Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-07 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING KERN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 2007 1. Pledge of Allegiance Roll call:County: 2. Present: Mr. Sprague, Ms. Wayne, Mr. Belluomini, Ms. Babcock, Mr. James, Ms. Oviate, Mr. Divelbisc Absent: Ms. Pitts City: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Tragish 3. Opening Remarks by Chair Peter Belluomini: None other than this meeting is an introduction and a meeting of information from staff. 4. Opening Remarks by Chair Barbara Lomas: Chairman Lomas _____ inaudible….. 5. Public Statements: David Dominguez from Chumash Council of Bakersfield thanked them for allowing attendance. He stated his concern is how the City and the County is going to address cultural resources and making them better, and having policies addressed and having better affluent talks to make sure that their concerns are addressed, and to even allow some education to go on as far as Senate Bill 18 is concerned. He stated that he thinks communication needs to be a little bit more brought up, and would like to see more talking going on. 6. Business Items: A. Joint Workshop – Metropolitan General Plan Update: Mr. James explained that Staff would be making a Power Point presentation to set the stage for the duties in subsequent meetings. He stated this is an effort to the Metropolitan General Plan. He identified the Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 2 project team as Laurlyle Oviat with the County will be the project manager, Jim Movius with the City of Bakersfield, Jim Eggert with the City of Bakersfield and Karen Northcutt, a private consultant, will be assisting both the County and City. Mr. James pointed out that Vision 20/20, represented by Sheryl Barbich, will be involved in this program. He also pointed out that the Kern Council of Governments is a partner in this program as well and that there will be a project consultant, but that individual has not been selected as of today. Jim Movius explained the purpose of the update, pointing out that the General Plan is at the top of the hierarchy providing the community’s development goals and policies, as well as being the foundation for land use decisions that are made by the Planning Commission, County Council and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Movius explained that there are seven required elements of the GP and the ones that get the most attention are the land use and circulation elements, and the other elements are more of a support role but are important conservation deals with agricultural uses, open space policies. He stated that the housing element is a specialized element and is on a separate tract and needs to be approved according to State regulations by June 2008, and will not be under consideration at this time, but will be under a separate tract. He explained that additional elements include public service and facility elements and the Kern River Plan element. He said the GP was last updated in 2002 and there were more than 33 miles of trails planned along the Kern River. He stated that the planning area is 408 sq. miles which is a large planning area, and right now there is 121 sq. miles, of which 30% of that is within the City of Bakersfield, and the city’s sphere of influence of 308 sq. miles in size which is 75% of that planning area. Mr. Movius stated that the value of joint planning provides for open communication between agencies. He stated there is a lot of consistency between development standards, but there are some inconsistencies, and they are looking at the best way to do things to bring it to consistent developmental policies. They also have consistent mitigation strategies whether in the County of City, concerning habitat and transportation. Another value to joint planning is consistent inventories of what they have and what they’re planning for, as well as infrastructure planning. Mr. Movius commented there is some cost sharing. 2 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Movius showed a map of what the County and City have right now as far as different land use classifications. They are also concerned with the experience on the ground concerning pedestrian activity, mixed uses, etc. Mr. Movius further commented that they are adding about 14,000 people a year, and developing about three sq. miles a year. He stated that the density is about 2,500 persons per square mile, and they are looking at possible ways to increase that densification and ways to encourage that. Since the last GP update in 2002, they have issued 17,000 single family building permits. They figure they will reach their population goals before they thought they would reach them because of the recent growth, and it is expected to reach a population of 500,000 people by 2020. Mr. Movius commented that one value of the GP is the CEQA document, which is a master look at all of the environmental impacts of build out of the planning area, or expected growth within the planning area. He stated that many goals and policies have been implemented and they are realizing what is working and what is not. He stated that the objectives of the GP is to provide guidelines for decisions effecting the character of the future land uses in the GP area, by providing an official statement of the community’s physical development, as well as economic, social, environmental and quality of life issues. The GP allows any member of the community to know what is expected of their government and developers. The GP is a document that can be used in both jurisdictions as a shared document for consistent implementation. Karen Northcutt discussed about the process and project schedule. She stated that they are estimating that to get through the EIR review and adoption process will take between 18 and 24 months. She stated that are starting one of four phases, which are not linear as things will be happening in phase two while things in phase one are going on. She commented that they divided the work effort into four general phases so that it’s grouping the type of activities. Ms. Northcutt explained that phase one is the report card of where they are today. She stated they are going to start it with a series of public community workshops which will be held during the month of May. She stated that Vision 20/20 will be facilitating that series of workshops because of their previous success in that effort back before the previous GP was adopted. She stated also in these May meetings they will be 3 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 4 looking at where they want to be in the future for the remaining 25% land area in metro Bakersfield that has not been developed. Ms. Northcutt stated that the time frame for phase one is about six months, but also during that time they will have started the GP document preparation so the consultant will be able to take information from the initial series of workshops and developing goals, objectives, policies and new changes to the text of the GP, and will also be helping to develop the land use alternatives. She indicated that phase two is preparing the draft General Plan Update, and that will involve meetings with joint bodies and will verify the communication that has been provided and the direction given by the public. She indicate that the culmination of phase two will be a draft General Plan which will be used for the CEQA process, and after the entire CEQA process it will be adopted through a hearing, and throughout this process the public will be able to participate and the Planning Commissioner jointly will have an opportunity to participate as well. Ms. Northcutt stated that the CEQA process is a time consuming component. She said there will be a scoping meeting during the preparation process, and then there will be an adequacy hearing which will be another opportunity for the public to participate and will be held during the time that the draft EIR and draft GP is out for the 45 day review. She also stated that the public will have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIR and draft GP update, and then the staff and consultant team will review the comments, make changes to the EIR and draft GP and that will be the document that is forwarded to the PC and County Planning for adoption. She concluded by stating that the City Council and Board of Supervisors will have their own separation adoption process. Mr. James pointed out that attorney Bruce Stibelbeiss with the County is present, as well as attorney Bob Sherfy with the City. Mr. James explained the roll of the Planning Commissions. He stated as they go forward they want to provide sufficient opportunities for public input. He stated in addition to the joint meetings there will be four community workshops that will be scheduled. Sheryl Barbich with Vision 20/20 stated it is very important to continue the visioning of the community. They will continue to solicit comments, and prioritize the concerns of the citizens. 4 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 5 Mr. James indicated that as their consultant comes on board they will be able to do better scheduling and make it available on the website. Public comments now taken, Julie Culfers, Senior Health Education Specialist for HealthNet and chair of Get Moving Kern. She stated that Get Moving Kern is a community coalition that has a vision that Kern County will be a community that embraces healthy eating and active living. She stated that the city and county have an opportunity to make this vision a reality through this update. Louise Brewer, registered nurse at CCI, stated she sees too many blocked cells where there’s too many prisoners who are competing for space, and when the city and county look at the values of protecting the environment, community values, regional strategy, and conservation they should look at the disappearance of orchards where FHA are effected. She would like the planners to take into consideration the people around the surrounding area that still want to live that kind of lifestyle so that there can be a happy environment between city and rural. Public comments concluded at this time. The meeting was opened for commissioner comments. Mr. Sprague commented that there was no mention made of LAFCO, and thinks it would be interesting to see their comments so they can see the sphere of influence and where projections are going, and let the public know where the transportation issues stand. Mr. Sprague mentioned that he thinks they should take into account what other cities have done in regards to new types of suburbanism and walkable communities. Commissioner Wayne welcomed the City Planning Commissioners. She commented that one reason the initial Vision 20/20 was so successful is because the city council representative and the member of the Board of Supervisors for each of those areas was present to kick off the meeting, and she would like to see invitations go out to each of the policymakers and each of the commissioners so that they can be present and be involved. She commented that there are only four scheduled, and there are five supervisorial districts, with seven wards, and inquired how they were selected and is there an opportunity to add more. Mr. James(??) responded that they were selected because of the four quadrants of the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. He stated that if they need amend their process to create other forums they are cognizant of that and will respond. He stated that Ms. Wayne’s comments about making sure the 5 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 6 policymakers are aware of the forums is a good one, and they will make sure that each of the City Councilpersons, as well as the Board of Supervisors are aware of those. He stated that their intent is to widely use the media as well. Commissioner Wayne inquired if there is a group that is watching tonight, or reads about this, and wants to have an opportunity to have input, other than the website, is it a possibility that they could call for a meeting, or will they be restricted to the four. Mr. James responded that if there is a group that would like staff to come and talk with them, and solicit comment they will respond to that. Commissioner Johnson thanked both the city and county for facilitating this meeting, and also thanked those from the community who spoke. Commissioner Tkac reiterated what he has heard over his nine years on the City PC as concerns from the community. He stated that he wants to keep this a business friendly community. He stated there is a lot of controversy about traffic, and the pollution, and he hopes that they are able to sufficiently take funds from federal and/or state to help our community with pollution. He stated that moving our traffic would help the pollution issues. He commented the process and time it took to get Seventh Standard Road approved took a ridiculous amount of time. He said that beltways and traffic will make this a much nicer place. He said that he thinks we have some sprawl and need to look at more infill. He suggested maybe giving incentives for the infill. Commissioner Tkac stated we need to keep industry here, and some of the plans can push away business. He suggested that perhaps since the Sierra Club is getting some money that perhaps they could subside the solar panels. He stated that they need to make decisions about eminent domain to move our roads because our pollution problem is going to get worse, and our population is going to get worse unless we address these things. Commissioner Tkac further commented that he has also heard about trails and the river and keeping our trees. He stated with regard to agriculture, no farmer in their right mind wants to sell their property unless they are getting a better price for it than they are for the product they are selling. He stated that he would like to keep the farm land as well, but it is up to the individual farmer as to whether he wants to make a profit. He stated that they also hear that nobody wants to pay more taxes. Commissioner Tkac further pointed out that Sheryl Barbich is a tireless champion and a cute cheerleader for our town. 6 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Spencer stated he helped make the first General Plan. He stated his areas of concerns are including an ag boundary between urban uses and farming uses. He stated he wants them to get down on the circulation element, and do not come up with a firm agenda as to where it’s going to be located. He reiterated establishing the sphere of influence that does not necessitate urban development, but rather protect urban development from occurring unnecessarily without urban services first. Commissioner Spencer stated that he would like staff on both sides to be concerned as to whom they have as a consultant for this project so that the consultant is very familiar with Kern County and the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Blockley congratulated the staff for taking this on. He stated he feels this will be a real benefit to our community. He commented that land use will address sprawl as well as circulation, and the cost involved. He further said that open space addresses sprawl, and preserving ag land issue will also be addressed in this element. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to get together with a more united approach, and while talking is a good place to start, action is what needs to be done as one group/body. Mr. Babcock stated his sentiments are echoed. He stated that of the seven required elements, in his mind, the circulation is the most important for this county and city. He stated that Kern County has been behind for years with the inability to fund. He stated that while there are funds set aside for parks, there is no money to maintain them. He commented that the challenge is funding mechanisms. Mr. Babcock encouraged residents to talk to their local leaders, business people, and hopefully have some workshops that parallel this plan in ways that rethink how they are going to fund these programs. Mr. Babcock stated that with regard to ag conversion a person has the right to do what they want with their properties, and possibly with the ethanol plants there will be more economical value to farming, as well as assist in our pollution issues. Mr. Babcock stated that more sewer is vitally important. 7. Closing Comments by Chair Peter Belluomini: Mr. Belluomini echoed previous comments. Mr. James commented that attached to the agenda is the upcoming community workshops that will begin in May. 7 Special Joint Meeting – April 9, 2007 Page 8 8. Closing Comments by Chair Barbara Lomas Commissioner Lomas thanked county staff and the commissioners. She encouraged the public to become involved. 9. Adjournment: Commissioner Lomas asked for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adjourn. Motion carried by group vote. Commissioner McGinnis moved to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by group vote. Meeting adjourned at 6:52pm. JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director June 15, 2007 8