Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2 2004- 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer Absent: Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the proposed sale of surplus property located on the northwest corner of Waldorf Way and Pavilion Drive. (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve the non- public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 6000 "Optional Design" (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approve continuance to October 7, 2004 of Street Name Change From G Street To BHS Way (Steven Maxwell) (Ward 2) 4.2c Approve Tentative Parcel Map 10928 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. Mr. Grady said he had a letter from the applicant wishing to continue item 4.2c until October 7, 2004. The motion would be for a continuance — not approval. No one spoke either for or against the projects. Public portion of the hearing closed on item 4.2a. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. Minutes, PC, September 2, 2004 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING — STREET NAME CHANGE FROM G STREET TO BHS WAY (Steven Maxwell) (Ward 2) See Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Parcel Map 10928 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5982 (San Joaquin Eng) (Ward 3) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval, including a memorandum from Ms. Shaw dated September 2, 2004, and the conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Brett Dawson, representing the applicant, said they are in agreement with the conditions and he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve and adopt the negative declaration, approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5982 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and also incorporating the memo dated May 27, 2004 referencing to Tract 5982 by Marian Shaw and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6348 (Delmarter and Deifel) (Ward 5) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Wayne Deifel, representing the applicant, said they are in agreement with the conditions and he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Ellison asked what is involved in converting apartments to condominiums? Mr. Grady said he doesn't know what happens after it leaves our office except that the Department of Real Estate gets involved. The subdivision map act that we handle is actually creating the lot that would facilitate the condominium conversion in that portion of the subdivision map act. Mr. Grady said he would look it up and provide the answer at a later date. Commissioner Ellison Minutes, PC, September 2, 2004 Page 3 said he would do his own research on that matter. Commissioner Gay asked if they evaluate the parking before it goes to a condominium to make sure it meets code? Mr. Grady said that since this is an existing project and no existing conditions are being changed it is not a requirement of this parcel map that additional parking be added or change the site plan in any way. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve and adopt the negative declaration, approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6348 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac 8. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady said he provided the Commission a letter that staff had received from the Air Pollution Control District confirming that the methodology that was used by a consultant that does credit the reduction in ag emissions is acceptable to them. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: • Discussion and possible action regarding agricultural issues and general plan amendments. Mr. Grady explained this is a follow-up to the discussion the Commission was having as to how they determine whether properties are being premature in their conversion of ag land and what kinds of additional information does staff need to provide them to help the Commission understand the recommendations staff is making when we have ag land conversion. Commissioner Ellison said he would like the Planning Department to provide a conceptual urban growth boundary for the Commission's consensus that "maybe we really shouldn't try to fill in at a certain point." Commissioner Tragish said that we need to narrow down what Mr. Grady wants. Commissioner Tragish then reiterated Commissioner Ellison's comment by saying that Commissioner Ellison would like to have some type of presentation showing the future development that is on the table for the area of Panama Lane east to west and any other areas on the outskirts of the city where the development is moving so the Commission can get an idea of the trend. Commissioner Lomas said she understands that the Supervisors directed their staff to perform a study of the impact to surrounding farms when you rezone a property for development. They were asking specifically for feedback from staff on requiring the developer to provide the buffer zone. Commissioner Lomas said that was about a month and a half ago and she would like to know if staff came back with anything. It is potentially impacting neighboring farms and she is very interested in requiring the developer to provide those buffer zones. She would appreciate Minutes, PC, September 2, 2004 Page 4 some feedback as to what the county is doing. Mr. Grady said he would look into that and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Gay asked what the city's philosophy is? He understands it to be to develop those areas within the 2010 boundary. Commissioner Tragish responded by saying his understanding is that he doesn't think we are looking for philosophy per se. He thinks that what Commissioner Ellison's idea is that when applying the existing ordinances and general plan he wants to have a better idea of what is being developed on the fringes — west, east, south and maybe north of Bakersfield. Our job is to apply to what is out there. It is difficult to tell when you see something for the first time on one small map without knowing the whole picture in the area. Mr. Grady said we have a general plan and what we have from the Commission is that they take issue with the policies in the general plan. It is clearly stated that we have a metropolitan planning boundary and it is clearly stated in our policies that we intend to grow within that metropolitan planning boundary. Mr. Grady said he thought that the Commission may want to get a perspective on what is really going on with ag land as it gets converted for urban uses in a metro plan area and Kern County. The net result is there are years where there is no net loss in ag land even with the conversion because new ag land is added in. If you look at the ag land map that identifies prime ag land in metropolitan Bakersfield, all the land in southwest Bakersfield until you get to Taft Highway is considered prime ag land. There is no way you can grow in the metropolitan area without developing on land identified by the state as prime ag land. We look at whether or not it is concentric growth and all this growth is adjacent to, across the street from, in the immediate path of development. We don't have urban growth boundaries and if the Commission wants urban growth boundaries they need to talk to their Council person about that. Those issues were all discussed and dismissed as part of the policies for the general plan. Mr. Grady said that if the Commission wants to understand how ag land fits into the growth and development of the future of Bakersfield, staff can provide them with that information. If they want to establish new policy precedents that aren't supported by the general plan, they need to talk to their Council people. Commissioner Gay said he would like to know why the land is being developed, whether it is because the farmer has retired or not? Commissioner Ellison said that he could use some help in how to evaluate the bullet points under General Plan Policy Number 14 under Conservation/Soils and Agriculture. He needs help in understanding the "demonstrate project need." Commissioner Ellison would like the Planning Department's perspective on when the need of the project persuades or convinces the Commission to convert the ag land. Commissioner Blockley said it might be nice to have a refresher course in urban service boundaries where we have a sphere of influence showing where we are going to grow to. Commissioner Spencer said he would also agree with Commissioner Ellison comments on agricultural development. Specifically, the goals of the general plan, Policy Number 14 that gives us a reason to evaluate lands. He stated he has a hard justifying to his self and to the other Commissioners whether or not it is infill. Its only infill on paper, but not on the land itself. We recently had some property south of Snow Road and the Commission recommended disapproval for fragmentation of some existing ag land. It was then overturned by Council even though there was no development around. Then four months later we come in with a request for another piece of land and it is considered infill. Commissioner Tragish said his position on this area is that people can read the law and ordinances differently. He thinks it is an issue of how they are reading and interpreting the Minutes, PC, September 2, 2004 Page 5 policies of the general plan pertaining to ag, soils and conservation. He thinks some of the Commissioners read it one way and others another. He doesn't disagree with Mr. Grady's comments. It just depends on how you read and how you apply the policies. Other than going through the policies one by one explaining to the Commission what they mean and how they are supposed to be applied, he doesn't think another presentation will do any good. Commissioner Tragish requested that when they make presentations on the ag projects, they get more of a wider map showing the area to a greater extent. 10. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director September 28, 2004