Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/95MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, October 19, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate Absent: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson KENNETH HERSH ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director · STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Boyle asked that Item #7.2 be deleted from the consent agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve consent agenda item #'s 1 and 2. Motion carried. Mi'hutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 2 4.1 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5001 4.2 Staff report recommending approval was updated. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Carl Moreland represented the applicant stating concurrence with the conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by,Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve a two-year extension of time on Tentative Tract 5001 (Revised) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," and the memorandum of October 18, 1995 from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5301 4.3 Request was received for continuance on this item. Mr. Grady stated that although action was taken on this item at the Monday meeting for continuance, that action should not have been taken because this ite~n has been noticed for public hearing at this Thursday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was reopened. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item to the regular meeting of November 16, 1995. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5396 Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Carl Moreland represented the applicant stating concurrence with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve a two-year extension of time on Tentative Tract 5396 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," and the memorandum of October 18, 1995 from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 3 4.4 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE. TRACT 5719 o Commissioner Dhanens stated he would abstain from participating on this item because of the fact his wife has received income from the subdivider of the property. Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public p6rtion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Steve DeBranch represented the project. He stated concurrence with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report, and approve the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5719 Vesting to expire on November 3, 1998, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," and including the change to Condition No. 1 as stated in the Planning Director's memo dated October 13, 1995. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5728, PHASE 2 REVISED This item was approved as a consent agenda item. Mr. Sherfy, Chief Assistant City Attorney stated Mr. Hernandez had to declare a conflict of interest on this item because he lives in the vicinity, therefore he would provide legal counsel on it. He cited Section 17.64.070 subsection C, reference to this section being in 16.28.170 03. referring to R-2 zoning, saying a finding must be made for modification as follows: "The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or lots including but not limited to modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero lot line or other a-typical subdivision development." He stated it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that based upon the evidence presented that this condition has not been met. Responding to question by Chairman Delgado, Mr. Grady said the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office do not agree on the interpretation of this section as it applies to this subdivision. The Planning staff feels the action previously taken with respect to approving this item as a consent agenda item is the correct action. He gave the option to the Commission of voting to reopen the hearing if they are not comfortable with the action previously taken. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 4 Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Sherfy stated his belief that the Commission does not have sufficient evidence to make the previously referenced finding that he felt should be made. Mr. Grady said the project analysis gives the reasoning behind staff's opinion that approval of this is reasonable and language in finding #14 which describes a particular subdivision which would facilitate a zero lot line subdivision. He explained that a zero lot line project could actually end up with lot widths and areas less than what is being proposed by this applicant. He stated staff's interpretation of "included but not limited to" does not suggest that the only product subject to area reductions would have to be a zero lot line. It is staff's interpretation that this project is in compliance with language of that section. Commissioner Brady said he was inclined to agree with Mr. Grady's interpretation and would not be in favor of reopening the public hearing. Commissioner Boyle was concerned that if the ordinance is adopted and the Attorney's staff is right nothing has been accomplished. Mr. Grady said this language has already been adopted on Phase i of this project. The Commission has the authority to make a judgement on this issue based on information presented, the Attorney's staff is just suggesting that they are not 100 percent comfortable with the findings made in the staff analysis. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Sherfy said it is his feeling that the reduction of lot sizes are not necessary to permit the improvement to the property. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Grady said continuing this item would not facilitate a change of opinion on the part of the Attorney or Planning staff. He explained that if staff had felt this to be a problem they would not have been submitting maps to the Commission that use this language in the past. The Attorney's Office is interpreting this somewhat as standards which would be used for an optional design subdivision; that there must be some physical element on the property that is causing the Commission to arrive at the decision to allow lots smaller than standard. He did not see this as the case. This is not a subdivision that is being submitted because there are physical constraints on the site. A motion to reconsider must be entertained as a body. Mr. Sherfy said passage of the ordinance before the Council at this time would allow the Commission to approve maps such as this. Discussion continued regarding timing of approval of the ordinance. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 5 Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady, Mr. DeWalt said he needed a decision on this issue at this hearing. He explained this tract map is already an approved map, theY are simply asking for revision concerning an entrance onto Hageman Road. If this map is denied it is still approved. Commissioner Delgado said he would be in favor of continuing this item to resolve the Conflict. Responding to question by Commissioner Dhanens, Mr. Sherfy said Mr. Dewalt's comments would not have a bearing on his interpretation. Commissioner Dhanens said he would be inclined to agree with Mr. Grady's interpretation. Chairman Delgado stated the Commission would move forward with this hearing because of a lack of motion to reconsider. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FINAL PARCEL MAP 7.1 1OO54 This item was approved as a consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10211 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Kirk Newton Jr. said he had spoken to Public Works regarding Condition #3 asking that the street light be allowed to be attached to the wooden pole across the street on the northwest corner. Regarding Condition #6, he said the Building Director agreed to waive the acoustical study. He asked that the language be changed so that it would be necessary only if required by the Building Director. With these proposed changes he stated his agreement. Steve Walker said he had verbally agreed with the applicant's proposed change to Condition #3. He suggested the language be changed to add the following: on available existing power pole. Regarding change to Condition #6, Mr. Leonard asked that wording be added such that the acoustical study would be necessary if required by the Building Director. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Newton said PG&E owns the existing power pole and they have been contacted concerning this. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to adopt resolUtion, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10211 and approving the reduction of the required width and frontage from 55 feet to 54.52 feet subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," attached to the October 19, 1995 memorandum from the Planning Director, with the following amendments to conditions: Addition of the following wording to the end of Condition #3: on available existing power pole. Condition #6 amended to read as follows: Prior to recordation of a final map, if required by the Building Director, an acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant shall be provided to show that structures within the project area are designed to mitigate noise exposure to acceptable levels. (Building Department) Motion carried. 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10251 (PHASED) Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Steve DeBranch represented the applicant stating their concurrence with the staff report. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked how the ordinance presently under consideration by the Council would affect this proposal. Mr. Grady said it would not because there is an approved tentative map on this site at the present time. This parcel map is merely requested to match phase lines. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said park amenities for this project are covered under the Riverlakes Specific Plan, some of the parks have been designated and the beach club has been built. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10251 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING #5651 -- REQUEST BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO PREZONE 5.8 ACRES FROM COUNTY M-3-PD Page 7 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT) TO CITY M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) ZONE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POTOMAC AVENUE AND MONTICELLO AVENUE. There was nothing to .add to staff report from the Monday meeting. Staff recommended approval on this item. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Rosarie Salazar, 71.3 Sparlan Avenue asked for more information on this issue with relation to pollution. Mr. Grady said this site is fully developed at this time. The zone being requested in the city is less intense than the current zoning in the county. At this time no new operation is anticipated for this area. Ms. Salazar was concerned about increase in taxes. Mr. Delgado said her taxes would not be affected by this proposal. Mr. Grady read uses allowed in the M-2 zone, saying they would have less of an impact than is currently allowed in the County M-3 zone. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving Prezoning No. 5651 to City zoning of General Manufacturing zone on 5.8 acres, as shown on Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado NOES: None Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 8 8.2 PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING #5656 -- REQUEST BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO PREZONE 4.4 ACRES FROM COUNTY M-2 (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) TO CITY OF BAKERSFIELD M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND EDISON 10. HIGHWAY. There was nothing to add to staff report from the Monday meeting. Staff recommended approval on this item. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving Prezoning No. 5656 to City of Bakersfield M- 2 (General Manufacturing) zoning, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado NOES: None Commissioner Boyle said he had a conflict on this item, therefore he asked that Item it's 10, 11 and 12 be taken at this time. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to take Item #'s 10, 11 and 12 at this time. Motion carried. Commissioner Delgado said he would have a conflict on the trails issue also. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Grady said he had put together information for Commission consideration regarding conducting a workshop on the Hillside Ordinance. He said if the Commission desires to do this an open meeting is available on November 2nd. This would be the only item on the agenda. It could also be placed on another meeting date if the Commission does not wish to have a meeting on November 2nd. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 9 Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady gave a time estimation for this workshop. Because Mr. Grady expected a great deal of public comment on the proposed ordinance, Commissioner Boyle stated his inclination for placing this issue on the November 2nd agenda. Commissioner Delgado stated he would also. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said a pre-meeting would not be necessary for this issue. B) Verbal None 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle said he had a number of contacts within the community regarding concerns that there is no hearing process for projects that have proper zoning and are in the proper general plan designation. He asked if there were a process the Commission can take to look at this issue. Mr. Hernandez stated his opinion that any change to an ordinance is a legislative act which must be effectuated by the City Council. If the Council were to direct the Commission to look at the process then the Commission would have the authority to do so and make a recommendation. Commissioner Boyle said he would be inclined to ask the Council to look at this issue after the current litigation on the Marketplace is resolved. Commissioner Delgado felt this item should be taken under consideration when the full commission is present. Commissioner Brady said he had been receiving communication on the Marketplace issue asking for clarification of the Commission's role on that issue. Mr. Hernandez said the Commission are official representatives of the city. Any discussion of the litigation can place the city at jeopardy. He gave opinion that Commissioners should refrain from discussing on-going litigation concerning this issue. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Hernandez said the Commission would be addressing the issue of the EIR at some future time. He agreed that reviewing this would be a quasi-judicial role and no contact should be made with the public until that hearing. A. Committees *5-minute break was taken at this time. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 10 12.DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. The next pre-meeting of October 30, 1995 was canceled. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC TRAILS PLAN, ADDITION TO MUNICIPAL CODE, CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT, KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT Commissioner Brady reconvened the meeting as chairperson. Mr. Grady gave history on the continuance of this item. He said issues needing resolving were trails reservation and activation of the trails. He stated staff has resolved all of Mr. Nickel's concerns and staff recommends approval .of the plans. He cited a memo dated October 19, 1995 which contained motions necessary for adoption of the plan. Public portion of the hearing was reopened. Suzanne Icardo stated she was a resident of adjacent area and member of Rio · Bravo Riding Club. She summarized her strong opposition to this plan that she had elaborated at a previous meeting being issues of exposure to liability, security and safety, maintenance of facilities and support facilities, maintenance district, environmental impact, those boarding horses not receiving notification of this, public access, mixture of uses. She felt Highway 178 needs to be widened. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Movius said a public workshop notice and all public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners in the area within 300 feet of this issue. Those boarding horses at this location were not notified individually. This issue has been noticed in the newspaper as well as articles appearing in the newspaper. Kathy Gardner said she boards horses at this location. She felt animal species will be impacted by larger amounts of people in this area. She was concerned about safety stating her feeling that police services were spread too thinly at this time. She was concerned about liability by those trespassing on the property. Phil Icardo said he is a resident of the proposed maintenance district. He had submitted a letter to the Commission. He asked the Commission to recommend to the Council that this be an equestrian trail. He asked that the proposed maintenance district be excluded because they are already paying for the enhancement of their area and do not want to be required to pay for a future attraction for future residents. General population use should equal general population cost. He felt those using it should pay for it. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 11 Nina Gillette said problems exist with multiple uses. She was concerned about security. She felt the second paved parking lot was unnecessary and felt it .would ruin the area. Warren Pechin, 1508 Club View Drive, said he boards horses at the riding club. He stated opposition to elements A and D of Item #9, specifically dealing with parking lots and paved areas. He suggested the possibility of removing parking lot #2 because of its close proximity to the Rancheria parking lot. He suggested as property is developed in the area access to those large acreage parcels be controlled from the Old Walker Basin Road so that no paved roads would occur from Old Walker Basin Road to the river area thereby providing a permanent access for the people in the stable area. He felt if a solution could be attained to keep paved roads out of the area north of Old Walker Basin Road a portion of the area can be preserved for those using the area at this time. Barbara Martin represented the BIA. She stated their concern about land dedication and improvement costs. Regarding the recommendation from staff of changes relative to land dedication allowing 1/2 acre per 1,000 credit for trails as they are dedicated and in-lieu fees, she stated their support and asked that it be added to this plan. Regarding costs for development of trails she stated they did not support mandating new home buyers to pay for costs of development of recreational amenities. She encouraged the Commission to use the park development fee to incorporate into the trails improvements and suggested fimding from other sources could be obtained after land is dedicated. Julie Bussa spoke in opposition. She stated her opposition to paving of trails. Bev Simon, said she boarded her horse in this area. She was concerned about impact on the animals with relation to safety. She was concerned about mixing native animal habitat and people on the trails. Carolyn Belli represented Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails. She clarified the conditions of the plan would not go into effect until time of development, therefore it is up to the developer. She gave history of the necessity of this proposed trails plan and work which has been done on it. She said the term "multi-use" was decided upon because it enhances the plan providing a better nexus for funding purposes, expands 'grant funding possibilities and removes feeling of exclusive ownership making trails more user and sharing friendly. The surface of the trail will determine its usage and signage will eventually exist to indicate usage. At no point do paved and unpaved trails merge. The city and county trails plans are compatible, the county is waiting for this approval so that they can finalize their plans for a trail continuation. She requested approval of this document. She submitted a petition with 22 signatures provided by a property owner in the area saying the indication is that the Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 12 overwhelming majority of homeowners are in favor of the trails extension. She read the petition into the record. Regarding liability she cited a Supreme Court ruling which states that a property owner cannot be liable for an accident which takes place on an easement given for recreational purposes. Regarding the comment that there are. bicycle paths only in developed areas, she cited an extensive bicycle area along the river below the bluffs. She felt by approving this a vital link to a trails system will be gained while preserving a sensitive habitat area. She emphasized that none of this will take place until the developer develops his parcel of land. Aaron Resnick represented the Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association. He said development in this area is going to occur and the issue of trails and various needs must be responsibly addressed, which he felt has been done with this plan. He said they have been working in conjunction with the U.S. Forrest Service and Bureau of Land Management and would eventually like to see the city trails plan link to the trails established on the federal property. Betsy Teeter, Vice President of Kern Equestrians for the Preservation of Trails spoke in favor. She reassured that they are not asking for this in order to take something away from residents. Development is going to occur and they do not want to see this happen without the alternative of these trails. She stated her confidence that this plan will be beneficial to the area as well as the city. She emphasized it will not be put in place until time of development. She cited other areas where trails plans exist saying establishment of them has decreased problems rather than increase them. The trails do not provide easy access for crime to properties. She cited studies stating close access or direct access to trails systems maintain and increase property values and salability. Arthur Unger represented the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club. He stated his feeling that this plan gives everyone access to the river. Jim Nickel represented the land owner and stated the language contained in the plan is an agreement reach by them and the city. He felt there is going to be an increase in crime. Ed Ruth encouraged the Commission to approve this plan. He felt this would be a great opportunity to allow for access to open space and increased quality of life. Regarding environmental impact he felt the amount of habitat lost from the creation of these paths would be minimal. The greatest impact to habitat is from loud machinery; this would be a good non-intrusive type of use. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 13 Leslie Moe spoke in favor of this dedication. She gave examples of other communities she has lived in with similar trails systems, saying adjacent properties rose in value without any major crime wave as a result of them. She stated she is very much in favor of this. Joyce Sprayberry said a letter and map had been submitted by her son. She said he had been instrumental in development of a trail from Whiskey Flat to the lookout station at Oak Flat and would like to be able to join the city bike trail. Warren Pechin said he is in favor of the attempt on the city's part to provide trails. He said he vehemently objects to the portion of trail from the existing parking lot on Rancheria to an area directly adjacent to the east side of the equestrian facility to the south and then to the west behind the largest arena eventually joining the dirt road providing access to the equestrian facilities. He felt an alternate route along Old Walker Pass Road adjacent to the road and adjacent to Rancheria would be acceptable. He did not want to have the trails adjacent to the horse arenas and stalls. Other than this section he was not in objection to this plan. He asked that the Commission consider this possibility. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Brady felt this plan is a good as it will get at this time, he felt it is good for the city, equestrians and bicyclists. He stated he would support it. He was of the opinion that as development occurs the equestrian center location would move. Regarding funding with respect to the BIA's comments he felt homes will sell because of the trails, providing a trade-off. Regarding the opposition to parking lots he said he did not want to exclude people from the community by not allowing park!ng. Responding to questions by Commissioner Dhanens, Mr. Grady said standards did not exist when Tentative Parcel Map 9899 was approved. Parking lot #2 was a site selected by the applicant. The boundary for the maintenance district could change when the Council holds the hearing on this item. For the purpose of identifying the boundary for calculating fees the phase 1 boundary is that boundary staff has proposed for the plan. If this is changed the maintenance district assessments would not be assessed to those properties excluded from the boundary. Sources of outside funding have been considered, however availability would be determined at the time property is dedicated. The fee could be adjusted if additional funding sources were used. The subdivision map act allows for trail to and along the river, additional trails within the maintenance district are public benefit trails and would connect to the river as well. Commissioner Dhanens felt this plan is as good as it will get and is a proactive approach to the planning process and he would support it. Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 14 Commissioner Tavorn said his biggest concern is security and asked Mr. Nickel what types of crime have been reported in the area. Mr. Nickel said vandalism by people who do not respect private property rights. Commissioner Tavorn agreed with Commissioners Brady and Dhanens that this is the best that can be accomplished at this time. He stated his favor for the project. Responding to question by Commissioner Ortiz, Mr. Nickel said regarding Parking Lot #2 he had reached an agreement with the KEPT group when Parcel Map 9899 was approved for elimination of it, however when the motion was made for approval at the Council level it was included. He felt inclusion of this parking lot would be a huge mistake. Responding to question by Commissioner Ortiz, Mr. Hernandez said the second parking lot is already a condition of approval of a parcel map which has been approved by the City Council. The Commission has no authority to remove it. It could be taken out of the plan, however is legally still a condition of approval of the parcel map. Responding to question by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. Nickel said he ,would take the necessary steps to remove this parking lot from his parcel map 9899 and felt it would be easier to do so if it were not included in this specific trails plan. Mr. Grady said parking lot #2 is not part of the fee calculation of the maintenance district costs. Commissioner Dhanens felt a segment of trail leading from the existing parking lot to the parking lot designated as #2 could be deleted with the deletion of ~ parking lot #2. Mr. Grady said this trail also serves the purpose of linking to the river access trail and internal trail system, Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in Exhibit "E" of the Planning Director's October 5, 1995 memo approving and adopt the Negative Declaration, and approving the Specific Trails Plan, including Phase 1, as shown in Exhibit "A" of said memo and incorporating the changes recommended in the Planning Director's memorandums dated October 16, and 19, 1995, and delete the parking lot designated as Number 2 on Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 Page 15 Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in Exhibit "E" of the Planning Director's October 5, 1995 memo approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and approving Chapter 12.64 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, as shown in Exhibit "B" of said memo, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in Exhibit "E" of the Planning Director's October 5, 1995 memo approving and adopting the Negative Declaration and Circulation Element Amendment 3-95, Segment I, as shown in Exhibit "C" of said memo, with the deletion of the parking lot designated as #2 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in Exhibit "E" of the Planning Director's October 5, 1995 memo approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and Kern River Plan Element Amendment 2-95, Segment I, as shown in Exhibit "D" of said memo, with deletion of the parking lot designated as #2, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Brady NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado Minutes, PC, 10/19/95 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 16 There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretm~j Planning Director