Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/95MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, July 6, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL o COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 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. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve minutes of the regular meetings held May 30, and June 12, 1995. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 7/6/95 5.2 o Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10191 Chairman Andrew abstained because he had sold the property across from subject property within the last year. Commissioner Delgado chaired this hearing. Request for continuance was received on this item. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 20, 1995. Motion carried. Commissioner Andrew was absent. DISCUSSION REGARDING MEETINGS BETWEEN APPLICANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Ms. Marino said a memo was sent from the Attorneys Office to the Commission previously. She had nothing to add to this memo. Commissioner Hersh recalled in the past that contacts outside hearings needed to be disclosed at the meeting. He said the commission had the general consensus that meeting with applicants is the perception by the public. He said at that time his policy at that time was that he would only discuss applications at commission meetings in front of the public. He felt the public perception is the most important issue surrounding this situation. He recommended that the commission meet in public at the hearings, not individually with applicants. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Marino explained quasi- judicial actions being that decisions are to be made based only on testimony given. Commissioner Hersh felt perception is everything and that when items are discussed it should be in the hearing. He was concerned that some commissioners are very closely associated with the building industry and felt the perception is automatically disfavorable. Mr. Grady responded to a concern of Commissioner Hersh saying application of the appeal fee has recently been changed so that if someone is within 300 feet of the project there is no fee. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, July 6, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director 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 None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to 'approve minutes of the regular meetings held May 30, and June 12, 1995. Motion carried. 5 Minutes, PC, 7/6/95 Page 2 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10173 Mr. Grady gave staff report saying the only issues which came up on this project were with regard to access to the designated remainder of the commercial property. Condition #3 was placed on the project requiring the access be shared. He said the applicant discussed with staff the issue regarding the designated remainder being identified as phase 2. Staff recommended that the motion identify this as a phased map rather than having the 9.48 acres identified as a designated remainder. Steve DeBranch represented the applicant. He clarified Public Works Condition # II.B.1. that they would be providing a grading plan for the site that is currently being subdivided which would be parcels 1-5 and a drainage plan has been submitted for the entire 20 acre parcel. A grading plan would not be required on the non-developed parcel. Regarding the soils report and grading plan requirement he. asked that the words "Prior to filing" be changed to "Prior to recordation of a final map".' Mr. LaRochelle stated his agreement with Mr. DeBranch's clarification. Mr. Fidler stated his agreement with the proposed change to wording for the condition regarding the soils report and grading plan requirement. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer said a restricted access left turn lane will be developed for westbound Hageman Road traffic 375 feet back from the intersection as part of site plan review conditions. A signal will be installed at this intersection with development paying through regional fees. Mr. Grady responded to question by Commissioner Hersh that no negative comments have been received with regard to this request. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Phased Tentative Parcel Map 10173 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 7/6/95 5.2 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10191 Chairman Andrew abstained because he had sold the property across from subject property within the last year. Commissioner Delgado chaired this hearing. Request for continuance was received on this item. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Orfiz to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 20, 1995. Motion carried. Commissioner Andrew was absent. DISCUSSION REGARDING MEETINGS BETWEEN APPLICANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Ms. Marino said a memo was sent from the Attorneys Office to the Commission previously. She had nothing to add to this memo. Commissioner Hersh recalled in the past that contacts outside hearings needed to be disclosed at the meeting. He said the commission had the general consensus that meeting with applicants is the perception by the public. He said at that time his policy at that time was that he would only discuss applications at commission meetings in front of the public. He felt the public perception is the most important issue surrounding this situation. He recommended that the commission meet in public at the hearings, not individually with applicants. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Marino explained quasi- judicial actions being that decisions are to be made based only on testimony given. Commissioner Hersh felt perception is everything and that when items are discussed it should be in the hearing. He was concerned that some commissioners are very closely associated with the building industry and felt the perceptiOn is automatically disfavorable. Mr. Grady responded to a concern of Commissioner Hersh saying application of the appeal fee has recently been changed so that if someone is within 300 feet of the project there is no fee. Minutes, PC, 7/6/95 Page 4 Chairman Andrew said in the past lobbying of commissioners became a problem which caused the neCessity of requiring that testimony only be given at the hearing, however this does not seem to be such a problem at this time. He said he did not want to meet with applicants in every situation, however on more difficult projects could see the advantage of it. Commissioner Brady agreed that public perception is important, however disagreed with Commissioner Hersh's conclusion. He felt commissioners have to be accessible to the public. He felt it was improper to prohibit commissioners from obtaining as much information as possible which may come from outside sources. He felt the public may perceive this as negative when a commissioner cannot accept their input. He said he did not intend to meet with applicants on every project, however on some of the more complicated issues he would. He felt the commission should abide by the guidelines from the City Attorney's Office and not shield themselves from the public when performing these legislative duties. Commissioner Boyle did not feel avoiding the hint of impropriety would require the restriction of input to that given in the public hearing and felt it would be a mistake to make a hard and fast rule. Regarding being lobbied he felt he has the ability to say no. He stated his strong opposition to limiting the commission to input given only at the hearing. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Marino said this is how the Council handles the situation of receiving input regarding hearings. Chairman Andrew did not feel obtaining input from outside the hearing would be detrimental so long as it is divulged at the hearing. Commissioner Delgado said he was part of the commission when the more strict contact rules were established. He said in the past there were adverse impacts on being restricted. He felt there are situations in which additional information is necessary. He concurred with the general consensus that there are circumstances in which it is beneficial to obtain additional information. Commissioner Hersh said he would feel more comfortable if staff were to review information before it is presented to commissioners outside hearings. Chairman Andrew said on controversial issues he would be willing to meet with the public as well as applicants. Discussion continued regarding information to be presented outside hearings. Minutes, PC, 7/6/95 Page 5 Commissioner Brady felt it would be difficult to fashion a rule for every situation, however felt it would be a good practice to establish the reason for meeting with interested parties outside the meeting before doing so. Commissioner Boyle said he has in the past recommended to those persons wanting to meet with him that they send it to city staff so that it will be part of the record 'and will continue to do so. Commissioner Brady felt this does not seem to be a problem at this time. Commissioner Hersh felt there needs to be some uniformity of how the commission will conduct itself on this issue. Commissioner Dhanens felt as long as information is gathered within the rules as defined by legal counsel and is disclosed publicly it would be helpful in reaching a decision. Commissioner Ortiz felt meeting with developers is perceived as favoritism and he felt uncomfortable with it. He felt it was used as a selling pitch. He said he would not meet with members of the community or developers. Commissioner Tavorn questioned if developers meeting with one commissioner at a time is against the rules. Ms. Marino said the Brown Act does not allow a quorum of commissioners to hear a presentation at the same time. He agreed with Commissioner Ortiz' comment regarding developers meeting with one commissioner at a time as a selling pitch. Chairman Andrew felt every project that is presented is done so with a selling pitch. He said he would meet with the community and developers as well. Chairman Brady felt it was appropriate to gather information, however is not appropriate to engage in a dialogue. Commissioner Boyle said he understood concerns regarding a "sales pitch" however has not been lobbied about his voting preference. If a.person is not comfortable with meeting with people outside the hearing they have the option of declining. 7. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to cancel the Monday pre-meeting of July 17, 1995. Motion carried. Minutes, pC, 7/6/95 Page 6 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal' None 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle cited a letter received from Dr. Victor Lasiter regarding a shopping center on Ming Avenue which is concerning an issue that is not coming before the Commission. He asked staff to write a letter back acknowledging it and thanking him for it, however informing him that the commission has no jurisdiction on it. Mr. Fidler stated he would ensure Mr. Grady was informed of this. Commissioner Hersh felt the commission should not be in a rush to give up open space. A. Committees Chairman Andrew said a future sign committee meeting would not be held until the sign ordinance is heard before the Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, ~~~ Planning Director