PD (High Density Residential, Precise Development) to the City zoning designations of E (Estate), R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling, one dwell- ing per 2,500 square feet) and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling, one dwelling per 1,250 square feet) zones, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by~the following roll call vote: AYES: Comissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report, approving the proposed College No. 4Annexation and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson 10. PUBLIC HEARIBX] - ORDINANCE AMSIWqDMMXYP FODIFYING S~CTION 17.64.070 PERTAINING TO NOTICE OF D~CISIONS BY THE BOARD OF ZONING AEOUSTMER~ Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 10. Ordinance Amendment - BZA (continued) Page 13 Motion was made byCommissioner Powers, seconded byCo~nissioner Rosenlieb to adopt the findings contained in this staff report as their own and approve this project (OR 17.64-91), and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cohn ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson 11. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCYFINDING Mr. Hardisty gave a summary of staff's report on this item. He recommended that this school site meets the policies of the gen- eral plan in terms of providing adequate services appropriately located. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to find the proposed junior high school site consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as to its location, purpose and extent as required byGovernment Code Section 65402(c). Motion carried. 12. DISCUSSION Pd~IARDING ODNVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS Mr. Gauthier gave a summary of the report distributed to the Commission. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said this item covers alternatives such as urban growth boundaries, thresholds for environmental impact consideration on agricultural conversion, right to farm laws which are all alternatives he feels are worth cosideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rosenlieb said when this was proposed in the first 2010 Plan it met with extreme opposition from the development community. She felt it was very well done. Commissioner Frapwell felt this was very well done. There is a lot of work to be done and the sooner it is begun the better things will be. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 14 11. Discussion - Conversion of Ag lands (continued) Commissioner Messner asked where urban growth boundaries have been successful. Commissioner Rosenlieb cited Visalia is using it successfully. Mr. Hardisty stated Visalia has a double ring, the inner ring where preponderence of growth is to occur and another ring which projects onto a later year within which they would look favorably on developments. In California the urban growth bounda- ries have been influential in determining whether or not cities would consider an application beyond them. The cooperation of the other jurisdictions is needed in order for this to be a successful tool in managing expansion of boundaries. Commissioner Powers felt developing the growth boundaries is a good concept which creates some temperance as far as the speed at which growth occurs, however it must be flexible enough to allow for the natural expansion of the community. Mr. Hardistypointed out that the comment has been made that urbani- zation of the east side caused farmers to have to farm the west side, however most of this happened at the same time they got water. Discussion continued regarding the location of agricultural land in the city. Chairman Marino felt development will follow infrastructure. He felt the city should be laying infrastructure toward the foothills to allow for development. Commissioner Messner asked if staff had anyopinion on the removal of orchards as opposed to other crops such as alfalfa or rice. Mr. Hardisty said under future growth the city is faced with priori- tizing the areas for growth based on uniqueness of agricultural activities such as almonds. Some crops need to be evaluated because of their rareness. Prime agricultural land because of its charac- teristics is prime area for urbanization as well, and choices must be made. In response to a question by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Hardisty said in his opinion he did not feel the State would be able to man- date abase line beyond which development could not occur. Chairman Marino felt this was not something the city should be con- cerned with. He felt a positive approach should be taken by provid- ing the infrastructure in an area the city would like developed. Commissioner Messner felt a suitability index would be a good approach. Commissioner Powers stated he would like to stay away from the issue, waiting until the city is mandated. Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 15 13. ~ICATIONS A) There was no written communication. B ) Verbal Mr. Hardisty requested that the matter of amending the Municipal Code, Section 17.68.010be referred to staff for revision to reflect today's requirements for considering annexation. This is an out- dated part of the ordinance that refers to the city working with the County Lands Boundary Commission and which puts the Commission in the position of having to judge whether or not to recommend for or against annexation. The ordinance requirement puts the city in a difficult position in terms of having a process in the Municipal Code that does not match the legal requirements in the State Cortese-Knox Act. He would like to bring it back to the CommiSsion with a more updated set of requirements. Chairman Marino referred this to staff. Mr. Hardisty commented on testimony given to the Governor's Committee on growth management saying he tried to express some of the feelings of the Commission. One thing has been a frustration at the implementation side of planning. For example sewer lines are proposed, however there is no way to ensure their installation. There are policies toward growth, however the means to carry them out are not adopted with the plan. Commissioner Powers questioned Mr. Hardisty as to comments in his presentation regarding affordable housing. Mr. Hardisty said he made a comment in response to a question by the Commission in that the real problem in affordable housing does not have as much to do with the rules and regulations placed on them by the city but the treatment of housing as a commodity rather than a home. It is mar- ket driven in terms of price, the city has some effect on the price when adding fees, however it is difficult to believe that it drives the prices up as high as they are especially on existing stock. 14. COMMISSION--S Commissioner Rosenlieb responded to a comment made by Commission Cohn regarding a tract on the east side with a 2:1 slope which is falling into the street. She asked about permits being issued with- out there being a retaining wall. Mr. Hardisty said he would check into this issue and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Messner gave a summary on the park committee meeting regarding a comprehensive parks plan. The committee will be reconvened in early September when staff has a working map. There was an update on the issue of parks special district/county service Minutes, PC, 8/1/91 Page 16 15. AD3OURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meet- ing was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary