Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/99Council Chamber, City Hall AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday - January 7, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN ALTERNATE: RON SPRAGUE 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. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 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, c/o 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Thursday-January7,1999 Page 2 · CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) 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. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Agenda Item 8.1 - Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Tract 5001 Agenda Item 8.2 - Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Tract 5327 Agenda Item 10.1 -Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5920 Agenda Item 11 - Zone Change P98-0851 Agenda Item 13 -Consistency Finding -Vacation of Alley APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held November 5, 1998, November 16, 1998 and November 19, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT/FREEWAY - (Continued from' December 17, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution making findings and recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City Council. Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment File No. P98-0760, - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield has proposed an amendment to Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopting both the South Beltway Transportation Corridor alignment and the specific plan line between Interstate 5 and State Route 58, a distance of approximately 26 miles, transversing central Kern County and the southern portion of the City of Bakersfield. (Continued from December 17, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with mitigation Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (Marino Associates) Administrative Review (P98-0944) to consider modification to the preliminary development plans of P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) Zone Change P98-0506 (Derrel's Mini-Storage) for the purpose of amending approved wall and building design located south of Stockdale Highway, west of the Kern River bridge. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve GrouP vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 7, 1999 Page 3 _ . PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 8.1) Revised Tentative Tract 5001 (Telstar Engineering, Inc.) Located on the north side of Hosking Road, east of South "H" Street consisting of 136 lots on 40 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Categorically exempt) (Continued from meeting of November 19, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. 10. 8.2) Revised Tentative Tract 5327(Genevieve Myers) Located on the north side of Hosking Road about 1/4 mile east of South "H" Street consisting of 93 lots on 20 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). '(Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Group vote. Approve PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Located on the east side of State Route 184 (aka Kern Canyon Road) between State Route 178 and Mesa Marin Drive, consisting of 5 parcels on 21.27 acres for purposes of commercial development, zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial); and a 65.37 acre designated remainder zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and a request to waive mineral right owner's signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 1. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPR lO.1) VeStin~l Tentative Tract Map 5920 (SmithTech USA Inc.) Located on the north side of Olive Drive, between Coffee Road and RiverLakes Drive (extended) consisting of 235 lots on 63.13 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and OS (Open Space) zones, and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I. Applicant is also reqUesting a modification to allow reduced lot depth on one lot. (Negative Declaration on file.) (Continued from November 19, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. - Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 7, 1999 Page 4 · 11. 10.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5923 (Porter-Robertson) Located at the southern terminus of Mesa Matin Drive, approximately one quarter mile east of State Route 184 (aka Kern Canyon Road), and about three-quarters mile south of State Route 178 consisting of 152 parcels on 44.45 acres for purposes of single family residential development zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and a request to waive mineral right owner's signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 I. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P98-0851 (James Stockton) 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Located on the west side of Rich Springs Court consisting of a change from R-S-!A (Residential Suburban, one-acre minimum lot size) zone to an E-10 (Estate - 10,000 square foot minimum) zone. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. ' PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Amendments to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 regarding appeal filings for subdivision maps and extensions of time for subdivisions. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for vacation of the alley east of Manitou Way, north of Wilford Court in Tract 4264. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Make finding Group vote. COMMUNICATIONS Written Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 17. NEXT PRE-MEETING ADJOURNMENT Janua~ 4,1999 Held Thursday, January 7, 1999 - City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Califbrnia 1. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN Alternate: RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ,! None Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 2 3. . CONSENT.AGENDA.ITEMS 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. Commissioner Tavorn acknowledged that he did not attend the meeting on Monday, but listened to the tape, and will participate in the meeting. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would abstain from voting on the Consent Agenda items as he has a conflict of interest on Agenda Item 10.1 Commissioner Boyle inquired if it was necessary for the wall on Olive Drive to be masonry as the wall on Coffee Road is. Staff responded they will look into this. Commissioner Brady moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 8.1, Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Tract 5001; Consent Agenda Item 8.2, Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Tract 5327; Consent Agenda Item 11, Zone Change P98-0851 and Consent Agenda Item 13, Consistency Finding for Vacation of Alley. Consent Agenda Item 10.1 will be heard later at its scheduled time on the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dhanens moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held November 5, 1998, November 16,1998, and November 19, 1998, as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Kemper. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FoR THE SOUTH BELTVVAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT/FREEWAY - (Continued from December 17, 1998) Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on Agenda Items 5 and 6. Commissioner Brady announced that instead of a Staff presentation, a memo has been prepared, requesting that this matter be continued to the March General Plan Cycle. Mr. Brady suggested that staff re-evaluate alternatives giving consideration to those comments, and those from the public. It was recommended that this matter be continued to the March General Plan Cycle, at which time we will do new noticing conduct hearings on whatever alternatives result from reconsideration.' Commissioner Dhanens questioned if these comments would be incorporated into the Final Draft EIR that will be considered in March to which staff responded that the comments would be considered, and they would evaluate whether or not they represent the need for any new environmental analysis. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 3 Mr....Grady.confirmedMr. Brady's inquiry that this.Agenda item.was t0.dirS_CuS. S.,.the environmental issue only; however the memo is requesting continuance of both this item and the next. Teri Bjorn, attorney with Clifford and Brown, representing Enron Oil and Gas Company, requested that her comments be incorporated into Agenda Item 6. Ms. Bjorn advised that Enron does support staff's recommendation on the preferred alignment, and that oral and written testimony had been submitted previously. They strongly support the Revised Resolution that is contained in the January 4th memo from Stan Grady. It is their legal opinion that if the Revised Resolution is not adopted, the City cannot certify the Final Eli=,, because there will be a conflict between the Final EIR language, and the existing City ordinances. ' Their legal arguments were detailed in the December 17~h letter to Mr. Grady. Enron has a lot at stake in this area in terms of it's mineral ownership, and even though it does not like to have to exercise legal or political remedies, it is prepared to do so, and is taking this issue very seriously. Commissioner Sprague on a couple of occasions has proposed that the City look at some kind of proposal for surface waivers, or some other mechanism to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development within the corridor. We've preliminarily discussed this issue with our client, and I want to emphasize that Enron has always tried to negotiate in good faith, and act in good faith when its' been presented with conflicts between surface and subsurface development. However, there has not been any concrete proposal, and we are not prepared to give any response or any detail on what Enron may, or may not, be prepared to do, but we do want to emphasize that if the majority of the PlanBing Commission does desire to pursue that kind of issue, but at the same time wants to avoid any sort of challenge to certification of the EIR, or other legal remedies, we would suggest that you either adopt the revised resolution, but accompany it with the recommendation to the City Council that it open negotiations with Enron, so that those kinds of alternatives can be explored before the City Council takes final action on certification of the EIR, or alternatively that you act on staff's recommendation for a continuance. It is still their preference to have the commission act on the revised resolution, and they believe that in that case the commission is treating oil and gas interest the same as they treat the agricultural interest which are allowed to continue as a matter of right within the existing zoning. There are differences under state law the way residential subdivisions are treated. The City has certain obligations to act on reservations within residential development corridors, and that's not in the case for oil and gas or agricultural development. They do see a difference, and think that staff's proposal under the revised Resolution is the best method to handle this. Commissioner Brady questioned if they had sufficient information to enter into discussions with Ms. Bjorn and her client Enron to which staff affirmed they understand the issues. John Cisaroni advised he was with Mountain View Bravo, who are property owners in northeast Bakersfield. He advised that Mountain View Bravo supports staff's recommendation Monday to defer any discussion of the east beltway to a future Ell=,, because they feel that the existing Eli=, inadequately addresses certain CEQA issues specific to the east beltway. The primary CEQA issue is the lack of proposing or Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 4 ...... studying-any-alternatealignment, as well ~as,. issues, raised in prioncorrespondence,; .... dated 9th and 29th, which include due process and cumulative impact issues that already are part of the administrative record. They also support the opinions of Chevron, which 'is a 1900 acre owner in the northeast, as well as Patava Land Company which also owns 840 acres in the northeast. Phil Beglin advised he does not think the defects in the EIR are being addressed correctly. For example, the original EIR did not even acknowledge the existence of Ridgeview High, and the new map does have Ridgeview High, but it's got it on Taft Highway. Ridgeview High is not on Taft Highway; it's about a mile from Taft Highway. Mr. Beglin expressed his concerns with why this mistake has been made twice. Mr. Beglin advised he did not believe that the EIR adequately addressed social and economic impacts on the community (i.e., Title XIV of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15131, and subsections A and B). Mr. Beglin believes that Angle Road at Bear Mt. would have less effect on that environment. Mr. Beglin further expressed concern over the purported purpose of the project stating that if the beltway is to be a freeway and reduce congestion, if you run it by a high school, that is obviously not going to happen, because there are going to be on and off ramps, and essentially what we are going to build is another Ming Avenue with it's access to West High, and all the accompanying fast food joints and other items that come along with simply another east west road. Bear Mt. would move traffic from east to west causing less disruption. Mr. Beglin advised that if we are actually going to have a freeway, at freeway speeds, if you went south to-Bear Mt., and missed the preferred alignment, you are only talking about six or seven minutes of freeway speeds which is an insignificant period of time. Commissioner Brady questioned Mr. Beglin as to whether he had some evidence to present that the freeway itself is going to interrupt the operation of the school, because if his concern was the proper placement of Ridgeview High School, a new map could be made. Mrl Beglin responded that he is concerned whY it is not on the map properly. And that he has previously raised concerns about noise, Valley Fever and disrupted access to the school was acknowledged in the Draft EIR. Mr. Beglin feels all those issues will have an adverse effect. Mr. Beglin expressed his primary concern is that the entire EIR is based on Ridgeview High not even existing, and when it's called to the commission's attention, it is in the wrong place. You cannot have an EIR addressing the impact of the schools placement until whoever is drafting the EIR knows where this thing is, so they can go out and find what kind of effect it will have. Mr. Beglin stated that a construction project of this size is going to cause enormous disruption to the quiet atmosphere that a school is suppose to maintain so that learning can be accomplished. If the EIR does not even acknowledge the existence of this facility no assessment has been made on that. Andy Cadena applauded the Commissioners in continuing this decision for another month, and expressed his concern over the influence Jackie Sullivan may be having over the Commissioners. Minutes, PCi Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Brady.suggestedthat Mr. Cadena calLJackie Sullivan and. aSk her.to have possibly a public workshop for anybody to come forward. Frank Fugit stated that he is a property owner on Hosking Road, west of Freeway 99, and on the south side of Hosking and that the south beltway would go through his field and probably the interchange will take up the good part of his farm. Mr. Fugit advised that when he was put into the City 5 or 6 years ago he had to incur debt of approximately $4,000.00 per acre to put in a sewer line. Mr. Fugit feels that the beltway is too close in if the City of Bakersfield is going to double in growth within 20 years. He feels that the people sitting up there trying to make a decision 20 years from now when half of us will no longer be on this earth is wrong. Mr. Fugit advised that if it is put in through his farm, he would start a class action lawsuit to try to get his money back for his property value loss because the City of Bakersfield told him that his land would probably be worth $42,000.00 to $49,000.00 an acre, with the sewer line. Mr. Fugit stated that he would be willing to sell his property if they City wants to buy it, but, if they don't, he would like to bypass it, and "let the eggs lay where they are going to lay." Lisa Philips stated that she lives in the Kings Road Development, which is about 1/10 of a mile south of Hosking Road, right off of Akers Road, and stated that in the original EIR, Kings Road Development was not even on there, nor was Ridgeview High, or Panama School (Panama. School has been there for years and years and years, and that wasn't even on the original EIR). Ms. Philips inquired King Road Development is on the EIR now, and why developing continuing in this area, and if the numbers on the EIR are going up and reflecting the residences that are now there, and the residences that are going to be there within the next 6 months to a year, little alone 20 years from now. Al Johnson stated he was a citizen in the area, and that he was concerned why they are building this freeway directly through a residential area that is going to be impacted by many people that are already living there, and that will be living there. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that certain things are not on the map, and that if they are not on the map they do not get recognized. Art Sherwood stated he lives in Stone Creek, and that it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if you go south, you're going to effect fewer people. The idea of Ridgeview being put on Taft High versus where it is, is a difference of the freeway missing it by a mile, or possibly going through the band room, and that is significant. If you are going to build this freeway there, it's time to tell people to stop building homes. They are going like crazy. And many people like myself, my age, these homes are critical for our golden years. These are the homes that are hopefully going to sell and get us to the place maybe our final years of where we are, and it's very, very important. Whatever costs you're saving those people, you are putting on us people, and there is many, many people. And that's why we are here. That is what the City is here for. It is about people. No people, no City. So the millions that you gained somewhere else is the millions that we all lose as we try to sell our houses and make our future decent as we work very hard. These homes are not only going up in great numbers right now. If you have been out there and driven out there, but they are beautiful homes. They are many big homes with great families, and all of a sudden you are going to run this major Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 6 Piece..of.cement.through all this..Ithink we all have.to_remember who.weare,..and I just hope that you make a decision that you put yourself in our place, and think about what you will do with your property as you're trying to make the last years the best you c. an. Christopher Reed stated he lives just north of the proposed area, and that until Mr. Beglin brought it to his attention, he was not aware of the enormous defects in the EIR. Mr. Reed expressed disgust over the Commissioner's questions, and advised that Ridgeview High School just spent a lot of money redoing the athletic field, but the Commissioners consider this a different tax group. (That's a school district problem; not a City problem.) Mr. Reed expressed his concern that the churches have not been considered, and further stated that he believes the Grand Canal has been conveniently located where the freeway is going to go, and that in his mind that they are more interested in the coffers of Bakersfield's tax system then they are interested in the people who are going to be impacted in the area. Mr. Reed feels there is a definite correlation between the location and this financial center that they want to build south of Panama Lane. Mr. Reed challenged the Commissioners to tell him he was wrong in his assessment of the Commissioner's attitude. Commissioner Brady responded to Mr Reed's challenge stating that the purpose behind this EIR is not "Us" against "Them". Mr. Reed responded that there is a tremendous amount of accountability that the Commissioners must bear, and the EIR is totally deficient and therefore an informed decision cannot possibly be made until the staff prepares an adequate EIR. Tina Light stated she lives on Alice Meadow, and expressed her concern about the trucks coming down the freeway and falling in her backyard. She also stated that she and her husband wanted to retire in 15 years, and that they were not going to be able to get the money they put into the house if this goes through in 20 years. Fred Brown stated that he lives at 3301 Trogius which is south of the proposed preferred right-of-way, and suggested that the Council needs to do put together a more detailed graphical map of the proposed right-of-ways that are in question, and detail them as to what is residential, what is commercial, and what the interchange would be at Highway 99, and how it would transcend to the Grand Canal. Mr. Grady responded that there is a map in their office, but could not recall if the notices specifiCally made reference to it be available. Daryl-Harvey of 9009 Ellison inquired if the people who live in the County on the other side of 99 had been properly notified. Mr. Grady responded that the same notice that was sent in the City was sent in the County for the south beltway. Commissioner Kemper asked the City Staff to provide gross projections for a 20 year Period, and said that she would like to be assured that currently map tracts are shown Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7; 1999 Page 7 _.on the.map,._and.that notices will be going out to all the current.residents.(not residents on records as of 6 months ago, but current residents in the City and County) will be provided a map, and given information that a larger map is available. Mr. Grady confirmed that staff would do this. Commissioner Brady thanked everybody that came out to the meeting, and stated that he has not made up his mind. Commissioner Dhanens echoed the sentiments of both Commissioners Kemper and Brady, and asked staff if they could have the large detailed map posted on the wall on the night that they consider this for the next cycle. Staff responded that if what is being referred to as the preferred alignment continues to be an alternative, then they could get the new information overlaid onto the detailed map. Commissioner Dhanens further echoed Commissioner Brady's comments that he has not made up his mind on this issue yet. Commissioner Sprague thanked people for coming out to the meeting and speaking their mind, and letting their concerns be known. He further requested staff bring a map indicating all the alignments that are before them, where the existing developments are, and where any tentative or vested maps may be within those corridors that are recorded, so that they can see what is pre-planned. Commissioner Brady made a motion to continue the EIR until the next General Plan Amendment Cycle. Motion seconded by Ortiz. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment File No. P98-0760 - Kern COG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield Staff reported that there were no comments to make, and requested that this item be continued, and that the public hearing be maintained open. Michael Layman stated he lives at 3303 Cathedral Rose in the Rosemarie subdivision, just north of the preferred alignment. Mr. Layman stated that he has been in construction for 27 years, and has built a lot of bridges, and that it is not true that you cannot utilize an existing on and off ramp at a particular location. You can utilize the Pumpkin Center off-ramp; you do not have to have another one a mile south, a mile north. The costs versus benefit is there. Mr. Layman thinks the EIR that has been done is totally wrong. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 8 · .Debra. Harr. ison.statedthat they have approximately 250.signatu. res,_and..qg.qt_rarY to what the Californian· reported it appears that the opposition in Stone Creek is particularly high to the preferred alignment. Ms. Harrison stated that she appreciated the fact that they were considering a new alternative, south of Taft Highway, and applauded the Commissioners for being open-minded. Stan Antogiovanni state that he represented land that is going to be directly effected by the freeway alignment. Mr. Antogiovanni stated that they supported the preferred alignment and would put his comments in writing. Steve Louis, Staff Engineer from the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, reiterated Arvin-Edison's request to revisit the preferred alignment at it's eastern most of 4 miles, and Arvin's desire to continue to remain active in the process and work through these issues that concern them. Melissa Manning stated that she lives at 8408 Tamara, and reiterated her opposition to the preferred alignment, and that she preferred Taft Highway, or something even further south. Commissioner Brady reiterated that for Monday's meeting, he would like to see justification for the comments in the record about the need for the preferred alignment and traffic congestion, and the analysis of the level of service with and without at the arterials White Lane, Panama, Taft Highway and then the main arterials that run north and south. Commissioner Brady also requested estimates regarding population growth in the area and what we are anticipating in light of the proposed land uses that are there and which could go in for this area. Commissioner Tav0rn thanked the public for coming out, and commented that no one has asked the question: "Why did we choose the alignment in the first place?" Tavorn stated that in the 2010 Plan the City Council did all kinds of studies, they chose these alignments, and now all of a sudden, the homes are in, and they are changing these alignments. In the 2010 Plan, the original preferred alignment was Bear Mt. Road. The City Council spent a lot of money, our money, on the 2010 Plan to come up with this plan, and now they are going to change it. Commissioner Kemper requestedon the Taft Highway alignment that Staff provide the location of a possible frontage road so she could visually or verbally have an idea where the frontage road would be so as to assure us that the impact on business and residences were thoroughly addressed and accounted for, and that she would also like more information on the Taft Highway as an alternative. Commissioner Sprague commented that he does not think that it was known when that property was developed that there was going to be a beltway coming through that particular area, so there was no way for the real estate community, or the City Staff, or anybody else to tell you that it was going to be there when those developments, and those vested maps were developed with developers and builders. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 9 10. ...... Chairman Tkac. commented that he_takes.these .decisions very.serio, us!y,..~.,n.d .that he has not made a decision yet. Commissioner Dhanens moved to continue this item to the March General Plan Amendment Cycle. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. PUBLIC REVIEW -Administrative Review Staff reported there were no additional comments. Jim Marino stated that he was the applicant, and had nothing to add. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to adopt the resolution making findings and determining that the proposed wall and building architectures are in substantial compliance with the approved PCD (ZC P98-0506). Seconded by Commissioner Brady. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 8.1 Revised Tentative Tract 5001 See Consent Agenda 8.2 Revised Tentative Tract 5327 See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Commissioner Sprague stated that he had a conflict of interest in this matter because he represents a client involved in this transaction. Staff reported that there is no new information since Monday, except the applicant has indicated he is working with the Public Works to resolve some conditions, and he hasn't done that tonight, and he is asking for this matter to be continued to the next meeting. Randy Bergquist with Porter-Robertson Engineering stated that they have requested a continuance because they are trying to connect with the Staff and review the conditions on the Public Works improvement side of this project, and asked for a two week continuance. Commissioner Brady made a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 10.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5920 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 10 11. 12. ~ Commissioner. Dhanens declared apreviously, statedconflict.of_.interest.. Staff report given.. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to approve and adopt a Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5920 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit 1. Commissioner Brady suggested that they include the January 4th, 1999 Memoranda from Stanley Grady, Planning Director, in that motion. Commissioner Boyle made an amended motion to incorporated the January 4th Memorandum from Stanley Grady. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. 10.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5923 (Porter-Robertson) Commissioner Sprague stated he has a conflict in this item because he represents a client involved in this transaction. Staff stated that they had nothing to add, except that on Monday Commissioner Dhanens asked a question regarding if there was a street on the eastern side of this map. The closest street was shown as adopted with the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan, and the City did adopt with its 2010 Plan. It shows this arterial is approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the subdivision, which is located in the in this area. Randy Bergquist at Porter-Robertson stated that theY reviewed the conditions and find them acceptable. Commissioner Dhanens moved to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5923 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A. Seconded by Commissioner Kemper. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE CHANGE P98-0851 (James Stockton) 'See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Staff reported that there was no new information since Monday. Roger Mclntosh with Martin Mclntosh Engineering stated that he has reviewed this proposed ordinance and he questioned the reason for, or the need for it. Mr. Mclntosh questions: 1) the ability of the City Engineer or the Planning Director to appeal a decision of the Commission, if the City Engineer and the Planning Director and Staff are already Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 11 .... involved in-that.process.why does the City. Engineer or~the_.Planning_Director.,have the 'ability to appeal an action by the Planning Commission? 2) He also questions the part that states no right of appeal to the Council from the advisory agency decision shall exist when the applicant seeks to appeal any ministerial/non-discretionary rule, policy, standard or municipal code requirement which when imposed does not involve the exercise of discretion or personal judgment. It goes on to allow the Development Services Director to review the appeal, application, and he or she shall determine whether the reasons stated therein for appeal are matters concerning any ministerial/non-discretionary policy standard or municipal code requirement. I am not sure how the Development Services Director can be aware of what all the policies are because during the day-to-day practice of processing developed lands in the subdivisions, we are constantly faced with unwritten policies, department policies, sometimes we don't even. know that they are policies unless something comes up and we are told that this is a department policy, He'questions the ability of the Development Services Director to take an appeal, withdraw ir, or not allow it, to go forward. It gives a lot of power or ability to do that, and I think that needs to be looked at closely. The rights to appeal, and what can be, and cannot be appealed, are already covered in the state 'law Subdivision Map Act. Current state law does not allow it, and I don't think a local ordinance is needed or necessary to reiterate something that's already' there. There is even some discussion in the ordinance that reiterates State law if, for example, down the road, state law changes then now you have an ordinance on the books locally, and we will be faced with trying to explain why the local ordinance is appropriate since state law has changed. Mr. Mclntosh stated he thinks the ordinance is unnecessary and the Commissioners should discuss this further or review it closer, before it is passed on to the Council. Mr. Hernandez stated that this ordinance change was initiated by Staff, the City Manager's OffiCer, and in conjunction with a recent appeal that had been brought before the City Council, where the City Council was unable to grant requests that were being appealed, and the City Council was not happy having applicants come before them, and being told that they couldn't do anything. The City Engineer and the Planning Director's power to- issue an appeal is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. The rights to appeal are covered under the Subdivision Map Act; however, that does not preclude the City from enacting an ordinance which clarifies and is consistent with the provisions of the Act, and we have made sure that those provisions are consistent with the SubdiVision Map Act. Finally, we hold public hearings for extensions of time. Public hearings are not required under the Subdivision Map Act for extensions of time, and if we hold a public hearing, we have to have an appeal right for somebody who may be adversely effected; so we wanted to clarify that in our ordinance. Commissioner Brady questioned whether the ordinance as written would provide due process as it is written, and therefore cannot support it. Mr. Grady suggested they may want to work with the language, because there are situations with respect to review of projects where we exercise this same kind of authority, and there is not a due process issue associated with it, because what we are doing, is measuring, for example, application completeness against a set of criteria. Using the words ministerial and non-discretionary makes it sound like there's going to be Minutes, PC, Thursday, Januar7 7, 1999 Parle 12 .......... some.judgment.process that is. involved .where.you go through that..Those .are just our code words to mean that if it's in the ordinance and the ordinanCe requires it, then you can't appeal it, and if we have to write the language differently and associate the guy who has the authority to tell you that differently we could do that. There are ordinance requirements that are not debatable. There is no process for doing that. You either comply with the sections in the ordinance or you don't. There's no appeal to it. Commissioner Dhanens questioned how it happens if there is a Subdivision Map Act out there, and you have subdividers appealing non-discretionary conditions to the City Council. He inquired if there were provisions within that would prevent those types of appeals frOm reaching the City Council in the first place and creating this frustration on their part. Mr. Grady,responded that you have local ordinance, Subdivision Map Act, and then you have the political process, and all three of those operate and effect decision making. The subdivision Map Act does provide some specific direction in doing things, but there are times when it is interpreted that the Council has more latitude with respect to how those things are applied. And they exercise that latitude. They exercise their political options with respect to applying these ordinances. They are equally concerned about us bringing appeals to them to conditions that put them in a position of looking like they are playing favorites when they grant it, because the ordinance says you absolutely must do this, and the applicant is wanting to appeal it. We are trying to provide clear and distinct language that indicates what is appealable and what is not. Commissioner Dhanens also questioned the inclusion of the word "policy" in section D, E and F, .020. Mr. Grady responded that this is an amendment to the Subdivision Map Act section, which under the Act has specific requirements for complying with the General Plan. The "policy" that we are referencing here may not be clearly stated that we are talking about policies of the General Plan. We're not talking about some obscure language that sits someplace on our desk. Mr. Hernandez added the response that there are some policies that would include those that are used by Public Works Department to make decisions on roads, streets, street lights, CalTrans manuals, and other policies and regulations that they use to make decisions. Commissioner Dhanens questioned why those things cannot be appealable? Mr. Hernandez responded that for example if the Public Works Department take a look at a particular subdivision and they say a read needs to go within the particular subdivision for health, safety and traffic reasons, and they make that decision based on a CalTrans manual, or some type of policy that warrants that type of road, that in my opinion would be a non-discretionary rule that they are making a decision based on non- discretionary policy or rule, and that shouldn't be appealable. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Dhanens further questioned that from a Public Works standpoint, you could have a document, or manual, or book from an architectural or planning standpoint that if planning staff were to refer to that and make a decision based on that, that's a professional judgment of whoever created that document that might be different from the professional who is submitting the application for the development plan, and if there is a difference of opinion between staff and the applicant, then maybe that is something that needs to. be heard at the City Council level and it would be appealable. Unless the CalTrans manual is adopted in the Municipal Code somehow, it seems to me that the policies are appealable issues, because they are differences of opinion between maybe professionals about planning issues, or building issues, or Public Works issues. Mr. Hernandez agreed with Commissioner Dhanens on that point where there is a difference of opinion between professionals, and where a staff has the ability to exercise discretibn. That's where discretion is involved. They have a choice as to what is applied. In many cases, for health and safety purposes, many'of the Public Works policies and regulations require that for traffic safety purposes that their decisions be based on criteria that has been established for health and safety purposes. Commissioner Boyle asked if the City Council cannot legally grant a waiver to a Municipal Code requirement. Mr. Hernandez stated that if you have a Municipal Code requirement that is generally applicable to all development, and there is no discretion granted for waiver or otherwise, that is correct. If it has been adopted by Resolution it has the legal effect of law, and in that case the City would not have the discretion to change. Commissioner Boyle commented that if it is illegal for the City to grant a waiver, then he agrees 100% that there is no reason the City' Council should have these items on their Agenda, and the trouble is when the applicant comes up and pays his filing fee, it's a clerk. They have no idea. Their job is to accept the application, and it's accepted, and then somebody hirer up says you can't appeal that; that's a Municipal Code requirement. He thinks it makes a lot of sense to give someone the authority to take it off the Agenda, notify the applicant why it's taken off and if they disagree that it's a Municipal Code requirement I suppose they can always file a Writ of Mandate. On things that may be policies, other than General Plan policies, or rules that have not been adopted by resolutions where the City Council has the discretion to grant a waiver, even though it may not be a good idea, and even though it may open them up to potential liability, I think they ought to have the right to ask the City Council to do it. Ms. Shaw commented that from a Public Works standpoint, if it is a decision that requires engineering decision that a political body made of non-engineers, if it is an engineering decision, I do not feel that the City Council has the authority to overrule that. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 7, 1999 Page 14 13. 14. .... Commissioner..Sprague thanked Mr. Mclntosh for bringing this issuebefo.r.e, the ....... commission. He feels this is another layer of bureaucracy that we add to already troublesome policy, and gives a planning director the power to say "yes,' or "no." He agrees that this hinders due process for making appeals, and thinks this is unnecessary. Mr. Grady stated that he has no interest in exercising Gestapo tactics. We are talking about one aspect of the decision making process that we present to you. That is the Subdivision Map Act, and not effecting a whole lot of other decisions. The Subdivision Map Act is a more particular process. We need an ordinance that clarifies what the appeals process is. Maybe the language needs to be re-evaluated. -Mr. Hernandez stated that they don't have a concern with due process, because they are talking about the lack of success of something brought by appeal or writ of mandate and would not place the City with any liability exposure, because you cannot appeal something, or seek a writ of mandate of something that is required by law. If the City Council is required to impose, or the Planning Commission required to impose a certain condition, and you have no discretion to change it, then there is no court in this state that is going to get you to do otherwise. He sees no due process problem. Section 16.52.020.d and .e regarding rules, policy and standards might be able to be narrowed to state "Municipal Codes and Resolutions". Commissioner Brady recommended that staff clean it up so it is clear as to exactly what will be ruled on in this process. Commissioner Dhanens questioned whether the Commission treed to apply engineer standards that they should not be. Staff had no comment. Commissioner Boyle stated that he does support the ordinance, and would give staff the option to reword the language. If the Council can't change the standard then there's no need for an appeal. Mr. Grady asked that this be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Brady moved that this be continued to the next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner BoYle. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING See Consent Agenda coMMUNICATIONS .Mr. GradY stated that they may not have a meeting for the second meeting in February. Minutes, PC, Thursday, Januar~ 7, 1999 Page 15 16. 17. COMMISSlONCOMMENTS None. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING Mr. Grady mentioned that there are 7 items scheduled for the next meeting along with the two items that were continued tonight. It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on January 18, 1999. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. February 16, 1999 Planning 'Director