Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Tuesday, May 30, 2000 - '12:15 p.m. Thursday, June 1, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A 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. AL/ 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 $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Monday - May 30, 2000 and Thursday - June 1, 2000 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. 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 4) - Minutes of May 1 and May 4, 2000, Planning Commission meetings. Agenda Item 9 - Consistency Finding for the vacation of 20-foot wide sewer lift station access easement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held May 1 and May 4, 2000. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 2000-2005 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CON:::ilSTENCY (City-wide) (Ward 3) WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) RECOMMENDATION: Find consistent with General and Specific Plans GROUP VOTE: PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5989 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 24 lots on 4.7 net acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). Located on the south side of Cesar Chavez School, at the northeast corner of Chase Avenue and Mesa Marin Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group Vote. Vesting Tentative Tract Map' 5991 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 86 lots on 46.82 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a modification to exceed the maximum block length. Located 1/4 mile south of Olive Drive on the north side of Hageman Road (extended) approximately 2/3 of a mile west of Highway 99. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Monday - May 30, 2000 and Thursday - June 1, 2000 Page 3 (Ward4) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (Ward 5) (Ward 5) (Ward 5) Group Vote. 6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5996 (Mclntosh and Associates) Containing six lots on 1.82 acres for multiple family residential purposes (six, 4-unit apartments (total of 24 units)), zoned C-O (Professional and Administrative Office; a request to reduce the lot frontage, and approval of access. Located on the southeast corner of Ardmore Avenue and Wheelan Court. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group Vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGES 7.1) Zone Change P00-0285 (Timeless Architecture) Change in land use zoning from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling).zone to an R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church) zone on approximately one acre to allow development of church related uses to an existing church located on property adjacent to the south. Located at the southwest corner of El Rio Drive and Quailwood Drive, north of Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. 7.2) Revised PCD Zone Change P99-0911 (Cornerstone Engineering) Change in land use zoning from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone to a Revised PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 10.1 acres for the Bakersfield Heart Hospital to allow a helicopter landing pad (helistop); revised footprint of the two- story, 40,000 square foot hospital wing; and a three-story, 38,416 square foot medical office building. Located at 3001 Sillect Avenue (south side of Sillect Avenue, east of Buck Owens Blvd.). (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Monday - May 30, 2000 and Thursday - June 1, 2000 Page (All Wards) 10. 11. 12. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCF Amendment to the text of Title 16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of th~- Bakersfield Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) Update the subdivision ordinance to reflect changesin the Subdivision Map Act and formalization of local implementation policy. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll Call Vote. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCy FINDING The vacation of the 20-foot wide sewer lift station access easement and portion of the city lift station parcel at the northeast corner of Ming Avenue and Grand Lakes Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: MAKE FINDING Group Vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENT~ A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 13. May 17, 2000 THE NEXT PRE-MEETING ADJOURNMENT Held June 1, 2000 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERs: Present: Absent: City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE MATHEW BRADY JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney 'STEVE WALKER, Traffic Engineer Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JENNIE ENG, AsSociate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 4) - Minutes of May 1 and May 4, 2000, Planning Commission meetings. Agenda Item 9 - Consistency Finding for the vacation of 20-foot wide sewer lift station access easement. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page 2 = APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 1 and May 4, 2000. See Consent Agenda. 5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 2000-2005 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (City-wide) Ted Wright, Engineer IV with the Public Works Department, gave a detailed presentation recommending a finding of consistency with General and Specific Plans be made. Commissioner Sprague asked about an acquisition of land in the southeast portion of Bakersfield. Commissioner Sprague wanted to know if the land had been identified and what the acreage is? John Stinson, Assistant City Manager, said they have not identified a specific parcel at this time. It may be related to development around the convention center to provide additional parking. Commissioner Sprague asked if this money is to be used for eminent domain, condemnation purposes? Mr. Stinson said there is no eminent domain restriction on CDBG money that he is aware of. Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Sprague asked if it were going to be used for parking? Mr. Stinson said it could be used for that but there is no purpose identified at this time. Mr. Stinson said it is being used for Economic Development depending on what type of project may come about in that area that qualifies for CDBG funds. There is no specific project identified at this point in time. Commissioner Sprague asked if it was all city money or if CalTrans, Kern Cog state money was involved in constructing the Hageman Road flyway into 99 at $5,710,000. Mr. Wright said that right now the city is the only one spending money on it through the PSR process as well as the project report and environmental document phase. It could be funded through RIP funds which is through Kern Cog and it could be funded through TDF impact funds. Mr. Wright said there are several funding sources but CalTrans will look at it more seriously when we can show the plan is ready to go. Commissioner S~3rague asked Mr. Wright if as development occurs along the Hageman corridor flyway, if the developer will pay proportionate traffic impact fees to assist in the development of Hageman along the adjacent properties? Mr. Wright said that builders pay regional impact fees when there is a building permit for a house so this project is on the list of those that would be funded from those fees. Commissioner Sprague asked about traffic signal Coordination and specifically about "H" Street. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, stated that "H" Street is coordinated at certain times of the day. You will never have a time without stopping at least once. Coordination will always fail when you have a heavy concentration of traffic. It is a goal but not easily obtained. Commissioner Boyle mentioned that he noticed the proposed budget for Recreation and Parks a year ago. was only $236,000 and next years budget proposes $5 million dollars. Commissioner Boyle asked how we can go from a $200,000 budget to a $5 million dollar budget? Mr. Wright said that over $3 million dollars is for an aquatic Minutes, PC, Thumday, June 1,.2000 Parle 3 center that the Parks Department would like to see constructed. Mr. Stinson said that the Recreation and Parks Department last year created a master plan for recreation and park facilities and they also did a survey in the community for recreation and park -needs and one of the big things that came out as a result of that was the need for additional aquatics facilities. In addition to that the State passed Proposition 12 which provides some funding and we are still in the process of seeing what kind of funding we will be 'able to get from them for these types of projects. There is an opportunity for some significant improvement over what we have done in the past. commissioner Boyle asked about the process for prioritizing projects such as signal lights? Mr. Wright said that the Traffic Department maintains a priority listing of signals throughout the city and they use that in the CIP budget. Mr. Walker said they maintain a list of warranted signal locations. Some of them they are able to do right away because funding is available and some have to wait for future years. They can move up and change funding position from year to year. They reevaluate the priorities on a quarterly basis that can change their recommendation or the funds available for different projects may change which ones get built in a certain year. They try to do the ones that have the highest need such as an accident problem or high volume or a school situation nearby. Its just a guess what is going to happen in future years but gives them an idea of how much money they can predict will be available. Commissioner Sprague said that he noticed under capital improvement programs that White Lane at 99 is programed to get a widening which is really needed to assist traffic flow but the initial studying and consulting services contract happens in 2001 and 2002 so does that mean construction won't occur until 2002 and 2003? Mr. Wright said that is the currently projected schedule. Commissioner Sprague said they are getting ready to do a very expensive traffic study on freeway systems and he was wondering if some of the consulting money could be be utilized out of the RFP to facilitate the White Lane project. Mr. Wright said that the work getting ready to get started through Kern COG is a PSR phase so it wouldn't benefit from the traffic study funds. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wright if the railroad helps pay for the upgrade on the crossings and installation of warning devices and crossing guards such as the one at Old River Road and Mountain Vista? Mr. Wright said "no" they do not. The City has to get their permission to make the upgrades. Commissioner Dhanens asked how the general plan/circulation element describes Hageman at its termination points and its connection to Freeway 99. Mr. Walker said that is' part of the general plan circulation element showing Hageman Road, but there is no Specific plan that shows how a connection to or from Highway 99 would be within the general plan. That is something that will come out of the area-wide metropolitan study. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to make a finding that the Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 2000-2005 is consistent with the general and specific plans. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5989 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report given recommending approval with Conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened..No one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist, representing Porter-Robertson, said that they have reviewed the staff report and aCcept all the conditions with the exception of Public Works Item No. 1. He would like to make a few modifications to that. His recommendation is that right after Breckenridge Planned Drainage area, they add "and/or the approved drainage study for Section 20." He would also like one other change in the last sentence to read "... existing interim non-standard · drainage retention area shall be removed." Mr. Bergquist said they are all -standard and he would like to add "...shall be removed if no longer needed." Public portion of the meeting was closed. COmmissioner Kemper aSked staff for a comment regarding Mr. Bergquist's request. Mr. Walker said they had discussed this late this afternoon with the applicant and concur with the proposed changes in the Public Works condition. Commissioner. Boyle asked if that since this is adjacent to the Mesa Marin Raceway if noise will be a problem? He remembered that on a prior project special modifications for sound had to be made on the walls of the houses and wondered if this was a part of an ordinance? Mr. Grady said that there a~e some standard requirements for meeting the 65 CNEL but he is not aware of any special conditions applied to a previous subdivision where they had to do something exceeding that for the wall design. Commissioner Boyle said that he recalls that in the first phase of houses that were built out there, they put special sound insulation in the walls. Mr. Grady said that according to the Building Director, there is no special requirements for this area. Commissioner Boyle asked what the noise level is when they are racing. Mr. Grady said that at one · time a' noise study was done, but since it was not in front of him he could not tell him what the contour is and what the decibels are for the different contours off- site. There is variations in how the contours move off the site based on wind speed and the time of day and what type of event in going on. There was a requirement that bleachers be built on the east end of the facility so that it would not exceed the City's noise standards. Commissioner Boyle asked when the overhead utility line would be put underground? Mr. Grady said that there are some voltage levels that are under grounded within the subdivision. PG&E has funding that they can set aside to underground other utilities that are not within the boundaries of the subdivisiOn but there are no requirements for the high voltage lines in the towers to be underground. Mr. Grady said that if they are within the interior of a subdivision, they will be undergrounded. If they are along an arterial, the schedule is up to PG&E as to when they will be undergrounded. Commissioner McGinnis asked the applicant if he knew whether or not a disclosure was made to new home buyers as to Mesa Marin and the noise levels? Mr. Bergquist said he did not know the answer to that question. He thought the bleachers that were built had eliminated the noise problem. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map 5989 with the'findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with one modification to Public Works Condition No. 1 that the second line after the phrase "Breckenridge Planned Drainage Area..." that we add "and/or approved drainage study for Section 20" and at the end of the paragraph in Condition No. 1 add in the phrase "..., if no longer needed." Motion carried. 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5991 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, representing Porter-Robertson, said they had reviewed the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval. pUblic portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mohawk Street is deleted north of Hageman from an arterial, does it still become Mohawk Street as a collector so that Lombardi Street would then run into that street or does it become something else? Commissioner Sprague wanted to know what kind of road went along the east side of the subdivision? Mr. Grady said that the map on the board behind the Commission shows the project as it will come to them on June 15. The area in yelloW is .the area of the general plan amendment that is between the map they have now and the alignment of Mohawk. Should Mohawk be deleted, the street to the east (Knudsen or Landco) would be the east boundary so there would not be a Mohawk aligned street if Mohawk is deleted. The R-1 property would then be available for the developer to subdivide and match this subdivision or provide a different kind of street lot layout. If Mohawk is not deleted, then Mohawk would continue on the alignment as shown on the subdivision. The plotting option the developer has is the one that was provided in the conceptual lot layout in response to Commissioner's Dhanens Monday request. Commissioner Sprague then asked if Mohawk is not deleted then there would be an intersection at the Hageman flyway but it would go up to Victor Street and since Victor Street is not wide enough to continue on with a wide arterial into Olive, it would narrow down at that point and would be as a collector and would it be a smaller type street? Mr. Grady said he is not sure what the designation would be but he knows the width available for a street that would continue on is not wide enough to accommodate an arterial so the road would narrow down and he is not sure if the designation would be a modified collector or a straight collector street. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mohawk is not deleted within that portion, what provisions along the east line of the proposed subdivision and new lot layout they received today would be made for buffer between the M-1 property to the east and the M-2 and M-3 property? Mr. Grady said that if Mohawk remains, Mohawk would be the buffer as well as the standard arterial wall and landscape plan that would go along Mohawk between Hageman and where it meets the subdivision to the north. Commissioner Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 · Page 6 Sprague asked if the Commission could require additional and more mature landscaping or greenbelting along the corridor to give the I:{-1 additional buffering? Mr. Grady said "no" because you can only apply the rules-on the books at the time the map was deemed complete and there is no requirements for additional landscaping along the collector. Commissioner Sprague asked about an answer from his Monday question about high and Iow pressure gas lines on the property. Mr. Grady said there is agas line on the property but not a high pressure one. There is an oil line that is on-site that will be abandoned. Mr. Robertson said that as of the record and physical evidence on-site there are no high pressure gas lines in the vicinity of this tract map. All existing oil wells, gas lines and natural gas produced by the oil wells .will be abandoned during the develoPment of this project. Commissioner Sprague asked about the safety issues regarding the propane tank storage to the east and if they were to blow which way they would blow? Mr. Robertson said that he cannot answer the question. The direction of shrapnel - what height and what direction - when it explodes depends on the time of day and when it explodes. Mr. Robertson said that when this project was started there were several intense meetings with all the industrial users in this vicinity and city staff. The project has gone from over 500 acres to 170 -acres. Many of the industrial users stepped forward and purchased property to provide buffer zones of over % mile. Commissioner Boyle asked why this project was not heard at the time of the EIR on the 15 th of June? Mr. Grady said because this project has all of its entitlements. Commissioner Dhanens mentioned that at the Monday pre-meeting he had some concerns about the extent of the subdivision as it was originally presented. The issue of the Mohawk alignment was still yet undecided and he knew the staff report commented that the proposed subdivision adequately addressed each case and he appreciates the applicant's and staff's response in the form of the drawing they presented to the Commission and he is now satisfied that should the Mohawk alignment remain after the general plan amendment that the subdivision would stand on its own and be reasonably platted. Commissioner Dhanens also mentioned that he noticed that staff recommended that the subdivider pay in-lieu fees for park land development but there is also a sentence in the analysis section that says the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has had some discussions with the applicant with respect to provisions of park land and he asked Mr. Robertson for a brief summary of what direction those discussions were heading in and whether they are pertinent to this subdivision or would the in-lieu fees be adequate for this subdivision? Mr. Robertson said they are satisfied with the in-lieu park fee requirement although there are on-going discussions with .North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District about providing some additional park facilities outside of this area to the south and to the east. Commissioner Sprague asked if the applicant has conducted any meetings with Beardsley and Fruitvale School Districts and whether they had come to some conclusions as what the needs of the residents and children would be? Have Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page 7 6.3) they agreed to anything or are they just going to pay school fees in regards to SB 50 when they draw permits? Mr. Robertson said they had met numerous times with Ken Chapman of the Beardsley School District and there was some discussion about a possible school site in this area. They brought in some consultants from Sacramento to help them analyze the site due to the industrial uses around there and' came to the conclusion that a school site is not suitable aroUnd there from not only the industrial uses but it is within the sphere of influence of the airport. So, at this point in time, there is no school site in the project and they will pay in-lieu fees. Commissioner Sprague said that he is not happy with putting residential in against industrial and heavy industrial. Commissioner Sprague thinks there is going to have to be some kind of buffer zone between when the property to the east is developed into an industrial park. To protect the safety and welfare of this residential subdivision, it is just a factor that doesn't feel right. Mr. Robertson said that if the application for the property to the east is not approved by the Commission on June 15, there will be plenty of buffer segregated by a collector with landscaping. Motion Was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approved Tentative Tract Map 5991 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5996 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Mr. Grady said that the applicant has withdrawn his request to reduce the lot frontage and staff's response is contained in Condition No. 12 in the conditions of approval. Mr. Grady also said the Commission has a memorandum with a modification to Public Works condition and the notation to Condition No. 2 is incorrect. The notation should read Condition No. 1. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Mclntosh Associates, said that they concur with the staff report and conditions and he is here to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public pOrtion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked if Fire Marshal Shapazian had looked at the . turning radius in the alley? Mr. Shapazian said that they have no problem with access adjacent to the alley. The dimensions were 23 and 24 feet, respectively, and there is no problem with the Fire Department. Commissioner Sprague also asked about a typo that was in Exhibit "A" and wondered if staff had corrected it? Mr. Grady said that it has been noted and would be corrected in the resolution. Minutes, PCi Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle asked why this was done through the conditional use 'permit process instead of a zone change? Mr. Grady said that the general plan has policies that provide for locating residential in commercial as an in-fill. .Typically staff would have preferred to see the property zoned but the option of a CUP was available for the applicant and the applicant chose to go the route of a CUP. If the CUP had not prevailed, the next optiOn would have been to go for the R-2 zoning. It was more expedient for the applicant. Commissioner Boyle 'asked what happens in the future if the applicant chooses to use it for commercial purposes as opposed to use it as an apartment building? Mr. Grady said that it would be inconsistent with the CUP. Commissioner Boyle asked if the owner of the property could terminate the CUP without the city's consent? Mr. Grady said "no" he would have to come in and have the CUP changed.. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the negative declaration, approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5996 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" and per staff memorandum dated May 23, 2000. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS -ZONE CHANGES 7.1) Zone Change P00-0285 (Timeless Architecture) (Ward 5) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public .portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Jeff Williams, representing Westside Church of Christ, stated they had reviewed the staff report and concur with the findings and conditions therein.. Public portion of the meeting was cl°sed. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to apprOve and adopt Zone Change P00-0285 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A." Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Tkac 7.2) Revised PCD Zone Change P99-0911(Cornerstone Engineering) (Ward 5 Commissioner Dhanens stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance until the June 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Page 9 Public portion of the meeting was opened. Dennis Fox said that one thing he would like to see in the staff report under a health and safety issue is that the distance from helipads to any structures and/or power lines should be looked at. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper tOcontinue this item until the. June 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. = PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCF Amendment to the text of Title 16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfiel,~ Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) (All Wards) Staff report given recOmmending adopting the ordinance and approving amendments attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Roger Mclntosh spoke addressing Section 16.16.030 F specifically as it pertains to electronic data. Mr. Mclntosh said the wording in the proposed ordinance amendment is different than the original proposal that he saw a month ago. Mr. Mclntosh said, the reasoning behind submitting electronic data does not make sense to him. He said that in accordance with State law a set of plans, map or report, has to have a signature and a seal. Submitting an electronic document does not comply with State law, it does not give you an electronic signature which is not allowed in the State of California. Mr. Mclntosh said that he supports the requirement for showing bearings and distances. A clarification is not a problem. But to allow the submittal of electronic data to satisfy that requirement is not satisfying that requirement as not everyone has the ability to read the electronic data. Mr. Mclntosh said that he noticed in the clarification it says that "information will be used to provide more accurate growth projections, provide cumulative impact analysis, now accomplished through labor-intensive hand calculations and provide development statistics requested by marketing firms and currently unavailable." Mr. Mclntosh said that what disturbs him is that the electronic information is not always the final product. It is not their work product. It is only a means to get to that work product and the tentative map is not always the final mapthat gets recorded with the recorders office. Once the electronic data is in the city's hands, it becomes public information that .is released to anyone. Mr. Mclntosh requested that the sentence "submittal of electronic data may satisfy the requirement for providing bearing and distances and such data shall be used for informational purposes only" be stricken. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Boyle said that he was having a problem understanding the first sentence that says "submittal of electronic data may satisfy the requirement for bearings and distance" and the next sentence, the first clause that says "submittal of electronic data may satisfy the requirement for providing for bearings and distance." It seems redundant to him and wanted staff to explain the difference between the two. Mr. Hernandez said that he agrees with Commissioner Boyle analysis and said there is no .intent for the two clauses to have different meanings. He said that unless Public Works and/or Planning has a different purpose for the two sentences, he thinks the last sentenCe could be eliminated. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, June 1, 2000 Page CommiSsioner Boyle asked if Public Works had a comment. Mr. Grady said that they are checking the case file to see if there is a clerical error or if there is something missing in the language between our office and the City Attorney's office. They should have an answer in a few minutes. Roger Mclntosh said that he meant to say that the last two sentences should be deleted. They both are unnecessary and do not meet the requirements of State law. Mr. Grady said they could not find anything to clarify this. It appears the sentence was written twice with a different ending. He made a suggestion to continue this item to a later meeting. The Public Works Department is really concerned about this and unfortunately staff from the department in engineering and subdivision were unable to attend tonight's.meeting. Ms. Shaw could clarify the difference. Commissioner Boyle said that until he understands what they are trying to do, he has a problem including either sentence. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the Planning Department would like electronic files or is it primarily a Public Works requirement? Mr. Grady said that both departments would use the information. It will be helpful with GIS and save staff time. Commissioner Dhanens asked how staff is going to track the maps through the system electronically so that whatever changes are made on the final map will be captured? Mr. Grady said that typically we would get both, a hard copy and an electronic file. We would take a disk and map and make sure they are the same. The hard copy of the map is still the legal document that is recorded. Mr. Hernandez said he had an answer to the problem now and there is an additional clause that is contained in Section I that is a typographical error. The sentence reads "sUbmittal of electronic data may satisfy the requirement for bearings and distances." That should be stricken. The last sentence should remain. Commissioner Boyle asked if the electronic data is being submitted to satisfy the requirement, then why can it only be used for informational purposes? Why can't it be used for all purposes? Mr. Hernandez said that he believed the "informational purposes only" was to try to appease concerns that the data might be used for any other purpose other than for the city's GIS system. Commissioner Boyle asked if that is the case then why not just ask for both an electronic file and a map and still have the bearings and distances on the map itself? Mr. Hernandez said he wasn't sure what the Public Works Department has in mind. It might not meet their needs. Mr. Hernandez said that he thinks the item should be continued until Ms. Shaw can attend so that she maY explain why they want the electronic data. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to continue the item to the June 15, 2000 meeting and place it at.the front of the agenda. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING The vacation of the 20-foot wide sewer lift station access easement and portion of the city lift station parcel at the northeast corner of Ming Avenue and Grand Lakes Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward4) Minutes, PC, Thursday, Jun® 1, 2000 Page 11 See Consent Agenda. 10. COMMUNICATIONS. Stanley Grady announced to the Commission that the Planning Commission meetings would be broadcasted live after the start of the fiscal year and he has scheduled a media workshop for July 6, 2000, where staff will be acquainting the Commission with the timing of the meeting and going over some procedures. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner Boyle said that at the League of California Cities meeting last month he learned that one of the ordinances that one of the cities has developed was a requirement that every time a developer opens a trench for any reason that ~hey insert several extra conduits into the trench. The conduits are then deeded over to the city and over a pe?iod of time, the city develops a series of conduits that are already in place that the city can then lease or sell out to future technology. Commissioner Boyle wondered if our city has given any thought to that? Mr. Grady said that he is not familiar with that but he can pose the question to Public Works and have a response for him at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Sprague requested Public Works send him a copy of the final South Beltway Map so that he can get a good line of what was finally ended up with? He said the media is reporting a different version than what he thought was approved. Commissioner Sprague said he also attended the business conference in Monterey and requested business cards for the Planning Commissioners so they may have them to give out when they are asked for them. Mr. Grady said "yes" we would order some. Commissioner Sprague also requested a joint City/County Planning Commission workshop so that items of continuity could be discussed and also discussion could be started on the East Beltway and North Beltway issues. Commissioner Sprague said that he would like to see this happen within the next three months if possible. Mr. Grady said that through the Chairman the Commission should send some correspondence to the City Council to find out if that is something the Council wants the Commission to do. It is not a minor undertaking. Commissioner Sprague asked Chairman Dhanens if the Commission could direct a memo to the City Council to entertain the idea of joint meetings with the County Planning Commission regarding issues of continuity between city/county codes and beltway issues? Commissioner Dhanens said he thinks it is worth a try and he would like to suggest to Commissioner Sprague to draft a letter to the Council. Mr. Grady said the letter should be drafted to the liaison Council member and he would find out who that is. Mr. Grady also said that the Commission should know in advance what they wanted to meet with them about so that they would have a heads up as to what the agenda would be so that they could respond to the specific items the Commission wants to discuss. Commissioner Sprague asked the name of the Council member who is the liaison with the Planning Commission be faxed or mailed to him so that he could prepare a draft letter. CommissiOner Dhanens asked Steve Walker if he would provide copies of the final South Beltway map to all of the Commissioners instead of just Commissioner Sprague. Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 1, 2000 Parle 12 Commissioner Boyle suggested that they set an agenda item so that the whole Commission could discuss what should be put in the letter to the liaison. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commissioners would submit ideas to him for the letter that Commissioner Dhanens submits to the liaison. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if they scheduled this for the July 6 meeting, how many days in advance would staff need to have the information together? Mr. Grady said that since it is a workshop item, 10 days would be enough. Commissioner Dhanens said that if the Commissioners have any ideas to submit to Commissioner ' Sprague, please do.so by the June 15 meeting. They would at least be on the table for discussion whether ornot they were put in the final draft. Carl Hernandez said he Wanted to make sure the Commission understands that they cannot have communication with each other discussing matters of public interest and reaching consensus on those as that is a violation of the Brown Act. If they are going to submit ideas about what they want on an agenda it would be more appropriate to submit them to the Planning Director and then discuss them at the meeting. Commissioner Sprague asked if the ideas would come back under the Commissioner Comments section at the end of the Planning Commission meeting for review of the . items so that the letter could be constructed? Mr. Hernandez said that they would come to Mr. Grady and he would agenize it as an Action Item. Mr. Grady said that what the Commission would be giving him is the items they want to discuss to become content of the letter and the agenda item would be for review of the items and to approve them for the letter to be drafted. 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Due to general plan amendments being heard at the next meeting, It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on June 12, 2000. 13. ADJOURNMENT. There being' no further business to come before the Commission, .the meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. June 21,2000 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary