Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 17, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2004- 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Blockley Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Marc Gauthier, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Wayne Clausen, Martin Ortiz, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None 4.2 Public Hearing Items - None 5. These items were heard on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes/Circulation Element Amendments continued: 6.1) General Plan Amendment 04-0468 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 3) Public hearing is opened. Staff reported that McIntosh & Associates has requested a two-week continuation to July 1, 2004. No comments made for or against staff's recommendation for a continuance. Public hearing remains opened. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Ellison to continue this hearing to July 1, 2004. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 2 ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 6.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1539 (McIntosh & Associates) (Ward 1) Public hearing opened. Staff report given, requesting incorporation of memorandums dated June 10, 14, 15 & 16 into any motion made. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates representing the applicant, Advantage Homes on behalf of Harold Tyner, stated at the pre-meeting there was a question about the location of this site in relationship to any sewage treatment plant, and he brought an aerial photograph to help explain. He stated that the distance from the northwest corner of the property to the plant is about 3,000 ft; over half a mile, and the distance to the evaporation ponds is about 2,000 feet. He further stated that this site is further away from the plant then previous applications that this applicant has brought forward. He concluded by stating he will be working with the Parks Department in placement of a park. Tom Hart, President of Advantage Homes, stated they are filling a great need in Bakersfield, and are providing affordable housing. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Ellison stated he supports this project. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested LR, (Low Density Residential) land use designation on 81+/- acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council, including the June 10th memo from Stan Grady, the June 14th memo from Stan Grady, the June 15th memo from Stan Grady, and the June 16th memo from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested R-1/ PUD (One Family Dwelling-Planned Unit Development) zone on 81+/- acres as shown on Exhibit B-2 more fully described on Exhibit B-3, including the memos from Stan Grady dated June 10th' June 14th and June 15th and the memo from Marian Shaw date June 16th, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 3 NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 6.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0266 (Ralph Abrishami) (Ward 7) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Willie Sandoval, the Principal of Golden Valley High School, stated they are located about 500 feet across Hosking, south of this development. He stated that any type of development other than single-family homes he will oppose. Carolyn Martin representing Greenfield School District, the Assistant Superintendent, believes the traffic will be a hazard. She stated they would oppose anything but residential. Jim Delmarter, representing Mr. Abrishami, stated that some of the conditions regarding spacing of the half mile between commercial location, lot depth to width are inconsistent. He stated that the half mile spacing in the city policy in effect (if it is literally interpreted) means that you would not have any commercial developments closer than a mile apart, because if you have two that are1 mile apart there's no way to put one in between, unless they're on opposite sides of the street. He stated in this particular situation, the staff report indicates that there are two commercial designated properties less than a half a mile from his property, both of which are vacant. He further stated that the length to depth ratio is a situation which exists on this property, and his client has made a very concerted effort to attempt to obtain the two adjacent parcels to the east so that he would have at least a 20 acre parcel in which he could possibly take the south half of which and make a square 10 acre development. Those potential property owners were not interested in talking about selling their property. He stated that the other potential use for this property are single-family housing or multi-family. He stated that the traffic study indicates that the peak flow of traffic in residential is 48 cars per hour in and 31 cars per hour out. He also stated that the peak flow of traffic in commercial tends to take place in the later morning hours, rather than at the eight o'clock or 7:30 hour when others are going to work and students are going to school. He stated that if this property were developed as a single family residential development there could be approximately 50 lots on the 10 acres, all of which would exit to the west onto the extended Monitor Street, which would have to be fully developed by any development. The City's trip generation is 10 trips per day per single-family residential development, and therefore 50 lots would yield 500 trips per day. He stated that the Traffic Engineer has indicated that the peak time is anywhere from 8-12%, with an average of 10% would be 50 trips per day, which is equivalent to the traffic that is indicated in the Traffic Study as the peak A.M. trips into the property. Further, the peak trips on residential takes place early in the morning when the kids are going to school so that any traffic impacts on students going to school would be greater from the single family residential use than their proposed commercial. Additionally, if this property were to be developed as a single family development knowing that the adjacent property owners would not be willing to sell, the only way the property could be developed would be with a single north-south street with cul-de-sacs on each end with a T intersection that would come out onto Monitor Street. Because of the nature of that development, and the City's requirements for landscaping and walls, there would be over 1,500 feet of block wall along Monitor Street and Hosking's Avenue, which is prime for graffiti. The schools are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of their students, and the nature of graffiti is provocative in it's nature that it in effect creates a situation that could be adverse to some students. He continued to state that with any expansion of Greenfield School District it will be required for the District to provide transition of the street improvement which will have to take place on his client's property. He stated there is no present right-of-way for those transitions to Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 4 take place. He stated that it is to the school's benefit if the commercial is allowed to be built, his client would build the other half of the street, add the frontage on Hosking, making the intersection more useable. Mr. Delmarter stated that given the recommended denial and the opposition to this project, that a PCD zoned development on the property could be an alternative, in which a specific use for the site could be shown, and the traffic impacts, driveways, parking lots and types of buildings and stores could be addressed. Mr. Abrishami, the applicant, stated they would like to bring in learning centers, health clinics, treatment centers, furniture and appliance marts, sporting goods, stationary, book, and/or drug and grocery stores if the schools are open to such ideas. He stated that they do not want to bring in any tenant which would compromise or create any danger to any of the students. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Gay confirmed with staff that if they were to change the zoning it would have to be renoticed, to which staff confirmed. Commissioner Gay stated there is a considerable amount of commercial in the vicinity, and that it probably would not be at the best health and welfare of the schools since there is existing commercial in close proximity to this project, and stated that he would vote with staff's recommendation of denial. Commissioner Ellison reiterated Commissioner Gay's comments and asked if the Commission went with a PCD if the PCD limits the type of uses that could be allowed? Staff responded that all of the various land uses would have to be listed out as per the C-2, striking out the unapproved uses, which have to be a condition of approval of the General Plan Amendment. Staff indicated that some of the uses in a C-2 zone are appliance stores, automobile accessory or part stores, automobile dealerships, billiards, bowling centers, card rooms, bingo parlor, car washes, department stores, funeral services, garages for commercial parking, hospitals, sanitarium, military surplus stores, motion picture theatres, motorcycle dealerships, nurseries, pool and spa sales, restaurants and skating rinks. Commissioner Ellison stated he would be supporting staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tragish stated that f it was strictly commercial office he might support the project but he could not support a C-2 zoning and would go along with staff's recommendation for denial. Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, in regards to staff's recommendation to approve and mitigate the Negative Declaration and disapproving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC on approximately 9 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration and disapproving the Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 5 zone change from R-1 to C-2 on approximately 9 acres as shown on Exhibit B-2, more fully described in Exhibit B-3, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 6.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0313 (M.S. Walker & Associates) (Ward 4) Public hearing opened. Staff report given, introducing memo dated June 17, 2004 at the direction of the Planning Commission on Monday. Michael Walker, owner of M.S. Walker & Associates, stated with regard to the letter sent to the Commission from the residents, the neighbors have met to discuss their concerns. The neighbors have requested that the applicant limit the height of the block wall to 9' and the applicant has agreed to this. The neighbors expressed concern about fire protection from the building that is adjacent to their block wall, and the applicant has addressed this issue and has agreed to comply with all building codes and maintain a one-hour fire rating within 10' of their property. Mr. Walker stated that the facility will have lighting which will be "minimal lighting" after hours and there will be no lights that will be shining into their backyards. The neighbors have asked that the roof on the building directly adjacent to their property be non-heat radiating into their yards, and the applicant has agreed to tilt the roof away from their yards, and to have a non-reflective roof. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Walker's comments/agreements have been memorialized into any kind of condition, to which Staff responded the following three items are not in any conditions of approval: 1) one-hour fire rating, 2) the minimal lighting; and 3) tilted roof to the north and non-reflecting. Collin Glenn, representative of the neighborhood, stated that after meeting with Mr. Walker from M.S. Walker he appreciated his input and consideration of the neighbors. He stated that he hoped there would be a clarification that because of the way this site sits and the view that the roofs are similar all the way through as they are visible. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Tkac asked if there is an easement between the south side of the houses? Staff responded that they are not aware of any easements or street that would go along the north line. Commissioner Tkac further inquired if there is any language with regard to security cameras, to which staff responded not particularly, however, this particular mini storage is going to mount them all on the buildings and will not be towers. Commissioner Tkac stated that this is probably the best use for this site. He further inquired about landscaping issues, to which staff responded that the applicant has done an excellent job. Commissioner Tkac commented on the graffiti issues. Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Gay inquired of Mr. Michael Walker, what the height of the lighting will be, to which Mr. Walker responded that all lighting and all security cameras will be below the eve height of the buildings. Commissioner Gay further inquired of Mr. Walker if it was his understanding that all the roofing be consistent per Mr. Glenn's request, to which Mr. Walker responded that the roofing will be consistent throughout the project. Commissioner Gay stated he will support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Ellison stated he is pleased to see that the hours of operation will be from 7a.m. to 7 p.m. Condition number 8 reads roof top areas of commercial buildings, office retail, restaurant, assembly, hotel, hospital, etc., an industrial building adjacent to residentially zoned property shall be completely screened by parapets or other finished architectural features constructed to a height of the highest equipment unfinished structural element, or unfinished architectural feature of the building. Commissioner Ellison inquired if it would be an appropriate area to add the condition that the roof should be tilted away from the residences on the north, and would the screening include the issue of non-reflective, to which Staff responded that Condition 8 on page 5 would be an excellent place to include it. Therefore, Commissioner Ellison recommended that the motion include on page 5, condition of approval number eight at the end of the paragraph, that the roofs slope away from the residences and that the roofs will be constructed of non-reflective material. Commissioner Ellison asked Dave Weirather, City Fire Department, if the one-hour fire rating for construction materials along the residence meets or exceeds the Fire Code, to which Mr. Weirather indicated it meets the code, and doesn't need to be in the conditions of approval as it is an enforceable standard. Commissioner Ellison stated he would be in full support with the suggested additions to conditions of approval. Commissioner Tragish stated that he concurs with Commissioners Gay, Tkac and Ellisons' comments. Staff interjected that on 6.4a two motions need to be made; the first motion written out on the recommendation which amends the General Plan, and the second motion which amends the Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan, and a third motion goes to 6.4b for the zone change. Commissioner Gay inquired with regard to the conditions of approval of the wall and roof if they would need to be incorporated into all of 6.a amendments, to which Staff responded they should be incorporated into all of the amendments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, with regard to 6.4a, moved to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment by changing the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) GC (General Commercial) on 3.71 acres, shown as Exhibit 1, and incorporating the memos dated June 14th from Stan Grady, June 17th from Stan Grady, and ask Staff to incorporate into the conditions the one-hour fire rating as requested by the adjacent neighbors, the non-reflective roof sloping away from the northerly property line, and the minimal lighting and security cameras will not exceed the eve height as stipulated by Mr. Walker, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 7 AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, with regard to 6.4a, moved to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested Amendment to the Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan changing the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 3.71 acres, shown on Exhibit 2, and incorporating the memos dated June 14th from Stan Grady, June 17th from Stan Grady, and ask Staff to incorporate into the conditions the one-hour fire rating as requested by the adjacent neighbors, the non-reflective roof sloping away from the northerly property line, and the minimal lighting and security cameras will not exceed the eve height as stipulated by Mr. Walker, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, with regard to 6.4b, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from P (Public Facilities) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on 3.71 acres, to develop a mini storage facility as shown on Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8, and incorporating the memos dated June 14th from Stan Grady, June 17th from Stan Grady, and ask Staff to incorporate into the conditions the one-hour fire rating as requested by the adjacent neighbors, the non-reflective roof sloping away from the northerly property line, and the minimal lighting and security cameras will not exceed the eve height as stipulated by Mr. Walker, and recommend the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Break taken 6.5a,b&c) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Williamson Acv Contract 04-0429 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 5) Public hearing opened. Staff report given, stating that in response to a question from the pre-meeting, he is presenting an overview of the area and sphere of influence. Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Tkac recused himself from voting due to a conflict of interest. Roger McIntosh representing Centex Homes in this application stated that there were 2 issues raised at the pre-meeting that he wanted to address, which included traffic mitigation. He stated the staff report identifies local and regional mitigation. He further stated that the other issue concerns whether or not this should be considered as part of another project which is to be heard later on in the agenda concerning prime ag land conversion. Mr. McIntosh stated this application is quite uniquely different than the later application on the agenda in that this site is currently in the city, and is surrounded on three sides with a tentative tract, final maps, houses being built, a commercial site, tentative tracts currently being built out, and other tentative tracts going on to the east. He stated the City's sphere of influence goes along Panama Lane and continues to this point and then goes south, so that everything north of Panama Lane and east of Allen Road is already within the City's sphere of influence. The other application is outside of the sphere and outside of the City, thereby making it a different application. The current site is already served by a major trunk line (Buena Vista trunk line), going right by the site providing sewer service, which goes to Plant Number 3, serving all of the southwest, as well as much of the northwest in the City, and there is capacity in that line to serve the site. He further stated that there is a 16" water line that goes down Buena Vista Road, and was extended to the Buena Vista Elementary School at the southwest corner of Panama Lane and Buena Vista about 12 years ago. Therefore, there is water to the site, there is sewer to the site, and all of the utilities are available to the site, and is a logical progression in the development of this area. He stated that this area is really not suited for agricultural purposes. Currently because of its proximity to the school, the farmer is already precluded from any aerial spraying, and as the subdivisions grow around it, he will be precluded from any spraying up away from the school as well. Therefore, it will not be utilized well as ag, and he will only be able to grow alfalfa. Further, farming operations must be somewhat of a nuisance to the school itself, and to the kids that go to school there, so this is completely different from the other application, and should not be considered together. Applicant is requesting approval. Russ Johnson, with Centex Homes, stated he is available for questions. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Gay stated he concurs with Mr. McIntosh's recommendation. Commissioner Ellison stated that he has been critical of ag land conversation in the past. He stated that he previously voted against the GPA on tract map 6320. He states that he will be supporting this project because it meets his criteria for approval. Commissioner Spencer commented that he believes in preserving ag land. He said the conversation of this prime ag land to residential is premature. However, he stated that he would probably support the recommendation on this site. Commissioner Tragish stated he agrees with Commissioner Ellison's comments, and would support this item, although he is not real crazy about converting ag land to development. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, with regard to 6.5a to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from resource intensive agriculture to low density residential on 77 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, attached to the draft Resolution, and recommending the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 9 AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Tkac Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 10 Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, with regard to 6.5b to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from agriculture to one family dwelling zone on 77 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, attached to the draft Resolution, and recommending the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Tkac Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, with regard to 6.5c to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for the project site, subject to conditions as shown on Exhibit A-2, attached to the draft Resolution, and recommending the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Tkac 6.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0431 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh and Associates, representing Castle & Cooke California, stated he wanted to address some issues from the pre-meeting. Concerning the desire to replace the multi-family that is being converted at this location to multi-family somewhere else, he stated that he has an aerial of the property. He stated they are planning in the West Ming Specific Plan to develop quite a bit of multi-family and higher density use around the intersection of White Lane and Allen Road, with mixed use and much higher density. Applicant thinks this will go a long ways to replace the loss of the HR at this current location. Concerning the issue of not allowing anything other then what is currently allowed in a CO zone under the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would not agree with the recommendation. He stated that there are some uses that might be allowed by a conditional use permit such as daycare center or eating establishment. Mr. McIntosh stated that the use, and the allowing of such a use would go a long way to keep people once they got to the site as a commercial office use from leaving the site at lunch and driving to get lunch or run errands. He stated that they are trying to create an office environment where people can come to the site and don't have to leave, and will be more pedestrian friendly cutting down on the trip and the air quality impacts. Therefore they would not agree with any language that would prohibit certain uses such as eating establishments by a use conditional permit. He stated that with regard to the square feet allowed, he stated that the Traffic Study indicates that it is 433,531 sq. ft. In conclusion, he states he has reviewed the Staff report and have received a Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 11 total of five memos, one dated June 14th, June 15th, two dated June 16th, and one dated June17th, and they agree with all of the memos except for the limitation of the uses without a conditional use permit. He stated that they have meet the neighbors and they feel they do have community support. Lorna Brumfield who lives in the neighborhood stated that she has been monitoring this piece of property since the mid 90's and she hopes this is the last time that she has to come here and speak with this subject property. She stated that she is in support of staff's recommendation and this project with the conditions that are place on it. She stated she would be against any downgrade in zoning for residential or C-1. Erin Henderson stated they have purchased a home in Brighton Place, and they inquired what the plans were for this specific area, and they were told that it would be multi-family. She stated that when they heard that Castle & Cooke intended to change to commercial zoning they were very pleased. She stated they are in favor of the zone change. Donald Houchin stated they are purchasing a home in the area, stated that he believes this proposed change will be more beneficial to the area. Steve DeBranch for Castle & Cooke stated they have met with the community and there are eight conditions that came out of that meeting. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Gay stated that he disagrees with taking high density zoning and makes single family residence because it does not meet the intent of the Housing Element to provide apartments in an area. He stated he would support recommendation for CO zoning as it appears to be acceptable to the neighbors. Commissioner Ellison inquired that at the time the swap was made at the corner of Buena Vista and Stockdale if Staff was adamant that multi family be preserved in that area, and now with Staff's recommendation, what the reason for the change is. Staff responded that the only thing that has changed over the last 120 days was the fact that Staff received a very large General Plan Amendment covering 2,200 acres within 5,000 feet (less than 1 mile) south of the project site which will have more then 100 acres of assumed multi family residential. Staff stated that they can no longer make the argument because of what is on record at their office that there will be a great deal of multi family residential density within this area. Commissioner Ellison stated that he felt multi family was best situated at Buena Vista and Stockdale and the multi family could have taken advantage of the park that would be across the street, and the location to the schools and the shopping. He stated that he sees a shell game of moving the apartments around from one spot to the next and it is very troublesome to him. He inquired if the 2000 acres coming forward in the future will be a GPA, to which Staff responded that it will be a GPA, annexation and zone change. Staff stated they believed it is 100% ag currently. Commissioner Ellison commented that the applicant is asking for approval based on good faith that there will be multi family in an area that is ag land that is going to require approval from the PC and City Council, which would be taking quite a bit for granted, and may or may not be approved. He stated that he has a hard time eliminating the multi family from an area which he feels was bargained for by the City Council. He stated that he thinks they need the multi family in this area and is not in support of this recommendation. Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 12 Commissioner Lomas stated that while she agrees a lot with what Commissioner Ellison said, her reason for denying the Stockdale and Buena Vista project wasn't so much the swap as far as it was an ideal multi family site. She stated just as important, it was the only multi family site in the entire Seven Oaks, Panama Buena Vista area. Where the site is now, that area is served by apartments. If a child was to go to Liberty or the Rosedale School District there are existing and future sites available. She stated that she hopes there can be some assurance as to future multi family. She stated that she is in favor of this project because it is putting the apartments where she thinks they shouldn't have been removed from to begin with. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks commercial is just as important as multi family, single family and to the entire mix of the City, and believes it is crucial that it be put in the right place. He stated that he thinks that there are probably many areas that will absorb multi family. He stated he believes the project is beneficial to the environment and traffic congestion. He stated that he is in support of the project. Commissioner Gay stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ellison. However, he stated that he will support the project Motion made by Commissioner Ellison to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested General Plan Amendment changing the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 19.25 acres, and HR (High Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 20.57 acres as shown on Exhibit 1, and recommending the same to City Council. No second to the motion being made, the motion fails. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Spencer, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment by changing the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 19.24 acres, and HR (High Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 20.57 acres as shown on Exhibit 1, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the June 17tH, June 14tH and June 16tH memos by Stan Grady and Marian Shaw. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioner Ellison. ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner Ellison stated that he voted no for the reasons stated earlier. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-O (Commercial and Administrative Office) on 19.24 acres, and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family) to C-O (Commercial and Administrative Office) on 20.57 acres as Exhibit 2, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the June 17th memorandum from Stan Grady, the June 14th memorandum from Stan Grady, and the June 16th memorandum from Marian Shaw. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 13 AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioner Ellison ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner Ellison stated that he voted no based on his previous comments. 6.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0441 (Lennar Bakersfield - Porter-Robertson Eng) Public hearing opened. Fred Porter, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the staff report, and they are in agreement with their recommendations. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Gay inquired about the over flight and if any stronger language other than CC&R notification is required, to which staff responded that they are of the opinion that there is no stronger language needed. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Spencer, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment by changing the land use designation from Resource Intensive Agriculture to Low Density Residential on 58.71 acres as shown on Exhibit 1, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the June 14th memo from Stan Grady, and the June 16th memo by Marian Shaw. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Spencer, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from agriculture to one family dwelling on 58.71 acres as shown on Exhibit 2, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the June 14th memo from Stan Grady, and the June 16th memo by Marian Shaw. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 14 6.8a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0435 (SmithTech, USA Inc) (Ward 5) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Bob Smith with SmithTech, USA, representing the property owner, stated he did not have the June 15th memo, and therefore it was provided by staff . He stated that they are in agreement with staff's recommendations, and conditions of approval. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spencer stated that this project lies south of the sphere of influence and is presently under intensive ag use, and is not surrounded by development to the south, east or west. He stated that at this time he cannot support a change in zoning, or the sphere of influence. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the GPA zone change 03-1528 has been approved or something is still to come forward, to which staff responded that it is still coming forward and will be by Petrini Brothers. Commissioner Ellison stated that he agrees with Commissioner Spencer and the issue with this project is ag land conversion setting up a precedent setting situation that would lead to the future conversion of ag land. He stated that in this area you have to consider the soil and assume that all the soil is prime. Commissioner Ellison cited language from the Ag Study done. He stated that he does not agree with the findings of WZI ag land conversion study, and believes that it would be a significant environmental impact from the conversion of the ag land. He stated that he will not support this project. Commissioner Gay inquired of Mr. Smith if his client is currently farming the property to which Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative, and that it is their voluntary choice to convert the property. Commissioner Gay inquired of staff if the property is subject to LAFCO annexing this property, to which staff responded in the affirmative, and that it would take one year from start to finish. LAFCO would have to agree to move the sphere of influence. He stated that since there are sewer trunks and water already in place, that this site appears to be the normal flow of where this development is going. Commissioner Gay stated that with regard to the current farming that the applicant is a farmer and it is his private property, and his right to apply for this. He stated that he will support the issue as it is in the growth that the City is going and that sphere of influence line could be moved at some point. Commissioner Lomas stated that she voted against annex 4, 5 and 6 for all of the reasons stated by Commissioners Ellison and Spencer. She inquired if the sphere of influence should not be a concern of the Commission, to which Staff responded in the affirmative because it is subject to LAFCO. Commissioner Lomas stated that if this site were contiguous to 456 she might look at it differently, but there is still a site being carved into the middle of two existing farming operations. She stated that it is her understanding that just recently the Board of Supervisors directed staff to come back to the Board of Supervisors with staff's recommendations on having the developer Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 15 provide the buffer zone instead of putting in a subdivision and having the existing farmers have to deal with it. Commissioner Lomas stated that she could vote for this if that policy was in order. She stated that to approve this site, and have the property owner to the west and to the east now have to be effected by this site she could not vote for it. Commissioner Tragish asked that with regard to the sphere of influence that there is an inference that if the Commission does not vote for this they will be jeopardizing the ability of the City to increase the sphere of influence in this area, to which staff responded that it is not correct. He stated the report indicates that proximity to non-agricultural uses as being the fact that there is an elementary school, one development within 'h mild radius. He stated that it is in proximity to non-agricultural uses even though it is across the street from Panama Lane. He stated that Panama Lane will be an arterial and will serve as a buffer. He further indicated the report states that the current development to the north is intensive parcelization to the project area. He stated there has been parcelization north of Panama Lane, but to the south of Panama Lane. The report also talked about the effect of the Williamson Act on projects located in between two non- agricultural uses. He stated that he does not see anything to substantiate this comment in the review done. The report comments on the ability to provide urban services which is substantiated by saying the project is located near to a development. Commissioner Tragish state the City will be able to provide services. The report also stated the ability to effect application of agricultural chemicals and thereby agricultural properties acknowledges that this applicant will effect now and in the future, which Commissioner Tragish believes is a reason to not vote for this. The report states that it will create precedent setting situation leading to premature prime agricultural. Commissioner Tragish indicated that it says, "Projects located in between two non-agricultural uses", and he does not believe it is located between two non- agricultural uses. Demonstrate a project need, and references the EIR for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan having a growth of almost 40,000 units between 2001 and the next 20 years. The project should be considered as a part of this projected growth. Commissioner Tragish stated that some of the comments made by the Commissioners is that it is premature. Commissioner Tragish said the next comment was on necessity of buffers such as lower densities and set back. He stated that the explanation is that it is a project located between two non-agricultural uses, and they represent high density development, and this proposed project is consistent with this use. Commissioner Tragish stated he does not agree with this as he does not see where this is sandwiched between existing density development. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is not an expert, but he does not believe that he has to be an expert to tell how a skyscraper is, and he doesn't have to be an expert to look at a map and disagree with some of the comments that are made in the report. Commissioner Tragish stated that the soil analysis is a fallacy because many of the different variations and ratings of soil are used for different types of farming. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concern is with orderly growth. He stated that he thinks that it is appropriate to have this development, but that it is not appropriate right now. He stated that there is so much land that needs to be developed that we don't have to carve up the agricultural land that is out there now. Commissioner Ellison stated that he sees the City heading towards McAllister Ranch, and not south of Panama Lane, and that until the area is filled in, he finds it hard to approve these peninsulas of ag land conversation that would set up this precedent setting situations. He stated that he is not in support. Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if they could clarify the sphere of influence of area 7 and if it is an application that the City is currently processing, to which Staff responded that it is an application that goes Tuesday night at the LAFCO Board. There are eight large areas of which Minutes, PC, June 17, 2004 Page 16 Buena Vista Ranch is area 6, and the City is asking LAFCO to expand their SOI within eight areas. Commissioner Gay stated that he will support the project. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested General Plan Amendment by changing the land use designation from R-1A (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 80+/- acres as shown on Exhibit A2, and recommending the same to City Council. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Gay, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner Gay said his reason for a no vote was stated above. Commissioner Tkac stated his reason for a no vote is because he agrees with Commissioner Gay's comments that it is inevitable. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Gauthier complimented everyone's hard work. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:' Commissioner Ellison thank Commissioner Tragish. 9. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner August 10, 2004