Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/96 / I ; ? MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 6, 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 ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC 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 JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC SIATEMENIS No one made any public statements. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. o None 4. UIES Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve minutes of the regular meeting held April 4, 1996. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 2 5.1 5.2 6.1 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT Mr. Grady cited a recently passed assembly bill which provided automatic extensions of time. Due to this item #'s 5.1 and 5.2 would be removed from the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5494 This item was removed from the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 109,28 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Steve DeBranch represented the subdivider. He stated agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tavorn asked about the discrepancy of acres outlined in the staff report compared with those on the agenda. Mr. Lee said the project analysis should reflect 17.1 acres. Commissioner Tavorn asked regarding this property being next to R-1 zoned property if a wall would be erected between the R-1 and C-2 zoning. Mr. Grady said there would be a six-foot block wall constructed on the property line. Chairman Hersh asked if this project is part of the Riverlakes Specific Plan area. He also asked how the vesting map affects traffic impact fees and other fees. Mr. Grady responded the map is within this area and that the fee that is in place at the present time is what will be charged. Commissioner Hersh asked if there were still controversy about traffic impact fees. Mr. Grady said there was no controversy, however there is on-going review being done of the proposed ordinance to modify the traffic impact fee program. Commissioner Hersh asked if litigation was going on concerning this to which Mr. Grady responded he was not aware of any. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 3 Commissioner Brady asked Mr. DeBranch how close the anchor store would be to the housing in the R-1 development; Mr. DeBranch responded there is about 60 feet of separation in back of the buildings and property line to the east. Commissioner Hersh said he was sensitive to placing large stores adjacent to housing because of a previous situation of housing behind a Vons on White Lane. He asked if there are homes in this neighborhood at this time. Mr. DeBranch said all the houses are currently built and the property has been zoned commercial and the wall has been constructed since before these residents purchased their homes. Commissioner Brady cited problems with smell of dumpsters and trucks delivering at all hours and asked if this project is scheduled for a 24-hour operation. Chairman Hersh asked when something final on traffic impact fees would be available. Mr. LaRochelle said second reading and adoption of the new traffic impact fee, ordinance and spending plan for next year would be held on June 26, 1996. At this time it will be before the county for approval as well. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, 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 10278, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. 6.2 EUBLI~G - V_ESTING TENTATIVF~P,~J~M~J~291 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Bruce Davis represented the applicant. He submitted a letter and stated their commitment to abide by conditions of the EIR and settlement agreement. He also stated their concurrence with conditions of the staff report. Commissioner Boyle asked if them was anything in the settlement agreement which should be a condition of the deed and parcel map so that the settlement agreement is binding on the purchasers. Ms. Marino said the City is not a party to this settlement agreement, therefore they will not condition it in any way according to this agreement. This is between the two parties involved. Regarding the Resolution #24-96, marked as Exhibit "B," Commissioner Hersh asked if this is part of the approval. Mr. Grady said it is part of the approval in the sense that it is a reference document because the city is referring to the EIR as the basis for finding this parcelization will not have a significant impact on the environment. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, 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 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10291 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Chairman Hersh abstained. GEI~2K&L~ CONSISTENCY FINDING - ACQUISITION AND RESALE OE 2120 "L" STREET, THE OLD PACIFIC BELL BUILDING. Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Tavorn asked if subject building were earthquake proof, and if not would the city be liable in the future if an earthquake occurs and the city has sold the building. Mr. Fidler said it would depend on the disclosure. Chairman Hersh asked if it were common for the city to buy and resell property. Mr. Grady said it is a common method for handling redevelopment projects. Chairman Hersh asked if there is a stipulation for the purchaser of the property as to how long they must inhabit the property. Mr. Grady said it would depend on the specific development agreement and its requirements. Commissioner Boyle asked if the city is involved in this transaction for the purpose of providing the tax incentives and benefits to the purchaser. Mr. Grady explained the tax increment financing is as a result of a redevelopment project area being identified. Anyone within a redevelopment project area proposing to make a substantial improvement to a piece of property would have the opportunity to ask for the increment to be used as a method of financing the improvements. He said he was not sure if this were the case in this situation or if it was simply that the city saw the opportunity to locate someone in the downtown area rather than have development occur elsewhere. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to make a finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, that the proposed acquisition and resale of the site by the City for use as a commercial structure is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IISY Mr. Grady stated due to a scheduling problem the presenter of this item was unable to attend and it could be scheduled for the second meeting in June or the second meeting in July. Chairman Hersh preferred that this be placed on the second meeting agenda in July. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 5 9. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND KERN COG ON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ISSUES. Commissioner Brady reminded those present of his previous suggestion that staff assist the commission in writing a'letter indicating their concern about the recent problem concerning Kern COG representing the city's interests with the CTC. Because of this he felt a better understanding and better communication needed to exist between the city planning commission and Kern COG. Mr. LaRochelle gave information concerning Kern COG's role with respect to transportation issues surrounding the city. Commissioner Brady asked if the city's input on the board of Kern COG was with respect to their representative on the board. Mr. LaRochelle said this was correct. Commissioner Brady asked if Kern COG generates reports on a regular basis on their progress on projects and if this information is provided to the commission. Mr. Grady said they prepare an annual work program which identifies the major projects they will be dealing with, however this information is not provided to the commission. Commissioner Brady also asked if the city receives copies of their agendas and minutes and if those can be distributed to the commission. Mr. Grady said the city does not receive this and it could be distributed with the commission packets. Commissioner Brady felt it imperative that some communication be received from Kern COG concerning the priority they are placing on projects involving the city so that the commission may indicate to them what they feel is important. Mr. LaRochelle added that Kern COG is the keeper of the traffic model for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area with respect to the traffic impact fee. The city worked very closely in developing this fee. He cited an air conformity model which must be addressed properly in order to receive federal funds. This is another role of Kern COG. Chairman Hersh asked if Kern COG could come before the Commission on a periodic basis to update the commission of their progress. Mr. Grady felt this could be done as scheduling of their staff permits. Commissioner Boyle supported Mr. Brady's request that Kern COG agendas and minutes be provided to the commission. He said he did not intend the purpose of changing the commission's meeting date to influence Kern COG's decisions. The idea was that the commission learn more about other agencies' planning issues. He was not sure that he could support sending Kern COG a letter at this time because he felt it was too late in the game, however perhaps it would be a good idea that a representative come before the commission to provide information. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 6 Commissioner Brady stated his reasoning for wanting to send a letter being to communicate his concern that the recent activities of Kern COG have been ineffective. The loss of $45 million toward a freeway is very significant and jeopardizes the future of this city as well as all development on the west side. He was concerned that the commission may have to perform Kern COG's job for them of putting together the necessary components and lobby to make sure that the money that the citizens of this county and city have paid to the State are returned in the form of transportation. He said he is angry and concerned that this was not accomplished by Kern COG in Sacramento and felt something has to be done. He recommended that staff be asked to draft a letter for review and signature expressing the commission's grave concerns that Kern COG were not effective, that there were representatives of the city from all levels of the city to plead the case and that Kern COG put on a poor presentation, did not do their homework and were not prepared to fight for the money the city and county deserves from the State. He stated if there were no more comments he would make this as a motion. Chairman Hersh asked Commissioner Brady if he would have a problem preparing an outline of something to this effect. He said he would be willing to work with staff, who have a better background of the situation in Sacramento, in preparing a draft. Commissioner Hersh felt the commission knows very little about Kern COG as they are such an important body representing the community and felt the commission should learn more about the group and would like to have a regular report whether it be written or verbal submitted to the commission. Commissioner Boyle shared Commissioner Brady's concerns and agreed a letter should be written letting Kern COG know of the depth of the commission's concerns regarding the outcome. He felt it is a waste of the commission's time to scold them for doing a bad job at this time. He was in favor of drafting a letter stating the concern and asking what the commission can do to ensure this does not happen again. Chairman Hersh said he would be in favor of a letter asking if staff could draft such a letter. Mr. Grady said staff would be able to formulate the correct terminology, dollar amounts and dates, however would leave the sentiment to the commission. Commissioner Brady's motion was not seconded. He withdrew his motion. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 Page 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, that a, draft letter be written and presented to the commission for consideration. The draft to be prepared by staff in concert with a member of the commission chosen by the chairman with the content to be the concern of the Commission regarding Kern COG and request for assistance for better communication between the two entities. Motion carried. With concurrence of Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Hersh appointed him as the Commission's representative with respect to drafting this letter. A) gtritten None B) Y .rba Mr. LaRochelle introduced Ted Wright as the recently promoted Design Engineer for the City Public Works Department. He cited Senate Bill 729 being proposed to allow for the distribution of $31 Billion for highway use. He stated if any commissioners are interested in this he could provide information to them. 11. ~ON COMMEBIIS Commissioner Boyle gave a report on the subdivision committee saying they have come to an agreement and should have a report back to the commission at the next meeting. Chairman Hersh reminded those present that a Sign Committee meeting would be held on June 11, 1996. Chairman Hersh commented that representatives from the Southeast Community Group were present at this hearing to learn more about the commission's role in government. Commissioner Delgado gave a report of the Kern River Parkway Committee saying staff had brought back a revised proposal defining items in which there were questions. He said it was his understanding staff would give a presentation to the commission of what will be going to the City Council. Minutes, PC, 6/6/96 12. Page 8 Commissioner Dhanens said the Ordinance Review Committee discussing the proposed Hillside Ordinance would be meeting on June 10, 1996. ~TION~ 13. Chairman Hersh said the next agenda is very full and contains a general plan cycle. The pre-meeting of June 17, 1996 was not canceled. There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director