HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/00 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Council Chamber, City Hall
Thursday, May 4, 2000
5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman
MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman
STEPHEN BOYLE
MA THEW BRAD Y
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
TOM MCGINNIS
RON SPRAGUE
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.
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK
REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL
OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S
CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE
MEETING.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl
Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and TentatiVe
Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be
issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of
appeal.
Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to
the City Council, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
93301. A $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appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the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withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Thursday - May 4, 2000
Page ?
(Ward 6)
(Ward 6)
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) Agenda Item
3.2) Agenda Item
3.3) Agenda Item
3.4) Agenda Item
3.5) Agenda Item
3.6) Agenda Item
3.7) Agenda Item
3.8) Agenda Item
3.9)
3.10)
3.11)
3.12)
4) - Minutes of April 6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.
6.1) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5846 Phase B.
6.2) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5846 Phase C.
6.3) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5848 Phase E.
6.4) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5848 Phase F.
6.5) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5684 Phase 1.
6.6) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5684 Phase 2.
6.7) - EOT-Vesting Rights Parcel Map 10403.
Agenda Item 7) - EOT for Vesting TT 5848 (Revised) Phases G, H & I.
Agenda Item 8) - Administrative Review on PCD.
Agenda Item 12.a)- General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of
land to extend Ohio Drive.
Agenda Item 12.b) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition
of property for the Kern River Freeway right-of-way.
APPROVAL OF. MINUTES
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 6, 2000.
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VlCE-CHAIRPERSOP
The Commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson whose terms
of office shall continue until April 30, 2001.
EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS
6.1)
6.2)
Tract 5846 Phase B (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.)
Located on the southwest corner of Harris and Ashe Roads.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Group Vote.
Tract 5846 Phase C (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.)
Located on the southwest corner of Harris and Ashe Roads.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Group Vote.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 4, 2000 Page 3
(Ward
(Ward
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
7.
(Ward
6.3)
6.4)
6.6)
6.6)
6.7)
Tract 6848 Phase E (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.)
Located on the southeast corner of Old River Road and Campus Park.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Group Vote.
Tract 6848 Phase F (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.)
Located on the southeast corner of Old River Road and Campus Park.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Group Vote.
Tract 6684 Phase I (Carriage Homes)
Located on the south side of Palm Avenue, east of Jewetta Avenue:
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Group Vote.
Tract 5684 Phase 2 (Carriage Homes)
Located on the south side of Palm Avenue, east of Jewetta Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Group Vote.
Parcel Map 10403 (Castle and Cooke, CA Inc.)
Located on the northwest corner of Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Group Vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Vesting Tentative Tract 5848
(Revised) Phases G, H & I (Castle and Cooke, CA Inc.) consisting of 81 lots on
16 acres, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone, located near the
northeast corner of Pacheco Road and Old River Road. (Negative Declaration
on file)
RECOMMENI~ATION:
Approve
Group Vot®.
Agenda, PC, Thursday- May 4, 2000 Page 4
(Ward 7)
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from Planning Director on P.C.D.
(Planned-Commercial Development) Plan ModifiCation.
The report documents the Director's approval of a minor modification to the
P.C.D. relocation of the building pad 54.5 feet south from originally approved
location. Site located at the northeast corner of Panama Lane and Fortune '
Street. (Pursuant to B.MC. Section 17.54.100 D.) (Categorically Exempt)
RECOMMENDATION:
Group Vote.
Accept Report as Filed
PUBLIC HEARING - Revocation of a Waiver of Direct Access to Ashe Road
(Ward 6)
10.
(All Wards)
11.
(Ward 4)
and Change in Common Access Covenant for Parcel Map 9233 (DeWalt
Corp.) generally located on the northwest corner of Ashe Road and District
Blvd. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION: Deny
Group Vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
Amendment to the text of Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) Significant changes concern the
definition of family, day care homes, and residential facilities, and their use in
residential zones; the use and placement of accessory buildings and structures;
allowing the Development Services Director discretion to require landscapiqg or
a wall and landscaping between residential uses and commercial/industrial
development when separated by a street; and changes to signs for nonprofit
organizations. The remaining amendments concern general ordinance cleanup
measures that clarify ordinance regulations, and either update or remove
section references that are incorrect as a result of previous amendments,
located city wide. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Roll Call Vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0482.
The public hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact Report will be focused on
the objectivity and adequacy of the Draft EIR in discussing potential impacts
upon the environment; ways in which adverse effects might be mitigated with
'the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.)
Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 4, 2000 Page 5
12.
(Ward 1)
(Ward 4)
13.
14.
15.
16.
May 1, 2000
RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments from the public
Roll Call Vote.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
12.a) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of land by the City
of Bakersfield to extend Ohio Drive generally located south of Freeway
· 58, west of Madison Street. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding
Group Vote.
12.b) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of property for Kern
River Freeway right-of-way alignment purposes located south of
Johnson Road and north of Stockdale Highway, between Renfro Road
and Rider Street. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding
Group Vote.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
B) '- Verbal
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A) Committees
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF
THE NEXT PRE'MEETING.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Director
Held
May 4, 2000
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chamber, City Hall
'1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson
MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson
STEPHEN BOYLE
MATHEW BRADY
TOM MCGINNIS
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
RON SPRAGUE
ADVISORY MEMBERS:
Present:
CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney
JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director
MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV
STAFF:
Present:
STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director
MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner
JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner
JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner
JAKE SWEENY, Associate Planner
PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary
2. ' -PUBLIC STATEMENTS
.None
Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal
Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, and Boyle announced that they were not present at
Monday's pre-meeting but had listened to a tape of the meeting and were prepared to
participate in tonight's meeting.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
page ?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
3.1)'
3.2)
3.3)
3.4)
3.5)
3.6)
3.7)
3.8)
3.9)
3.10)
3.11)
3.12)
Agenda
Agenda
Agenda Item 6.2)
Agenda Item 6.3)
Agenda Item 6.4)
Agenda Item 6.5)
Agenda Item 6.6)
Item 4) - Minutes of April 6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.
Item 6.1) - EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5846 Phase B.
- EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5846 Phase C.
- EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5848 Phase E.
- EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5848 Phase F.
- EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5684 Phase 1.
- EOT-Vesting Rights Tract 5684 Phase 2.
Agenda Item 6.7) - EOT-Vesting Rights Parcel Map 10403.
Agenda Item 7) - EOT for Vesting TT 5848 (Revised) Phases G, H & I.
Agenda Item 8) - Administrative Review on PCD.
Agenda Item 12.a)- General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of land to
extend Ohio Drive.
Agenda Item 12.b) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of
property for the Kern River Freeway right-of-way.
Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to
approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minuteS of the regular meeting held April 6, 2000.
See Consent Agenda.
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSOP
Commissioner Brady nominated Commissioner Dhanens to be the next Chairman.
Commissioner Sprague seconded the nomination. Commissioner Brady made a
motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague to close the nominations. Motion carried.
Commissioner Dhanens was elected Chairman until April 30, 2001, by unanimous vote.
Commissioner Sprague nominated Commissioner Brady as Vice-Chairman.
Commissioner Brady declined the nomination because of his work schedule.
Commissioner McGinnis made a motion to elect Commissioner Boyle as Vice-
Chairman. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper,
to close nominations. Motion carried. Commissioner Sprague made a motion to elect
Commissioner Boyle as Vice-Chairman. Motion carried. Commissioner Boyle was
elected Vice-Chairman until April 30, 2001, by unanimous vote.
A two minute break Was taken while the Commission switched seats.
EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS
6.1) Tract 5846 Phase B (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward6)
See Consent Agenda.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 3
6.2) Tract 5846 Phase C (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward6)
See Consent Agenda.
6.3) Tract 5848 Phase E (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward6)
See Consent Agenda.
6.4) Tract 5848 Phase F (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward 6)
See Consent Agenda.
6.5) Tract 5684 Phase 1 (Carriage Homes) (Ward4)
See COnsent Agenda. '
6.6) Tract 5684 Phase 2 (Carriage Homes) (ward4)
See Consent Agenda.
6.7) Parcel Map 10403 (Castle and Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward4)
"See Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Vesting Tentative Tract 584R
(Revised) Phases G, H & I (Castle and Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward6)
See Consent Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from Planning Director on P.C.D. (Planne,
Commercial Development) Plan Modification. (Ward 7)
See Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - Revocation of a Waiver of Direct Access to Ashe Road and
Change in Common Access Covenant for Parcel Map 9233 (DeWalt Corp.)
(Ward 6)
Staff report recommending approval with conditions was giVen. The access to Ashe
Road has been dropped and the applicant is now requesting just the easements to be
swapped.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Jeff Gutierrez, representing DeWalt Corp., stated that he was present to answer any
questions the Commission might have.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 4
10.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sprague stated that his questions from Monday have been sufficiently
answered and he now supports the project at this time.
There were no other Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Kemper, made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to
approve P00-0221 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and
on the memorandum dated May 4, 2000. Motion was carried by group vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCF
Amendment to the text of Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code (City of Bakersfield) (A//Wards)
Staff report given recommending the Commission approve the amendment.
Public portion of the hearing was oPened. No one spoke for or against the ordinance.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Kemper said that she wanted to see how the other Commissioners felt
about the"non-profit special event signs" on Page 7, Section 46.6.b. The ordinance
states that only four signs would be allowed for each event. CommisSioner Kemper
thinks it is unrealistic and would make extra work for whoever would have to "police" the
issue. Commissioner Kemper recommends that the amount be doubled or tripled to
make it a more realistic number.
Commissioner Brady asked staff how the maximum of five was decided for charitable
events? Some organizations put on events all the time and would this limit them to five
a year and asked how we were going to keep track of them. Jim Eggert, Principal
Planner, stated that the Building Department has them computerized. Commissioner
Brady asked if there is a mechanism where a group could come in and have additional
events? Mr. Eggert said "no" not under the code but if the Commission desires to have
more events, they can make the recommendation tonight. Commissioner Brady said
that without some mechaniSm to get around the limit of five, he would have difficulty
with this section.
Commissioner Tkac asked if this ordinance gets abused that bad? Mr. Eggert said
"no" that it is generally the location of the signs rather than the group. Commissioner
Tkac asked if we have someone who actually goes out and Counts these? Mr. Eggert
said not unless we have a complaint that someone has exceeded the number. It is on
a complaint basis. Almost all of the organizations are cooperative about moving the
signs or removing the signs when told there were too many. Commissioner Tkac said
that he wouldn't have a problem with doubling the amount allowed.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 5
Commissioner Brady asked if this ordinance applies to Church's on-site signs? Mr.
Eggert Said "no" it does not.
Commissioner Brady commented that on Page 6 of the staff report the language used
under B and C under.."minimum distance" seems awkward to him. Commissioner Brady
asked if there is a definition of "attached buildings." If there are two different buildings
within three feet, will they be treated as one building? Mr. Eggert said "yes." Mr.
Eggert also said that in the code, there is no definition of "attached buildings." If the
buildings are tied together with a 2 x 4, for example, they are considered attached. If
its bolted in to the wall of the other, its considered attached. The reason it is written
this way, is because we have a lot of situations where people want to have a building
close to the home and the only way it is allowed closer than the current ten feet is to
stick a 2 x 4 between the house and the structure. It is then considered attached and
they can get around the ordinance that way. Staff was trying to help out by reducing
the space between the buildings. The three foot was chosen because anything closer,
the building code kicks in for things such as separation for fire. However, we are
concerned about the amount of coverage on the lot and anything that gets close to the
home, if you get within that three foot area, for fire code and setback reasons, we are
calling it attached because we are trying to leave an adequate space between the
structures. So, even though there is not a physical attachment within the three feet, we
will call it that anyway.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he would like to put up for consideration the idea
suggested by Commissioner Kemper that we increase the number of signs for the
charitable from four to at least eight.
Commissioner Tkac said that he would support that.
Commissioner Brady said that as the city groWs, there will be a need to increase this
and he wants to allow for that. Commissioner Brady recommended that they add a
condition that the limitations set forth in this section may be appealed to the
Development Services Director to increase signage or events. Mr. Grady said if that is
their proposal, they can include it in the ordinance. The Development Services Director
is the high ranking official over Building and Planning who could rule over that.
Commissioner Brady asked if it would be more appropriate for the Planning Director
than the Development Services Director? Mr. Grady said his boss said "no."
Commissioner Kemper asked Commissioner Brady if he was also interested in
increasing the number of events from five to ten? Commissioner Brady said that at this
time, staff has indicated that there are no entities presently doing that number.
Commissioner Brady said that he is comfortable with the five as long as there is an
ability without too much problem to seek additional events.
There were no more Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Kemper, made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt
the attached resolution with all findings approving the proposed ordinance text
amendment with the inclusion of Commissioner Brady's suggestion of making the
Minutes, PC,.May 4, 2000
Page 6
11.
. appeal process available to those who want to have more signs and events and
increasing the number of off-site signs from a total of four locations to a total of eight
locations in Section 46.6.b. on Page 7. Motion was carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0482. (Ward4)
Staff recommends comments be received and referred to staff. Mr. Glen Lajoie gave
an overview of the draft EIR.
Commissioners Dhanens and Brady declared a conflict of interest. Commissioner
Dhanens turned the Chairman duties over to Commissioner Boyle for this item.
The public hearing portion of this item was opened.
Tom Fallgatter, representing Equilon, stated that they feel the EIR was done in
compliance with requirements. However, there is one issue they want to bring up.
They do not think the EIR actually dealt with the specific issue of the ultimate alignment
of Landco as it goes southerly from the project, nor do they think it needed to. Mr.
Fallgatter stated that the reason he is bringing this up now is that they would like to
participate later when the actual final alignment for Landco where Knudsen turns into
Landco is proposed. Mr. Fallgatter said they have some concern about the southerly
alignment of that. They have a tank farm.down there with a lot of chemicals in it. He
does not think the EIR intended to address that issue. They wanted to be sure that's
correct, and indicate that they'd like to be involved when that ultimately is decided.
Otherwise, they think this is a good project. As the Commission is probably aware,
Equilon has purchased a large portion of what was originally intended to be in the
project. The portion of Landco that he is referring to, at least the northerly part of the
south portion, is now in property owned by Equilon. Mr. Fallgatter said that is the
reason, or the basis, for their request to participate later.
Lorraine Unger, representing the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that
some of her comments are more to the general plan amendment. Ms. Unger said that
the Sierra Club would support a no project alternative, which would, of course, result in
no environmental impacts. It would allow the area to be developed to the maximum
density allowed under the existing use. Ms. Unger said they object to the change and
use. The proposed residential construction would be built in the midst of two refineries,
three chemical storage facilities, rail lines carrying hazardous chemicals and a.direct
line to Meadows Field. These things are all critical. Ms. Unger stated that they know
you can mitigate. There are plenty of mitigations listed in the document. One of the
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 7
things the document talks about is land use compatibility. The use of residential there
is not compatible with the heavy industrial use. This is something they have been
trying to work on in east Bakersfield in the Old Town Kern redevelopment area -
incompatible.uses. It-'s not heavy industrial. But, when you have people living right
next to areas where there are chemicals, they feel this is very dangerous and that it
cannot be adequately mitigated. There was a letter from the Kern County Fire
Department asking for a mitigation .... and agreement was made of a mitigation of
putting the residences at least 330 feet from the heavy industria! uses. This is
acceptable, except what about emergency accidental explosions? There's talk about
services and utilities. A school was originally put in this plan. Ms. Unger quoted from a
letter from the Department of Transportation of the State of California, in response to
the initial study that says, "that the northern half of the project site appears to be within
the Meadow Fields Airport Safety Zone C." Schools are prohibited in Zone C. Now that
there is no school involved in the project, there will be more residences. That's what
the document tells you. Ms. Unger said that the Sierra Club feels that there will be
people there. People generate children, so you're going to have to mitigate for the
students. The schools are already overcrowded. This is also listed in the document. If
the area is too dangerous to build a school, why would anyone want to live there? But
she feels that that portion cannot be mitigated unless we have a school and the school
is impossible. Or, maybe riot totally impossible, but more studies need to be done.
Ms. Unger said they are also concerned with the consistency with air quality. That we
all know we're not in attainment. We're in a severe non-attainment area. The level of
ROGs (reactive organic compounds) will be increased, the nitrogen - the oxides of
nitrogen cannot be mitigated. If we don't meet the air quality regulations, we might
have problems with our roads, and Ms. Unger stated that she thinks this project is a lot
about roads.
Ms. Unger stated that there is also in the document information about jobs. Potential
jobs that would be lost as a result of building the residential and commercial projection.
The EIR uses' the figure 6,390 potential jobs that would be lost if the area had been left
in heavy industrial use. Commercial facilities are quoted as bringing in 351 jobs. Ms.
Unger said that in the long run we're going to lose 6,000 potential jobs in that area.
She feels that this is an economic impact that is significant if you're going to lose that
many jobs. You can mitigate away a lot of the environmental impacts that the
document shows us, but she still thinks we have a poorly sited development.
Mr. Wally Blodgett, representing Roadway Express, which is located across the street
from the proposed change stated that they are a 24 hour a day, seven day a week
business and they have found that residential zoning tends to be non-compatible with
industrial zoning. They have found over the years that although they are good
neighbors, after a time residential use looks at their hours of operation, noise levels,
traffic levels and lighting levels as not compatible to their needs. Roadway Express is a
civic minded company. Industrial growth promotes jobs and a tax base and residential
use they feel is non-compatible.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 8
Roger Mclntosh, with Mclntosh & Associates, addressed the adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Report. In order to do that he needed to point out what appears
to be a discrepancy between the alignment of Landco Drive as the County 'recognizes
it, and as he is told, the City recognizes it. Mr. Mclntosh.stated that he has been
involved in this area and in projects in this area since the mid 80's, and is very familiar
with some of the history' on Landco Drive. He gave the Commission a list of exhibits,
along with a letter, and stated that he wanted to walk the Commission through the
chronology of how Landco got to where he and his clients believe that it should be.
Mr. Mclntosh stated that he represents all of Landco Associates. He went on to say
that in '1980 the County of Kern adopted the official plan alignment of Landco Drive
(Exhibit 1) and the Commission will see on that exhibit that Landco Drive sweeps over
.to the east as it comes up from the south, and it ties in at Olive Drive, about opposite of
the off-ramp - southbound off-ramp to 99. It is supposed to be 472.76 feet east of the
centerline intersection of Knudsen Drive. Mr. Mclntosh pointed out that this exhibit
(displayed on the overhead) shows Landco Drive tying into Knudsen. Landco as it
exists today is about 472 feet to the east.
Mr. Mclntosh said that In 1990, the 2010 Metropolitan General Plan was approved and
that apparently has with it a circulation element that was adopted that is very difficult to
read; it almost looks like Landco is suppose to tie into Knudsen. However, in 1991
there was an application that was processed by the North River Sanitation District for a
much larger area then what you see here. It actually encumbered all of the area owned
by the District at that time. The District requested changes to the specific plan
alignments to Mohawk, Which tied into Victor, Knudsen and also to Landco. And
Exhibit 3 shows the Resolution approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1991
(Resolution Number 91-317). At the time the District was requesting certain changes to
all of these alignments, but if you look on page four of that Resolution, Item Number 10,
"does hereby approve and adopt the herein above described General Plan Amendment
for Proposal M as shown above as requested except that the Landco relocation request
has been withdrawn." So in 1991, the County recognized Landco Drive as being in the
location as identified in the conceptual plan which alignment the County recognized as
being the true alignment.
Mr. Mclntosh went on to say that he wanted to talk about Exhibit 2. He couldn't find
anything, that talks about the specific plan lines, but Exhibit 2 is a copy out of the Kern
County Zoning Ordinance which states that the specific plan line means the designated
center line of any road or highway as adopted by resolution of the Board of Supervisors
from which the ultimate right-of-Way is determined in accordance with the circulation
element of the General Plan.
So in 1991, the Board of Supervisors elected not to change the alignment of Landco
Drive and they:even adopted a Monetary Mitigation Monitoring Program Number One,
which is shown as Exhibit 4. And, he was told in consultation with the County Public
Works Department, that the District was required to come back to the County and
explain to them through a revised traffic study -- how the North of the River Sanitation
District was proposing to take care of the intersections along Olive Drive. And that
specifically'is Victor Street, Knudsen Drive and Landco. Because of the problems that
are created up there because of the traffic flow, the District opted not to do that. They.
Minutes, PC, May.4, 2000
Page 9
did not follow through with this Monitoring Program, and about that time, 1992, the real
estate market started going sideways and Mr. Mclntosh was told that their buyer, or
optioner, elected not to pursue the project.
So now, Mr. Mclntosh stated, that in 1999, Mr. Carter comes along and the District on
behalf~of Kyle Carter submits an Application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (Exhibit 5), Geological Report, Archeologic Report, etc. Mr. Mclntosh stated
there is a copy of the application in his handouts and nowhere in there does it discuss
or describe any amendment to any specific plan alignments to Landco, nor any
circulation element change of Landco Drive. In fact, Mr. Mclntosh went on to say, in
that same application, you'll see a map that was produced by the District's engineer,
Boyle Engineering Corporation. And it is a copy of the property that the District owns,
and it's shown as lot line adjustment number 3-93. If you look at the lot line adjustment
exhibit map, the District acknowledged and even shows the centerline of Landco being
· in the same exact location as the adopted specific plan alignment that was adopted by
the County in 1980. That appears to be in conflict with the exhibit map shown here as
part of the application.
And to further confuse the issue, Mr. Mclntosh stated, that he included a copy of the
County's zoning map Exhibit Number 7 which shows that Landco Drive is shown as the
Specific plan line. It does tie into the Landco that exists at Olive, and he also included
a copy of the City's Zoning map which again shows Landco Drive and the City
recognizes that Landco is suppose to be tied into Olive at the existing location of
Landco. Mr. Mclntosh said that in 1997, he processed on behalf of his clients a
vesting tentative parcel map number 10422 and he included a copy of the conditions of
approval that the County placed on the developers. Mr. Mclntosh pointed out that
some of the conditions' reiterate (condition number eight) that "in accordance with
Chapters 18.50 and 18.55 of the Kern County Land Division Ordinance dedicated an
irrevocable offer to the County of Kern in the following location: "Fifty-five feet half
width of the specific plan line of Landco Drive along the west map boundary." The
parcel map, that Mr. Mclntosh processed was a 20 acre parcel (he pointed to the
location on the overhead) and stated that the developer of that 20 acre parcel is
required to dedicate a 55 foot right-of-way on Landco Drive in accordance with that
specific plan alignment. Also the developer was restricted from accessing Landco
Drive because it is known as a major highway to the County. They could not get
access to any of the parcels that fronted on Landco Drive, and actually had to bring in a
local street to make that connection and get access to the different parcels. Mr.
Mclntosh stated that he has gone over this situation with City and County staff. He was
told by County Staff that they are going to respond to the Environmental Impact Rep(~rt
and, as of a week ago, they concurred with his analysis and his position that Landco is
suppose to be about 472 feet to the east of where it is shown.
Mr. Mclntosh went on to say that he had a couple of logical thoughts that come to
mind. Why would you tie Landco Drive into Knudsen Drive if Landco already exists
some 470 feet to the east? That just doesn't make any sense. The addressing will be
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 10
off. You'll have a Landco North, a Landco South· Do you change the name to
Knudsen? Does it then change the name of Knudsen or Landco at Olive and Continue
Knudsen on to the north?
Mr. Mclntosh said that Mr. Lajoie mentioned that the overall street system has been
studied. Some of his other comments point out that the traffic study did not study the
impact of the Project on Landco Drive. In fact, it didn't even recognize that Landco
existed north of Hageman Road. Mr. Mclntosh said that he is not here to hold up the
process, but is here to suggest that there's been an error or discrepancy between City
and County jurisdiction. And, a simple solution would be to move, or leave Landco
where it is, go back and study the impacts of Landco on the intersections and on the
street segment from Hagemen north to Olive Drive and come back with some mitigation
measures. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he met with Public Works staff yesterday and he
thought that the Public Works Department was possibly going to look at how Hageman
would tie into the Landco Specific plan alignment and possibly make it work. As far as
being a local street, Landco is not recognized as a collector or an arterial and therefore
does not have to be studied. Mr. Mclntosh reminded the Commission that in the not so
Grand Canal project Colony Street was also a local street, and we had to study the
impacts on Colony and come up with mitigation measures at opening day and also in
the year 2020. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he had discussions last week and also this
week with Mr. Carter, and Mr. Carter indicated to him that he did not have a problem
with Landco Drive in either location, and Mr. Mclntosh thinks that for'the purpose of
moving the project forward it would be easier to go back and study the impacts on
Landco. He also thinks that Landco should be left where it is suppose to be where the
County recognizes it and where his clients are required to build it as a major highway
and he doesn't think that would slow the process down at all.
The public hearing portion of this item was closed.
Commissioner Sprague thanked staff for giving him the items he requested at the
Monday pre-meeting. The items were very helpful in ascertaining where things were
located .on the property. Commissioner Sprague mentioned that he has read the EIR
intently and has made two trips to the location and traversed it in all directions.
Commissioner Sprague said that he conducted a survey of the school districts and
spoke with Steve Hartsell regarding the needs for schools in the area and.discovered
that the project is not totally in the Beardsley School District, but the lower portion on
the Draft EIR is actually in Fruitvale School District, of which they did not delineate in
the EIR. Mr. Hartsell said that he would inform staff and other people about the
boundary line, and where it existed. Commissioner Sprague said that Mr. Hartsell also
talked to him about the need for additional school facilities and that the
recommendation of the applicant and of Beardsley was for a short term fix of putting in
temporary classrooms, but that evidently would not resolve the issue of schools in the
area and there's quite a bit of concern on his part regarding the needs for the impact on
those two school districts and the high school district. Commissioner Sprague said they
also had a discussion on school fees, conversion from SP50 and 2926 regarding the
$1.93 limit and the possibility of increasing those fees for R-l, with a needs analysis to
be performed by the Districts. At this point in time, as you will recall in the EIR, they
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 11
couldn't calculate what it was, and it would take time to calculate those fees for a
builder/developer to budget with. Commissioner Sprague said that he has a concern
about that.
Commissioner Sprague stated that his major concern in this is health, safety and
welfare, of not only the school issue but the residences. If we change the zone from an
industrial M-2 and M-3 to R-l, in the central portion of this industrial area, it's like mixing
cattle and sheep in the pasture. It just doesn't mix. If we change the zones and
General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Residential, he feels that down the road,
and it's still subject to discussion here by the Commissioners and hearings as we go
along, that we're going to be forcing the industrial land owners different than the
applicant to conform to R-1 standards in City Ordinances and zones which he doesn't
think they really wanted to deal with in coming into the project. Commissioner Sprague
stated that he thinks those are significant items that other property owners will have to
deal with in an industrial area.
Commissioner Sprague said that he researched mineral right holders in the area, and
their surface rights. He found there is no surface right waivers existing. They probably
would have to convert to drill islands or be forced to drill islands to drill their vested
interest rights in the area if the Commission went to R-I.
Commissioner Sprague stated the propane tanks'located to the east, which is a major
storage facility, is to him a very potential problem, and with the additives to make the
propane, the smell is much more intense and travels much further than standard
natural gas smells. Commissioner Sprague thinks that would possibly be a problem in
the residential area, too.
Based on those comments and inputs, Commissioner Sprague said he would like to
have those items considered when this is analyzed.
Commissioner Boyle said that he is concerned about the intersections at Olive Drive
with using the Landco alignment that has been brought up now by Mr. Mclntosh, as well
as the Knudsen alignment: Commissioner Boyle said that he happens to drive in the
area several times a week and it seems that the intersections there are already fairly
well impacted at the key commuter times, and he is concerned by the amount of
additional traffic. Commissioner Boyle stated that he is not sure that the Draft EIR
addressed all of his concerns regarding the amount of traffic that is generated at those
intersections
As a follow-up to the comment by Commissioner Sprague, Commissioner Boyle said
that he seems to remember a number of years ago at a public hearing in a different city
hearing testimony to the fact that if there's an explosion on propane tanks that the tank
parts will travel up to a mile in distance. And, in fact, they even talked about how the
tanks are welded so the explosion will occur in a certain direction to try and shield it
away from other buildings, etc. If that information is true, then it raises the question
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page12
12.
13.
,14.
15.
about these propane tanks as to how they were manufactured and which way an
explosion would occur. Commissioner Boyle said that he has no idea whether that
information is correct and whether or not it applies to these propane tanks but would
think that that also should be addressed if we have residential in that neighborhood.
There were no more Commissioner comments.
Mr. Grady said that staff will be accepting written comments up through May 19 and
the hearing date for the Draft EIR is set for June 15, 2000.
There were no additional comments and the meeting was turned back over to
Chairman Dhanens.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
12.a) General Plan Consistency Finding - located south of Freeway 58, west of
Madison Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Wardl)
12.b)
See Consent Agenda.
General Plan Consistency Finding - located south of Johnson Road and north
of Stockdale Highway, between Renfro Road and Rider Street. (Exempt from
CEQA) (Ward4)
See Consent Agenda.
COMMUNICATIONS.
There were no written or verbal communications.
COMMISSION COMMENTS.
Commissioner Brady publically thanked Commissioner Tkac for all of his years of
service as Chairman and wished the new Chairman and Vice-Chairman well.
Commissioner Sprague also thanked Commissioner Tkac as Chairman and Vice-
Chairman Dhanens for the way the meetings were conducted.
Commissioner Tkac said that it has been great working with everyone and appreciates
all the help he received.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT
PRE-MEETING.
It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on Tuesday, May 30, 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Minutes, PC, May 4, 2000
Page 13
16. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
May 17, 2000
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
Planning Director