Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held July 18, 1996 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS Absent: ROBERT ORTIZ ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant 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 P_UJ~LLC STAT~_MEbJTS Carol Bentston sPoke suggesting an additional hearing may be necessary for the Highway 58 extension so that it may be better understood before monies are spent. She was concerned about the water supply being placed at risk, roadway pollutants and the possibility of disaster in the event of an earthquake. She was also concerned about the entire commercial corridor along Oak Street being removed at the time that new tax revenue producing businesses are being built. She requested another hearing be held on this issue. Arthur Unger spoke concurring with Ms. Bentston's comments. He stated he had sent a 4-page letter to the entire commission approximately a week earlier requesting a public hearing on the Kern River alignment of the Route 58 alternative. Commissioner Brady asked if the commission has any jurisdiction over the freeway alignment. Mr. LaRochelle said at this time the adoption process is in CalTrans hands. The city has approved a route adoption with the county for preservation of right-of-way. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 2 Monty Harper stated his opposition to the proposed freeway location for reasons of additional pollution and disruption of established neighborhoods downtown. Most cities have a beltway around their cities and he felt through traffic can be routed around the city and not directly through. He also felt the Kern River water recharge area would be adversely affected. Ms. Bentston said they have spoken at length with CalTrans and have been told the decision lies with the city. The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CO S_ Agenda Item #.4. - Approval of minutes. Agenda Item #10.1 - General Plan Consistency Finding - proposed sale of a 506 square foot portion of a city-owned water well site. o Agenda Item #10.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding - acquisition of 8.36 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Panorama Drive and Thorner Street. Agenda Item #10.3- General Plan Consistency Finding -acquisition of three parcels on 126.39 acres located on the south side of Alfred Harrell Highway, west of Hart Park. Agenda Item #13. - Amendment of text of City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.53) regarding site plan review process. (Action on this item is for referral to staff to reschedule when draft ordinance is prepared). Commissioner Boyle stated he had a conflict of interest on Item #3 and suggested perhaps two separate votes could be taken. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to approve consent agenda items with the exception of item #3. Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve consent agenda item #3.3. Motion carried. Commissioner Boyle was absent. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approved as consent agenda item. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - NO~)J~/~TION 1-96; 612 HOLTBY ROAD & 2122 DRACENA STREE'~ Staff report recommending consent to the recordation of a notice of violation was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Bobbi Womack stated she is the property owner and she and her husband were unaware of the fact that the violation was recorded because she thought this was the opportunity for them to present evidence why this notice of violation should not be recorded. She requested this violation not be recorded and gave history that in 1991 their decision to install a pool encompassing both properties lead them to obtain the services of a civil engineer to perform this service for them. In 1992 they chose to refinance their home wishing to refinance both properties under one loan. They were told it could not be done; however they were under the impression the lot split was legal. They are now being told by the mortgage company that their title is improper due to an illegal separation of property. They have begun the process of dividing their two properties. Commissioner Brady informed Ms. Womack that the issue before the Commission is whether there has been a violation of the subdivision map act asking if she could provide input concerning this possible violation. She said they were given advice and felt they were within their legal rights with no intention to violate the map act. She said they have not violated the map act because they have not requested the lot be split. It is still one piece of property. Commissioner Delgado asked Ms. Womack what the expected time frame would be for submittal of the request to split the lot. Ms. Womack said it would be about two weeks, with possible final approval taking about two months. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Brady asked why this is considered a violation of the map act. Ms. Marino said the map act requires a legal map for sale, lease or financing purposes of property. He asked what would happen if consent were given at this hearing for recordation of the notice of violation. Ms. Marino said it does not change anything, it simply upholds the decision of staff. The notice has already been recorded. If in the future a certificate of compliance is recorded this will override the notice of violation. Discussion continued regarding the commission's options with respect to action on this item. Commissioner Delgado asked if there would be a benefit in postponing this agenda item. Ms. Marino said there is no application in place and if there is no finding supporting the recordation of the notice of violation there is no incentive for the application to be filed. It is already recorded; the commission's action to consent to the recordation would simply reaffirm that staff's action was correct. She recommended that the commission support staff's finding of violation of the map act. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 4 Ms. Womack said if the notice of violation is filed it would allow the mortgage company to declare a default on their loan. Commissioner Boyle asked if the mortgage company elects to declare a default would continuing this matter help her in that respect. Ms. Marino said a recorded notice of violation exists and was recorded according to the Subdivision Map Act, however there is no finding to support it. If the Commission does make the finding it remains in effect unless a finding of no violation is made. She recommended that the finding be made. Commissioner Boyle stated if this had not already been recorded he may be inclined to continue this matter. He said it was his understanding of the law that even if they choose to declare a default the property owner would have 4 months to cure the problem before the loan can be called due. He stated he would reluctantly support staff's recommendation but would do so because the notice has already been recorded and continuing the matter would not remedy the situation. Ms. Womack stated she and her husband were of the understanding that this public hearing would allow them the opportunity to provide evidence of why the notice of violation should not be recorded. Commissioner Dhanens asked why this hearing is being held if the notice has already been filed. Ms. Marino said the map act procedure requires that the notice be sent out, however if the parties do not respond in writing within 15 days the notice be recorded and a subsequent hearing be held. If the commission votes no on this issue evidence and findings must be placed on the record to support this no vote. Commissioner Brady stated he felt the justification of filing of the notice of violation exists. Commissioner Hersh outlined the history of this issue, stating no response was received from the property owner within the prescribed time and based on this he would agree with Commissioners' Brady and Boyle with respect to supporting the recommended action. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution making findings consenting to the recordation of the notice of violation. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING #P96-0461 Staff report recommending approval 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, 7/18/96 Page 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested prezoning from County R-1 zone to City R-1 zone on 38 +/- 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, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ortiz 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10334 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing Was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner stating concurrence with staff recommendation and conditions of Exhibit "A." Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked when the lot line adjustment is recorded does the R-1 property continue to be zoned R-1 or does it then become agricultural 20 acre minimum. Mr. Grady said it would still be zoned R-1. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10334, with the findings and conditions as presented in said resolution. Motion carried. 8. P~JBLLC~A~tNG -~/~_S~ING~ENTATIVE TRACT 58~1_ Staff report recommending approval was given. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. He stated concurrence with staff report recommendation and conditions of approval with the inclusion of the memo from the Public Works Department dated July 15, 1996 addressing the drainage sump. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 6 Commissipner Dhanens asked what about this parcel _would make the design of the drainage infeasible. Mr. LaRochelle said the applicant had proposed to utilize a small sump within the P.G.&E. easement which is different than what is indicated by the approved drainage study. There are some utility conflicts which may pose a problem, therefore staff needed flexibility to look at all options available. Mr. Mclntosh added that at the Arvin-Edison Canal there is a raising in grade to the west which would make it difficult to make grade on the cul-de-sac streets south to drain out to South Laurelglen Boulevard to the east and around in accordance with the approved drainage plan and felt what they are proposing is a better solution. Commissioner Delgado asked concerning Roadrunner Court (a cul-de-sac street) if there is an ordinance which regulates length of streets and if so is the fire access proposed to remedy the problem of the street length. Mr. Grady said no ordinance exists which sets an absolute length. Fire Department is looking for a secondary access for safety reasons; they did not indicate that the length of the cul-de-sac was an impetus for this. Commissioner Brady was concerned about the narrow lots and amount of four-plexes proposed,, saying the subdivision committee is working on ordinances with respect to requiring open space on projects such as this. He asked where parking would be provided. Mr. Mclntosh said parking would be provided at the front of the lots. Commissioner Brady asked if there is any off-street parking on Brookside Drive. Mr. Mclntosh said Brookside is a local street and would allow for on-street parking. Commissioner Boyle asked if the plan would allow for parking on the street and driveway access for the units in the knuckle. Mr. Mclntosh felt this would not be feasible and did not envision parking in the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Brady asked why the area under the power lines was not used for additional off-street parking. Mr. Mclntosh said this has not been ruled out because P.G.&E. allows for parking under powerlines under certain circumstances. The opportunity exists however they have not pursued it because parking can be provided on each of the lots. Commissioner Brady was concerned that it does not appear there will be enough parking. He asked if there was a requirement for landscaping along Brookside Drive as part of this plan. Mr. Grady said only the standard front yard landscaping would be required which is 15 feet. Commissioner Boyle echoed the concerns of Commissioner Brady, stating he did not feel this was a good use of the land and was concerned about parking on the parcels especially given the narrow width. He did not feel it was in the best interest of the city to continue allowing fenced off areas under high tower lines because they become eye sores and attractive nuisances to children. Mr. Grady clarified the commission is limited in scope as to what they can and cannot do with a subdivision map. The site development is not something the commission can look at with respect to approving or denying this map nor can conditions that are not outlined in ordinance form be applied such as requiring utilization of P.G.&E. easements. He further clarified the commission is simply looking at whether or not this subdivision meets the ordinances currently in effect with respect to minimum lot sizes and width for multi-family, street dimension and engineering design standards. If the Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 7 _commission is inclined to deny.this map specific findings must be made which he read from the ordinance for the commission. He did not feel they could be used in support of denial of this map based on the previous conversations. Commissioner Boyle stated he reluctantly concurred with staff that there is not sufficient reason for denial of this map. Commissioner Brady did not feel this project would be beneficial to the city and that it would be an eyesore, however felt he had to support it. He felt the ordinance which the subdivision committee is currently working on would result from projects such as this. Because of the lack of a motion on this item, Commissioner Hersh asked what would happen if this project were denied? Ms. Marino said the 50-day time limit is lapsing. There is a provision of the Subdivision Map Act stating maps will be deemed approved if they are not approved at the time of approval of the environmental document. There is also a time limit on approving the environmental document. She suggested that the commission needed to make a motion. Commissioner Dhanens felt if this development were to be developed similar to those existing in the area he would agree that it would be an eyesore, however he agreed with staff that action needs to be taken. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and to approve Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 5841 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution, with inclusion of the memorandum dated July 15, 1996 from Jack LaRochelle. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Mclntosh stated he understood the concerns about parking, however it is their intent to meet all parking requirements per the ordinance. Commissioner Hersh asked Mr. Mclntosh if he felt there would be a benefit to continuing this item. Mr. Mclntosh stated since his client was not present he could not agree to this. Commissioner Boyle asked if action is not taken would this map be deemed approved. Ms. Marino said a provision exists in the map act whereby maps are deemed approved if not approved after a certain time limit, however a change was made to the map act which clarified this approval would be after the environmental document is approved and there is a time limit for approval of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Boyle asked what would happen if a finding were made that the negative declaration was appropriate. Ms. Marino said the clock would begin for the 50-day waiting period for automatic approval of the map. She also explained if the negative declaration is not approved. The time line for approval of the negative declaration begins with the application being deemed complete. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 8 Commissioner Brady asked if the application is deemed approved due. to inaction do the conditions proposed by the city apply to the approval. Ms. Marino said of the one application that was deemed approved in this manner it was the city's position that the conditions of approval applied, however there is not a lot of information with respect to this. Commissioner Brady wanted to make sure the proposed conditions are attached to the property and he would therefore second .the motion. Commissioner Dhanens restated his motion as follows: Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and to approve Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 5841 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution with inclusion of the memorandum dated July 15, 1996 to the Commission from Jack LaRochelle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Tkac NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Boyle, Tavorn, Delgado, Hersh PUBLIC HEAI_~JNG - NT TO TITLE 17.. SECTIONS 17.04 1~_08 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CD~)E PERTAINING TO NON- CONFORMING U~RUCTU~ Staff report was given recommending possible continuation in the event the commission wishes to make changes to this ordinance. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition to this proposed ordinance change. James Vaughn, President, Bakersfield Association of Realtors stated their concurrence with recommended changes of the ordinance, however stated they would like to review any new changes. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked about proposed changes by the city attorney's office. Mr. Grady said these are technical corrections to the structure of the ordinance. Commissioner Boyle asked regarding the first page of the ordinance, Paragraph A - allowing non-conforming structure to be restored building permit being required within one year and completion within three years, why there was such a lengthy delay in time. Mr. Leonard, Assistant Building Director said if a building has been damaged and creates a hazard for the public it must be removed immediately. Concerning replacement the intent was to allow sufficient time for insurance companies to settle with the insured to allow for development of plans, submit for building permit and begin construction. The 3-year period for completion of construction could be shortened. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 9 Commissioner Boyle asked if the building would have to be rebuilt in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Leonard stated any new construction must be done in compliance with current building codes. Concerning Paragraph D with regard to the non-conforming structure not losing its status if vacant for any period of time, Commissioner Boyle felt if it were vacant for an extended period of time it may be in the city's best interest to no longer allow it. Mr. Grady said the idea was that there may be a useful building which met the code at the time it was constructed but may be in a non- conforming status at the present time and to place a time frame on how long an owner has to convert it would be difficult to manage. Commissioner Hersh asked what would be a normal time frame for adjustment of a building. Mr. Grady said there is a Uniform Building Code section for dealing with a deteriorated or fire damaged structure which is not being repaired. Commissioner Hersh said he was concerned about the 3-year time frame being more concerned with residential than commercial. Commissioner Brady felt in the situation of fire damage it may take longer for the insurance companies to settle and would not allow for funds to rebuild in a timely manner. This may place homeowners in jeopardy of losing their homes and he stated he did not have a problem with the.statute being at three years. He felt perhaps it could be tied to a review hearing if it goes past a prescribed date. He was concerned about staff's comments that some problems would be taken care of in other code sections, saying this ordinance would override any other general ordinance which may be in effect. Ms. Marino said this ordinance addresses a non-conforming structure which may need to be rebuilt. Under the property maintenance ordinance it could not be left in the unsafe condition for three years. A fire damaged structure would be abated under a different process. He felt anytime something is going to be reconstructed the phrase "the most recent City adopted Uniform Building Code" has to be applied. Ms. Marino agreed, however felt Chairman Hersh's concerns about leaving a fire damaged building in that state would not be addressed by this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Brady asked if this applies to signs, Mr. Grady indicated it does not because they are governed by the sign ordinance. Mr. Leonard clarified if a sign is annexed to the city it becomes legal non-conforming, if the copy is changed or the property changes ownership it must conform to the current ordinance. Commissioner Brady asked if the impetus for this was to make it easier for the city to annex county properties. Mr. Grady said this was correct. Commissioner Brady asked about farming uses and regulations concerning number of animals. Mr. Grady indicated if animals are eliminated they can only be replaced to the extent that they do not exceed the number of animals that would be allowed in the city zone they are in. Commissioner Brady asked for clarification of Section 17.68.040, Subsection B. Mr. Grady explained the intent being to provide a mechanism for the commission to approve expansion of a non-conforming use without requiring a conditional use permit to legalize the non-conforming use. Commissioner Brady felt this needed the attention of a committee. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 10 Commissioner Dhanens asked if there is a way that this ordinance could be expanded to incorporated some parking related issues in some of the older developments. Mr. Grady said this could be considered possibly within a committee. Concerning a portion of the ordinance in which a non-conforming structure's area can be increased Commissioner Dhanens asked if it is a non-conforming structure why would it be elevated if it is already non-conforming. Mr. Grady gave an example saying the alternative would be that they find a new location or rebuild to the same area and volume that existed prior to damage. He agreed with Commissioner Brady's suggestion that this be reviewed by a Committee. Commissioner Delgado made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brady to refer this item to committee. Motion carried. Chairman Hersh appointed Commissioner Dhanens as Chair of this committee and Commissioners Brady and Tkac as committee members. *5-minute recess was taken at this time. lO. 1) C~ENEEAL~LA~ CQNSISTENCY FINDING - PROPOSED SALE OF A 506 SQUARE ~RTION OE~_CITYoOWNED WATER WELL SITE TQ_PROVJDE ACCES~?~'EQ A This item was approved as a consent agenda item. 10.2) C_ONSISTENC~ - ACQU~ OF A 8.36 ACRE P_AJ~CEL ON THE~J~cI~_ST CORNER oF PANOI~,AMA_D~F_~J~[D~JdDJ~I~ F~J~J~_~;ATION OF THF_~A~A HILLS PAR~ This item was approved as a consent agenda item. 10.3) GE~~STENC_~Y~ND~G - ~ON OF T~EE PA~CELS_ON ~/VEST OF HART PARK BY THE METROPOLITAN B~J~_I~SE[ELD~flAB~'AT CONSEEVATJOJ~ TP-~U~ROUP FOR PUP~E:'OSES_OF RECE!VING~ABLTAT LANQ_CEEDIT UNDER THE TERMS__QF ~DNSERVATION PLAN This item was approved as a consent agenda item. 11. AMENDMENT 'EO_ARTICLEJ~F~PJ.ANNING COMMISSIONJ~Y-~_EEGAJEDJNG SIGNING OF OFFIC~ Staff report recommending adoption was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt the resolution amending Planning Commissioner By-laws concerning signing of official documents by the Commission. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 11 12. PRESENTATION AND_DISCUSSION OF THE METROP~ BAKERSFIELD MAJOR TRANSPORTATJD~L[[:~E~T~ENT S~RATEGY ~ LARRY WESEMANN, BARTON-ASCHMAN Mr. Ruggenberg outlined the first step of this process being a feasibility study, the second step a transportation systems analysis, and the third phase a look at the best way to provide transportation to the community. Mr. Wesemann showed a video depicting transportation issues specific to this city. He said this strategy is about developing a consensus transportation program for the next 20 years and a funding plan. He updated the commission on the progress saying they had developed an elaborate set of 9 different options in which an initial analysis was performed and have narrowed them down through a consensus process involving the policy advisory committee, technical advisory committee and the public. He said they were narrowed down to 4 options and presented those options to the commission. He said a full evaluation would be made of the options in terms of elements, costs, traffic and patronage. Information will be available in the Fall as to the cost effectiveness and cost benefits of the options. At that time it will be time to make a decision as to which elements will be developed as well as a funding plan. A public open house will be held on September 12, 1996 at the Holiday Inn Select where information will be presented concerning the options and the decision to be made. On November 15, 1996 a livable communities symposium will be held by the Kern Transportation Foundation. Commissioner Boyle asked why the eastern point of their route was at Bakersfield College stating he felt it to be very west of the northeast area and where it is growing. Mr. Ruggenberg pointed out the corridors on the map stating they are very broad and can be up to a mile wide with regard to planning efforts. However they will identify the route in very specific terms. Commissioner Tavorn asked if any studies were prepared which identify at what cost gas will have to be at or what types of fees will have to be placed on car owners in order for more people to use mass transit. Mr. Ruggenberg said the level of mass transit service in this city is very poor for a city this size. Mr. Wesemann said concerning Commissioner Tavorn's question that there are three pads which are the cost of gas, the cost of parking and the severity of congestion which when they intermix at some point people will reach a threshold of frustration in which they will begin to consider mass transit much more seriously. Commissioner Brady asked why it did not appear that the Amtrak system was not incorporated into these options and if the fast train system from Los Angeles up the valley had been discussed with respect to this. Mr. Ruggenberg stated any effort they make will coordinate with those systems. The high speed rail matter would drastically change the character of their systems depending on the location of those systems. Mr. Wesemann said the city is cooperating with Kern COG and Caltrans at the present time in order to develop a feasibility study. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 12 Mr. Hardisty.said he has been assigned to deal with the Amtrak station and high speed rail issue. The high speed rail system seems to favor the route down the central valley and through Bakersfield. The station would fit well west of the Holiday Inn near the library. The Amtrak station would fit in with this also. He cited the 2010 Plan being adopted in March, 1990 stating he felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to look at the Circulation Element of the General Plan to make sure the city is going in the right direction and how it is going to happen. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Ruggenberg and Mr. Wesseman about their feeling on a previous speaker's statement that the Crosstown Freeway is the wrong route. Mr. Wesemann said it is being looked at in terms of cost, generated traffic and impacts and will be carefully evaluated against other options and the public's input would be taken on this issue. Concerning a question Commissioner Dhanens asked about one of the route options, Mr. Wesemann said the route 58 extension is included as a centerpiece of all the options. Caltrans is continuing with the route adoption study along with the city and Kern COG. Commissioner Dhanens asked if Mr. Wesemann felt three of the four options mimics what has been done in Los Angeles with respect to there being a series of freeways, expanded arterials and signals and buses everywhere. He felt the light rail system is the only thing that would set Bakersfield apart from becoming like Los Angeles. Commissioner Dhanens asked how close the city is to having a plan in place so that the city's transportation money can be regained from the Federal Government. Mr. Ruggenberg said a local sales tax is needed, however is not feasible to be obtained at this time through the voters. Commissioner Hersh said one of the unattractive issues of this city for businesses looking to locate is the poor transit system. Communities with a progressive system flourish. Voters need to be informed in order to attain a sales tax which would help with transportation issues. He asked where the city stands in timing compared to other cities this size. Mr. Wesemann felt this city ranks very high and the opportunity to accomplish something still exists. Commissioner Hersh asked how the coordination between the City and County was proceeding in coming up with a system. Mr. Ruggenberg felt the cooperation was extraordinary. 13. P~JBL[C~EA~G - ORDINANCE ~ENT - AMENQI~LG~~_O~ C~_T~ QF~AEEESFJELD_ZO (CHAPTER 17.53) EEGAED~C:LTHE REVIEW PROCE~ FOR PROJ~ TO BE DEFINED A~ ~G COMMISSar_ E~~ Action on this item was taken under the consent agenda. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 13 MATE RI~T OF~ Mr. Grady stated this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the Commission. Commissioner Delgado asked for staff comment concerning the issue of receiving information from applicants at the hearing, asking if there was any way to control this. Mr. Grady stated this problem could be eliminated by the Commission's action to continue items to the following meeting when issues are not resolved in a timely manner. He stated it has not been a choice the Commission has been willing to make in the past, therefore staff has taken the position that they will work with applicants up to the last minute if necessary in order to resolve an issue so that time is not taken at the podium. The issue has been such that if this is not done applicants will come before the Commission at the hearing requiring staff to listen to testimony, respond to questions by the Commission and take the time to write a new motion with conditions to accommodate an approval the Commission wishes to make. Many requests are such that staff is hearing them at the same time the Commission is hearing them. Commissioner Delgado asked whose prerogative it is to make the decision to not negotiate these issues at the hearing. Mr. Grady stated it is the Commission's decision to make a motion to continue the item to the next agenda directing the applicant to meet with staff to resolve issues in order that the information may be placed in the packet for the next agenda. He explained the application process had been extended in the past in order to provide sufficient time for applicants to meet with staff to resolve issues before the hearing. Commissioner Brady felt applicants should be convinced to resolve issues within the prescribed time frame and would be opposed to having a blanket prohibition to applicants requesting changes on the day of the meeting. He did not feel it was desirable to receive a large volume of written information the day of the meeting, on the other hand he felt if possible some technical matters should be worked out even if it means doing so at the last minute and felt staff should be encouraged to do so. Commissioner Tavorn found it difficult to read a large amount of information at the last minute and felt in order to completely digest this information and provide a level of professionalism the community needs to know that rules and guidelines exist and they need to be adhered to. He felt it was unprofessional and unfair to require staff to formulate policies on the spot. He felt the Commission needs to take the position that if they do not have time to read information, a decision is not made at that hearing. Commissioner Dhanens gave history of this situation, saying the situation at the present time is much better than in the past and gave examples. He agreed that because of the application process and staffs early negotiations with applicants the amount of discussion at the hearings is shortened. This prevents the commission from rewriting motions at the hearing. He felt the majority of time this works very well and did not see a need to place other limits on the applicants. Minutes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 14 Mr. Grady stated although the Commission is receiving last minute information the facts that recommendations are based on are contained in the staff report and do not change. Negotiations made between the applicant and the city are with respect to conditions of approval. Commissioner Boyle felt the Commission is in a dilemma of wanting to be professional and be responsive to the public in taking action without unnecessary delays. He encouraged staff to continue with their present course of action in trying to work out problems and suggested as a body that if the Commission feels too much information is being presented at the last minute on a specific item it needs to be handled with a continuation. To take away staff's ability to continue to work toward resolving problems will cause unnecessary delays. Commissioner Hersh recalled his earlier days on the Commission in which a large volume of items were resolved at hearings which he says has been changed during his tenure with the modification to procedures and the commission's decision that this would not be allowed. He agreed with Commissioner Tavorn's comments concerning the unprofessionalism with continuing to allow this problem to occur. He agreed with Commissioner Boyle that if the Commission does not have a good understanding of a case with respect to last minute requested changes it should be continued without hesitation. 15. DIllON REGARDINGJ~ER~ C:~)_VE~NT A~P_ORTATION ISSUES Mr. Grady stated this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the Commission. A letter was drafted by Commissioner Brady and submitted to the Commission the previous week with the intent being to send correspondence to Kern COG voicing the Commission's concerns with respect to the loss of $45 million and wanting to be informed about Kern COG's progress and responsibilities with respect to this issue. He stated a packet had been received by the Commission from Mr. Brummett which outlines some of their responsibilities. He stated he discussed with Mr, Brummett the Commission's request to receive agendas and minutes of their meetings which Mr. Brummett agreed to and that a mailing list would be provided by Mr. Grady. Mr. Brummett stated he would be available to come before the Commission in the future for a presentation with respect to the Amtrak station. Commissioner Hersh asked for comments concerning Mr. Brady's letter, stating he felt it was a very well balanced letter. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to submit the letter to Kern COG. Motion carried. Mr. Grady stated this letter would be prepared for the Chairman's signature. 16. CO MMUN [CATLOJAS MinUtes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 15 17. A) ~LVritten Mr. Grady said a memo dated June 28, 1996 had been submitted to the Commission giving a status update of the Kern River protocol. He said it was decided that the committee did not need to proceed with the protocol, however the planting list for the Kern River Parkway was adopted. B) _Verbal None C~COM.~ A. Committees Concerning the three speakers who spoke under the public statements section, Commissioner Tavorn requested that Mr. LaRochelle provide them with assistance with respect to where they should direct their concerns. Commissioner Dhanens gave an update on the Hillside Ordinance Committee saying the committee is in the process of receiving written feedback from members and staff concerning what types of issues need to be addressed. Commissioner Boyle said the Subdivision Committee needs to have a road trip to view various subdivisions, however it was not possible this month. He stated the date agreed upon is August 20, 1996 and asked that meetings leading up to that time be canceled. Commissioner Delgado stated this week's pre-meeting was canceled on the premise the agenda did not contain highly complex issues. He recalled a comment that if it was found to be necessary the pre-meetings could be held after all and asked if any procedure was in place for the Chairman to be able to do so. Mr. Grady responded that once it has been canceled it would have to be recalled as a special meeting. He explained with respect to this circumstance that if the site plan review issue were to be in a position to be heard the Monday pre-meeting would have been held; since it was not available to be heard it was suggested the pre-meeting be canceled. Chairman Hersh reminded the Commissioners that if there is anything on the consent agenda that someone has a problem with it can be removed so that discussion can take place on that item. , Min[~tes, PC, 7/18/96 Page 16 18. DISCUS ~ POS~ANC~N OF TH~ Mr. Grady said there are currently two items on the August 1st meeting and recommended the pre-meeting be canceled. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to cancel the next Monday pre-meeting of July 29, 1996. There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary S~~'eta~~~ Planning Director c:~mn7.18