Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/97Council Chamber, City Hall ROLL CALL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, October 2, 1997 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson ROBERT ORTIZ STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER WADE TAVORN ALTERNATE: BETSY TEETER NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS A ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal.. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, 10/2/97 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) Page 2 These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held August 18, August 21 and September 4, 1997. ' GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (Government Code Section 65402) General plan consistency finding for the summary abandonment of the reserved 20-foot wide public utility easement located southeasterly of California Avenue and Oak Street. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Make finding. Group vote DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STUDY PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A. .Committees Agenda, PC, 10/2/97 Page 3 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT 11. PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT September 30, 1997 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, October 2, 1997, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson ROBERT ORTIZ, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI KEMPER WADE TAVORN BETSY TEETER ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineering Services Manager DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENT~ None CONSENT AGENDA ITEMR None APPROVAL OF MINUTER. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Teeter to approve minutes of the regular meetings of the Commission held August 18th, August 21st, and September 4th, 1997. Motion carried -0 Minutes, $. PC, 10/2/97 Page GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR THE SUMMARY ABANDONMENT OF THE RESERVED 20-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND OAK STREET. Staff report was given recommending finding be made. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to make a finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed summary abandonment of the reserved 20-foot-Wide public utility easement located southeasterly of California Avenue and Oak Street is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE METROPOLITA~',~ TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STUDY Mr. Larry Wesemann made a presentation regarding the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Investment strategy. His presentation included a brief history of the project, the agencies and community organizations involved, projected traffic burdens, long and short-range solutions, land use management, and funding. Commissioner Tavorn asked if the 35% impact fee was based on the current fee or a progressive anticipated fee. Mr. Wesemann replied that the figure was based on current projections provided by the City and County for the fee that was adopted in February of 1997. Commissioner Boyle enquired how the projected percentage of funds raised by local impact fees compares to other communities in the Central Valley. Mr. Wesemann replied that he did not have that information available, but would provide it at a later date. Mr. Boyle asked why there was such a discrepancy between source of funds, such as the transit capital revenue where local fees are only 8%, yet 35% for roadway improvements. Mr. Wesemann replied that these.figures were based upon needs and priorities established by the City and County. Commissioner Boyle asked if any easements or access was being reserved for possible future light rail. Mr. Wesemann indicated that an analysis of light rail transit has been initiated, and that a report on the most promising alignments has been provided to the agencies involved. These agencies intend to reserve and secure right-of-way where possible When funding becomes available. Commissioner Boyle asked if any specific recommendations for land use had been given to the City and County to incorporate into staff reports used by the Commission for EIR's and General Plan Amendments. Mr. Wesemann replied that to date only general guidelines have been provided, that more specific guidelines might be provided at a later date. 2 Minutes, PC, 10/2/97 Page 3 Commissioner OrtiZ asked if the $500 million figure quoted reflected monies required now, and would thatfigure be increased in the future. Mr. Wesemann replied that their analysis was done in present-day dollars, and that the longer these projects were delayed, the more they would eventually cost. Commissioner Dhanens asked why one of the elements of the funding shortfall is the maintenance of existing roadways, and how that shortfall might be eliminated. Mr. Wesemann replied that this item had a high priority for additional funds. The major problem was that many of the roads in question were originally built in the 1960's and now required major rehabilitation rather than minor repair. Commissioner Dhanens asked how priorities were established and who determined what items were given a more immediate standing. Mr. Wesemann replied that a set of workshops took place with staff from all participating agencies who in turn were in consultation with their oWn governing bodies. He also indicated that these priorities wOuld need to be reviewed annually. Mr. Kenneth Hersh commented that no real progress could be made in this area until the issue of realistic traffic impact fees had been addressed. He suggested that the Commission read the Omni Means study prepared by the City. Staff recommended that the strategy be endorsed by the City Council. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, that the Commission endorse the draft action plan prepared by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy Group and that the same be recommended to the City Council. Motion carried. 7. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW The City Attorney's office made a presentation on site plan review, including a brief history, purpose and implementation. Commissioner Tavorn asked Mr. Grady to explain the term "precise plan" as used in the Cerritos project, and how it compares to Bakersfield. Mr. Grady replied that he had not reviewed the Cerritos ordinance, but indicated that "precise plan" was merely a designation for a process similar to site plan review. Mr. Tavorn commented that it appeared the Cerritos site plan review process went through the public and then the Planning Commission, City Council and Redevelopment Agency. He also pointed out that the developer was provided with exact information as to the steps and agencies involved. Ms. Lorna Brumfield requested copies of the proposed plans of what the City is working on so that the public could have an opportunity for input. She felt that the public has always been squeezed out of the process, that public involvement in site plan review from the very beginning is vital. Minutes, PC,10/2/97 Page 4 Ms. Renee Nelson indicated that CEQA provides for analysis for all public comment on the anticipated environmental consequences of most development projects, or changes in the nature or intensity of land use..Ms. Nelson felt that this falls under zone changes and site plan review. She supported the idea of public involvement in site plan from the point of inception, before it is drafted by staff. Mr. Hollis Carlisle agreed with Ms. Brumfield and Ms. Nelson, and expressed the need for public involvement in site plan review. He felt that the present system does not allow sufficient public input. Ms. Jill Kleiss representing the Southwest Community Action Committee, expressed concern that the site plan review process was being hurried by the recent court order, that sixty days was insufficient. Ms. Kleiss distributed a packet of information to the Commission. She felt that there was a breakdown in communication between the public, the Commission and the City Council and cited several letters and memos that contained conflicting information. Mr. Ken Hersh asked Ms. Skousen if a draft site plan review had been prepared; Ms.. Skousen said that she would include her response in comments made after the public hearing. Mr. Hersh expressed concern that after, a year and three public lawsuits, site plan review was still unacceptable. He stated that site plan review should include adequate review by the Planning Commission and the public, which at present it does not. Mr. Arthur Unger of the Sierra Club stated that notification of site plan review'to outlying areas is valuable and can be accomplished inexpensively. Ms. Skousen stated that she was at present working on an ordinance that would include new CEQA implementation guidelines. She indicated that the draft would be circulated for public review and comment. She also pointed out that the site plan review process at present reviews only the elements of proper zone use and compliance with existing ordinances, and that to include extensive public review could predicate an overhaul of the existing zoning structure itself. This overhaul would include the use of conditional use permits which would entail a major change in how the City of Bakersfield interacts with property owners and developers. Mr. Ken Hersh stated that if the present site plan review continues to be based on zoning, the process will remain unsatisfactory. Ms. Skousen asked if Mr. Hersh would then recommend another approach, such as with conditional use permits. Mr. Hersh rePlied that any project should be denied if enough controversy has been raised and until the proper review of the EIR. Ms. Skousen pointed out that under current statutes, the only course of action by the City is to mitigate environmental impacts; it cannot deny the project based on an EIR. Mr.'Hersh replied that with proper public review from the beginning, this would not occur. Page 5 Minutes, PC, 10/2/97 Ms. Jill Kleiss agreed with Mr. Hersh. Ms. Renee Nelson, citing a hypothetical project that required an EIR, stated that such projects should come before the public as required by CEQA. Commissioner Boyle indicated that despite the somewhat unattractive physical environment of Bakersfield, it should be possible to improve upon the city's appearance while meeting the concerns of both the public and CEQA. He also disagreed that an administrative site plan review process could not coexist comfortably with.one that implemented conditional use permits that included public review. Commissioner Teeter asked for clarification from staff about the existing process, including committee review. Ms. Skousen explained how the present system of site plan review and zoning operates. Ms. Teeter suggested that a committee be formed that included public representatives to provide initial input. Ms. Skousen replied that such was possible, that the City Council has the authority to form such a committee. Commissioner Tavorn asked why the Planning Commission was not involved in the drafting of the site plan review after the first lawsuit. Ms. Skousen replied that the City Attorney's office had followed specific directions by the City Council. Mr. Tavorn suggested a possible solution, such as a section of the City Code of Visalia called Appeals to the Planning Commission, whereby any citizen has the opportunity to stop a project and initiate a review by the. Planning Commission. Commissioner Dhanens asked if a certain letter from the Commission to the City Council, referred to by Ms. Kleiss in her comments, had been sent. Mr. Grady replied that it was in the process of being drafted, and would be finalized in a timely manner. Mr. Dhanens asked Ms. Skousen about the statutory size of projects that prompted environmental review, and how they differed from what the Commission had attempted to establish in their last ordinance. Ms. Skousen replied that the difference is substantial, and quoted examples of statutory exemptions. Mr. Dhanens asked Ms. Kleiss her opinion of the Marketplace Shopping Center that has been-in operation for some time; Ms. Kleiss indicated she was pleased with the project. Mr. Dhanens expressed his support for public review, but indicated that changes to the existing body of ordinances might be a better solution rather than subjecting each project to a multitude of designers, Ms. Kleiss respOnded that it was not a matter of design but a matter of law. Ms. Renee Nelson stated that this issue was not about control or design, but how a project is reviewed in terms of its environmental conseqUences, not appearances. Minutes, PC,10/2/97 Page 6 'Commissioner Boyle indicated that the site plan review should initially be drafted by Staff because of the legal and technical elements involved. Mr. Boyle also stated that some type of appeal process should be available after site plan review, and that this appeal should take place at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Teeter stated that notification of outlying areas should be guaranteed. She also agreed with Commissioner Boyle that draft documents should be prepared by Staff; however, she also expressed support for a committee of some sort to provide input to Staff in their preparations, and that the draft be returned to the committee for review. Commissioner Boyle asked when the first draft would be completed; Ms. Skousen indicated that it would be available at the next Council meeting. Commissioner Tavorn suggested that this item be continued to be open to the public until the City Attorney can provide the Commission with a draft. Mr. Ken Hersh asked if the Planning Commission would be included in the process, and suggested that the question be put to the Council. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to place this item on the agenda for the next meeting for the purpose of comments on the design of an ordinance. Motion carried. 8. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Written or verbal communications. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman:Tkac indicated that he received copies of those committees that will require member replacement. Minutes, PC, 10/2/97 Page 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 7 THE NEXT PRE-MEETING 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary 'Sp iTaAnNn iLn?D?rel~c tDo rY' S ¥ reta rY