HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/00AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Council Chamber, City Hall
Thursday, June 15, 2000
5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
NOTE:
=
MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman
STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairman
MA THEW BRADY.
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
TOM MCGINNIS
RON SPRAGUE
JEFFREY TKAC
Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72
hours prior to the meeting. _
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA ORWISHES 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, cio 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appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the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.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 15, 2000
Page ?
-3.
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withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*)
These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of
the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The
items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special
conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on
the consent agenda.
If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off
consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be
opened and the items acted on as a group.
3.1)
3.2)
3.3)
Agenda Item 6.1 - Consistency Finding for acquisition of 23 acres
Agenda .Item 6.2 - Consistency Finding for acquisition of ~ acre
Agenda Item 7 - Revised PCD Zone Change P99-0911- Continue until July 6, 2000.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCF
Amendment to the text of Title 16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) Update the subdivision ordinance to reflect
changes in the Subdivision Map Act and formalization of local implementation policy.
(Exempt from CEQA) (Continued from June 1, 2000)
(Al~ Wards)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll Call Vote.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Kyle Carter
Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Final
EIR for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0482 which has been completed
in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield CEQA
Implementation Procedures.
(Ward 4)
RECOMMENDATION:
Roll call vote.
Approve and AdoPt resolution making findings and
recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City
Council.
Agenda, PC, Thursday-June 15,2000
Page 3
(Ward 4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS,
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS:
6.1.a) General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment File No. P99-
0482 - North of the River Sanitation District and Kyle Carter has proposed to
amend the Land Use designations from LI (Light Industrial), SI (Service
Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 64.58
acres, LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 91.84 acres and GC (General
Commercial) on 14.48 acres. Also, to amend the Circulation Element by
deleting Mohawk Street as an arterial north of Hageman Road to Olive Drive,
change Hageman Road from a collector to an arterial between Mohawk Street
and Knudsen Drive, along with modifying the alignment by swinging it to the
north a few hundred feet, and to establish a collector segment for Hageman
Road between Knudsen Drive to State Route 99/State Route 204, generally
bounded by Olive Drive on the north, State Route 99 on the east, Fruitvale
Avenue on the west and Downing Road on the south. The approval of this
project shall supercede any previous approvals done in the County, including
any specific plan line alignments. (EIR on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
(Ward 4)
6.1.b)
Zone Change P99-0482 - North of the River Sanitation District and Kyle
Carter has requested a change in zoning from an M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
zone, M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone and an M-3 (Heavy Industrial) zone to
an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone, R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone
and a C,2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 170.9 acres, generally bounded by
Olive Drive on the north, State Route 99 on the east, Fruitvale Avenue on the
west and Downing Road on the south. (EIR on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
6.2.a)
(Ward 6)
General Plan Amendment P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc. has proposed
to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density
Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 25.41 acres, located at the
northwest corner of Ashe Road and Panama Lane. (Negative Declaration on
file)
· RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 15, 2000
Page 4
6.2.b)
(Ward
Zone change P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke, CA INC has requested a change in
zoning from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to an R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) zone on 25.41 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ashe
Road and Panama Lane. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:. Approve
Roll call vote.
(Ward 4)
6.3.a)
6.3.b)
(Ward 4)
6.4.a)
(Wards 2 & 5)
6.4. b)
(Wards 2 & 5)
General Plan Amendment P00-0235 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc. has proposed
to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density
Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 8.62 acres, generally located
south of Campus Park Drive and west of Old River Road. (Negative Declaration
on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
Zone Change No. P00-0235 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc. has proposed a
change in zoning from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone to an R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) zone on 65.44 acres, located south of Campus Park Drive and
west of Old River Road to Mountain Vista Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
General Plan Amendment P00-0236 - Halferty Development company LLC
has proposed to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium
Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 5.14 acres, located along
the south side of Ming Avenue between Canter Way and Raintree Court.
(Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
Zone Change No. P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC has
proposed a change, in zoning from an R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church)
and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) zone on 5.14 acres, located along the south side of Ming Avenue
between Canter Way and Raintree Court. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June' 15, 2000
Page 5.
6.$.a)
(Ward
6.5,b)
(Ward
General Plan Amendment P00-0238 - Karpe Real Estate has proposed to
change the land.use designation from GC (General Commercial) and SR
(Suburban Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 3.6 +/-
acres, generally located along the north side of Brimhall Road approximately
600 feet east of Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
ApProve
Roll call vote.
Zone Change No. P00-0238 - Karpe Real Estate has proposed a change in
zoning from a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone and an E (Estate) zone to
an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 3.6 +/- acres, generally
located along the north side of Brimhall Road approximately 600 feet east of
Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
6.6.a)
fward 4)
General Plan Amendment P00-0253 - DeWalt Corp. has proposed to change
the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General
Commercial) on 3.93 gross acres, located on the northwest corner of Calloway
Drive and Meacham Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vOte.
6.6.b)
(Ward 4)
Zone Change No. P00-0253 - Dewalt Corp. has proposed a change in zoning
from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone to a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) zone on 3.93 gross acres, located at the northwest corner of
Calloway Drive and Meacham Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
Roll call vote.
7.
PUBLIC HEARING - Revised PCD Zone Change P99-0911(Cornerstone Engineering)
Change in land use zoning from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone to a
Revised PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 10.1 acres for the
Bakersfield Heart Hospital to allow a helicopter landing pad (helistop); revised footprint
of the two-story, 40,000 square foot hospital wing; and a three-story, 38,416 square
foot medical office building. Located at 3001 Sillect Avenue (south side of Sillect
Avenue, east of Buck Owens Blvd.). (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from
June 1, 2000)
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 15, 2000
Page 6
(Ward 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
ROll call vote.
· Continue until July 6,~2000
(Ward 3)
(Ward 2)
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
8.1)
General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of approximately 23 acres
of land by the City of Bakersfield for a fire station, park site and fUture Paladino
Drive right-of-way, located generally south of Paladino Drive, east of Morning
Drive. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Make Finding
Group Vote.
8.2)
General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of % acre of land by the
City of Bakersfield for Joshua Park, located generally north of State Route 178,
east of San Dimas Street. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Make Finding
Group Vote.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
B) Verbal
10.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A) Committees
11.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE
NEXT PRE-MEETING.
12.
June 12, 2000
ADJOURNMENT '
Planning Directo~ - ~
Held
June 15, 2000
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chamber, City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson
STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson
MATHEW BRADY
TOM MCGINNIS
MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER
RON SPRAGUE
JEFFREY TKAC
ADVISORY MEMBERS:
Present:
CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney
DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director
MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV
STAFF:
Present:
STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director
MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner
PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal
Commissioner Brady and Commissioner Tkac announced that they did not attend the
pre-meeting on Monday, however, they did listen to a tape of the meeting and will be
participating tonight.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
3.1) Agenda Item 8.1 - Consistency Finding for acquisition of 23 acres
3.2) Agenda Item 8.2 - Consistency Finding for acquisition of t/2 acre
Minutes, PC, June t5, 2000 Page 2
A motion was made by Commissioner. Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to
approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
Amendment to the text of Title 16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code (City of Bakersfield) (Exempt from CEQA) (Continued from June 1,
2000) (All Wards)
Staff report recommending approving the proposed wording as shown in the June 8
memo from the Planning Department.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh stated that he had brought up this issue at the last hearing and he has
reviewed the language as proposed and is comfortable with the change.
Public portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner Brady asked if staff wanted the information in electronic fashion to which
Mr. Grady responded that they did because it would be a cost savings to them in terms
of preparing reports, and that it could be for the engineer as well. There is a
requirement that the map be submitted in a paper format by a licensed engineer.
16.020 State Map Act specifies requirements of the form of the map. One piece of
information, the bearings, could be provided in electronic form rather than putting it in a
table on the map. All of the other required material that needs to be listed on the map
would be on the map.
Commissioner Brady inquired of Mr. Mclntosh if there was a cost factor to what he
produces in paper in electronic fashion and if they would have to go out and purchase
software to which Mr. Mclntosh responded that there is a cost factor for software
because not everyone has the same software and not everyone has electronic means
to put that information into effect.
Commissioner Brady stated that he would support the motion as is presently structured.
Commissioner Sprague stated that if the engineers do not have the electronic data
capable for submitting, they could put it in written, printed or produced on acceptable
medians similar to the paragraph prior to this and just make it more adaptable, more
legible for someone reading this code. Commissioner Sprague said that he could
support Subsection F.
Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if the bearings and distances are currently required
on the map? Mr. Grady said that they are required.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 3
Commissioner Dhanens further clarified with staff that if an engineer did not have the
electronic capability and submitted their paper map with all of the requirements that that
would satisfy all of the City's requirements as it relates to this ordinance? Mr. Grady
said "yes."
Commissioner Dhanens stated that based on the revised wording as shown in Exhibit
"A" prepared by staff he would support the motion.
Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt
Resolution approving amendment with findings set forth in the attached Resolution
incorporating the revision as shown on Planning Director's Memo dated June 8, 2000,
and recommend same to City Council with Exhibit "A."
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES None
ABSENT: None
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Kyle Carter
Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this item as well as Agenda
Items 6.1 .a and 6.1.b. The chairman duties were turned over to Vice Chairman Boyle.
Commissioner Brady also declared a conflict on interest on these items.
Staff report recommending approval of the EIR was given.
Glenn Lajoie with RBF & Associates provided a summary of the EIR.
Commissioner Boyle, acting as chairman, explained to the audience that the hearing
consists of two distinct parts. This part is the environmental impact report and whether
it is adequate in order to make the decisions which will be made later on in the evening.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke against _the project.
Roger Mclntosh, representing Olive-Landco Associates, addressed the adequacy of
the EIR and the alignment of Landco Drive. Mr. Mclntosh passed to the Commission
a letter dated today that addresses his and his clients concerns regarding the alignment
of Landco Drive. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he uncovered a copy (included in the
packet) of the Circulation Element that the County of Kern recognizes. The Circulation
Element reflects the alignment of Landco, the alignment of Knudsen which ties back
into Mohawk, and Mohawk would then tie into Victor. He also passed around to the
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 4
Commission a copy of the Resolution passed in 1991, adopted by the Board of
SuperVisors, adopting this alignment. The staff report has a discrepancy in that it
states that the alignment of Landco was never changed, and the City recognizes the
City Circulation Element and it appears that upon adoption of the 2010 Circulation
Element Landco would tie to the east into Knudsen. There appears to be a conflict
between the County and the City in the alignment of Landco Drive. Not only does the
City not recognize the alignment of Landco Drive, but it no longer recognizes Landco
Drive. Therefore, his client has no ability to obtain any right-of-way or construct and
make the connection. His client will have to go back to the County, have the County
amend the Circulation Element, or his client will have to build a major arterial alignment
in front of the property, which means they have to put in curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
Mr. Mcintosh asked that the Commissioners find the EIR inadequate and also ask that
the Commission require or request the applicant to go back and figure the problem out
and come up with a solution. The County's letter in response to the EIR report also
requests the same thing. The road department is asking for further study to try to figure
out how to make this whole area work.
Mr. Mclntosh questioned the need for a commercial site at that corner.
Mr. Mclntosh asked that the Commissioners deny the application until these issues are
resolved.
The following people spoke in favor of the project:
Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson Engineering, representing Kyle Carter and
NOR, stated that regarding Gibson Street and Landco on the east side alignment it is
outside the project and they are not proposing any type of change and would not reflect
it in their application. The alignment of Landco Drive south of Hageman Road was
originally a part of this project.
Kyle Carter stated that in their mitigation with the industrial users to the south and to the
east they did not want to have any type of residential use in that area so that's why it is
going to be commercial. They also made it commercial because of a chemical used by
one of the property owners who was not going to be able to purchase the chemical they
needed if residential was too close, even though, the Fire Department confirmed that it
was not hazardous.
Doug Delgado on behalf of Kyle Carter Homes resPonded to Mr. Mclntosh's question of
the placement of the commercial area reiterating Mr. Carter's statements.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff's responses to his Monday questions?
Question 1 was regarding the easement on Landco Drive running south from Olive and
to the Hageman Road fly way area, or further south. Mr. Grady reported that no one
has checked the easement on Landco.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 5
Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant/engineer, Robertson, if he was aware of an
easement for~the right-of-way of Landco from Olive Drive south to which Mr. Robertson
responded that that would not be within their Title Report for the project that they are
dealing with. Mr. Mclntosh indicated earlier that he has filed a map with the County
requiring an arterial alignment of Landco south of Olive Drive. Mr. Robertson is not
aware of a dedicated easement, only a dedicated specific plan line that was originally
adopted by the County.
Commissioner Sprague confirmed that Mr. Carter owns the 500 foot surface waiver on
the subject parcels.
Commissioner Sprague is looking for a green belt buffer zone from noise and other
items between the industrial and the residential, and to protect the M-l, M-2 and M-3
property owners as they are developed into commercial industrial uses for future
additional landscaping and green belt, which they may not now expect when the
development is done. He questioned the applicant if that was going to be proposed in
the future, to which the applicant responded that there has not been any proposal at
this time to do anything over and above what is currently required by the City standards
and ordinances for collectors and arterial for landscaping, which provides in itself the
buffer between residential and commercial, or residential and industrial uses.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff if it was appropriate for the Commission to
consider the landscaping and the green belt and the zone change in the EIR at this
point, or should they look at it when the subdivision map is brought before the
Commission, to which staff responded that the landscaping information is required to
be provided when an actual site plan is brought in (if the project requires a site plan
approval). Staff further commented that if there is some impact that the Commission
thinks is not mitigated with the existing ordinances, and the impacts can be identified
'and the relationship between what issues the Commission wants to prescribe as
mitigation can be identified, then the Commission can apply that now.
Commissioner Sprague inquired if a new traffic circulation element would be required
by the City to which Ms. Shaw said that she would defer to Mr. Walker but it is her
understanding that the traffic study for this EIR is based on the 170 acres not the
original 500 acres.
Commissioner Sprague's second question had to do with the location of the PG&E
towers adjacent to the residential development and whether they were collapsible or a
fall over type in the event of an earthquake, and where they are located adjacent to the '
residential?
Staff responded that PG&E was contacted and PG&E advised that there is no such
thing as a collapsible tower. The towers are designed to withstand earthquakes.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff if there will be additional buffering required by
the planning staff along corridors and the separation between all of the residential and
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 6
industrial and commercial to which staff responded that the only requirement that staff
would have would be the requirement for the wall and landscape plan that a
subdivision would have to put in, which would provide additional separation of the
property from the industrial, which would also then be separated by the arterial. There
is not currently a requirement for a different wall treatment, unless the residential is
immediately bordering the commercial or the industrial, then there is a requirement that
they place a block wall. In this case, there is the block wall, the landscape and the
arterial, and then there will be the industrial set back before the building starts. Staff
believes there is more separation between this residential and the industrial then
current situations that exist in the City today.
Commissioner Sprague inquired if the canal running through the residential portion of
the project will be going under ground, or will there just be a fencing requirement, to
Which staff responded the typical way to handle that is fencing, but the developer could
decide, at his option, to underground it. There is no indication that is the case
currently.
Commissioner Sprague further inquired what restrictions were being placed on the
mineral right holders who decide to drill additional wells or put in more tank farms
adjacent to this project, to which staff responded that they are not aware of any
additional items negotiated between Mr. Carter and the owner of the property. There is
an oil well drilling ordinance that has requirements for setbacks and development
standards in relationship to residential that would be applied at the time the individual
came in for drilling on the industrial property. Staff noted that this property is far
enough away that setbacks on the property would be minimal compared to if they were
actually wanting to drill within the subdivision.
Commissioner Sprague inquired what the set back requirement would be for the area
south of the orange parcel if the owner of the mineral rights and the land wanted to drill
in that particular block of land, to which Mr. Grady said that he would have to look at
the ordinance.
Commissioner Sprague is concerned with the opposition letters from mineral right
holders concerning their rights in the adjacent properties as it relates to the properties
presented in the EIR. He is also concerned with issues in the June 13th letter from Ted
James, Planning Director for the CountY, regarding the impacts of this development
within this zone as being incompatible land use intrusions. Mr. James has fundamental
issues of the land use compatibility and cites that there is improper circulation and
differences in the arterial and collector standards as proposed on Hageman on the fly
way.
Commissioner Sprague inquired if there were provisions in this or within the Public
Works staff for future development if Landco comes South to tie in to Hageman, and if
so, is there supposed to be a four-way stop light there, to which Ms. Shaw responded
that they have not seen any proposals for anything in that area on Landco connecting
Hageman. ..
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 7
CommisSioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if the property owners to the east in their
future developments are going to propose bringing Landco into the Hageman fly way or
whether they will come south and then west and try to tie into the Landco Knudsen
roadway to which Mr. Mclntosh responded that it is not his client's intent to construct
Landco south of their property.
Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Hernandez if the blevy lines would establish any
defense for the manufacturing property from claims by the homeowners for nuisance or
other damages, to which Mr. Hernandez responded that for CEQA purposes those lines
are sufficient for them to determine whether there is an environmental impact that
needs to be analyzed and mitigation measures adopted. Mr. Hernandez stated that for
public nuisances that Would probably serve as a defense, but for private nuisances he
is not sure.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if it was possible for the General Plan Amendment to
require the developer to include a waiver in each of the deeds out to homeowners to
the effect that they are waiving any claims to sue the adjoining manufacturing
properties for nuisance, to which Mr. Hernandez responded that it would be doubtful for
them to waive that type of public safety right, and did not believe that they could require
that kind of a condition because it would not be a legally enforceable document.
Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if there was any dispute that there is a Landco
north of the commercial project, to which she responded "no", there is no dispute.
Commissioner Boyle inquired what would happen to Landco starting at the northeast
corner of the commercial property if the project is approved, to which staff responded
that as far as the City Circulation Element is concerned, that portion of Landco on the
east side of the commercial property would be considered a local street and does not
show on the Circulation Element as either an arterial or a collector. It could be
developed as a local collector, or at whatever width they want, but it would still be
considered' a local street in accordance with the Circulation Element.
Commissioner Boyle inquired why there was a difference between what the County has
for the Circulation Element and what the City says it should be, to which staff
responded that they were not aware of the difference, and therefore cannot explain why
there is a difference.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if staff would concur that there is a difference between
the city and the county, to which Mr. Hernandez concurred that there is a discrepancy.
Mr. Hernandez stated there are issues in the June 12th letter that need to be addressed
to be clarified.
Mr. Hernandez stated that in County Resolution 91-317, which includes the pages 14-
20 -43, there is reference to Resolution 91-317 being adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors. There is the indication that Landco connects to what is existing currently,
and there is further information about Conditions of Approval that required that 55' half
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 8
width of specific plan of Landco be granted to the County. What is not contained in the
June 12th letter is the full Resolution of 91-317 by the County of Kern. At page 4,
paragraph 10, it states "This Board does hereby approve and adopt the herein
described General Plan Amendment for Proposal M as shown above as requested,
except that the Landco relocation request has been withdrawn and the Chairman of this
Board and the Clerk of this Board are authorizing a directive to certify the adoption of
the same."
Mr. Hernandez pointed out that what was being proposed, and what was Shown on
those exhibits was never adopted by the County. The County is falling back on their
official plan line which was adopted in 1980. In 1990 the City and the County adopted
the General Plan which showed Landco as it currently exists on their Circulation
Element. The 1991 Resolution never adopted Landco as it is shown in all of the
exhibits presented in the record this evening. Therefore, it is the City's position that
Landco is as it presently exists as shown in the project that is being proposed tonight,
and which is shown on the Circulation General Element as it exists today.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if they approve the project would the developer be
required to build a local collector street for Landco along the eaSt side of their property
all the way to Hageman Road to which staff responded that they do not have a specific
project, but rather they just have a zone change. Staff speculated that the developer
would probably be required to put a roadway in to connect the existing roadway to the
north to Hageman, but does not know if a local collector will be warranted.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if they could require the development of Landco along the
east side as a condition of the General Plan Map, which was responded to in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Boyle stated that his concern with the EIR is the issue of land
compatibility as to whether residential should be adjacent to manufacture/commerciah
He has a concern with the potential litigation if residential is placed this close to this
type of business. The EIR may not be adequate.
Commissioner Boyle expressed concerns with the traffic issues concerning Hageman
Road north.
Mr. Mclntosh commented that his concern is that the county is showing an alignment of
a major arterial on their Circulation Element, and his client is required to build a major
arterial along his frontage at Considerable expense. If Landco did not go through, the
value of that property has been degraded substantially, because there would be no
traffic going by it. If Landco did go through as a local street they would go back to the
county and have them amend their Circulation Element and have that condition
changed which restricted access to Landco Drive. It is not consistent and has not been
adequately addressed in the EIR or the application.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 9
commissioner Kemper commented that her concerns are similar to Commissioner
Boyle regarding Landco, and inquired that since it is something outside of the proposed
project is it something that has to be addressed in this EIR, to which staff responded
that it is not part of the proj.ect, and that there is no proposal to change the alignment
and there is no disagreement among staff as to where that road is on the Circulation
Element.
Staff stated that there is a disagreement in terms of Mr. Mclntosh's understanding of
what he believes is a location of that alignment. It's existence in the EIR was part of
the evaluation of trips based on this project, so that the traffic looked at intersections
that would be created by the road as it exists on our Circulation Element, but there is
nothing in this project that is impacting the decision with respect to where Landco is or
isn't on our map, or the county's map, it is simply being shown as it exists in the
jurisdiction that is responsible for approving the project.
Commissioner Sprague stated that there are two options: one is to approve or
disapprove the EIR; or the second would be to continue the matter and allow the
applicant to workshop with the adjacent property owners, mineral right holders, the
County, especially Mr. James in the Traffic Department on circulation and incompatible
type situations between the two zones, and then bring it back before the Commission
totally mitigated. At that point factual decisions can be made on addressing the
approval of the EIR. Commissioner Sprague said that he has not been convinced that
the EIR is adequate. He thinks that it is mixing cattle and sheep in the same pasture to
put residential against the heavy industrial the way that it is. Commissioner Sprague
said that he is not comfortable with approving the EIR tonight with these outstanding
questions and cannot support the EIR.
Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Lajoie about any cumulative effect due to a
disaster of one section that it could effect one of the other businesses in the area as
well, and then have an escalating type situation? Mr. Lajoie said that the safety
analysis conducted by the city and county considered the industrial area as a whole,
and in terms of possible risks concurrent, it is his understanding that it is a worst case
scenario that was looked at to create the absolute in terms of a buffer zone. As far as a
sequence he cannot answer. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it is a possibility? Mr.
Lajoie said the EIR did satisfactorily analyze the cumulative effect and they stand by
the worst case scenario.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of applicant if they would like to continue the EIR ~nd
attempt to work out the questions, problems and concerns or vote on it, to which Mr.
Carter responded that the issues have been more than covered, the mineral rights have
been taken care of, and the industrial user issues has been addressed by the Fire
Department using EPA guidelines to assure they are beyond that point. The worst
chemical the company has is hydrogen peroxide. There are more chemicals traveling
behind this building on the tracks that are much more toxic than are sitting at the plant,
with three different type of protections to prevent explosions and dangers. Further, the
prevailing wind blows the other way. The fumes would blow the other way. The City
ordinance currently allows M-3 property to be put next to residential. They have
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 · Page 10
designed the project to have Hageman as the buffer and the property sold to Equilon at
the south and the east they have a deed restriction and an agreement that runs with
the land with Equilon that says M-3 property is recognized and is going to be classified
as commercial property. They have kept the zoning, but they have downgraded with
deed restrictions. There is a 330 feet buffer there, not counting, however wide
Hageman is, with the landscaping and the block wall. There is also another section
behind that is another five or six hundred feet that is M-2 zone. Then there is the M-3
zone. They have more than covered themselves. They have bought all of the mineral
rights. You can have an oil well up to 100 feet of a residence. A residence can be 10
feet from an abandoned well.
Thomas Fallgatter, a representative from Equilon, commented that through a series of
meetings and negotiations Equilon purchased all of the property considered to be east
of Mohawk and south of Hageman. Mr. Fallgatter stated that during the sale to Equilon
Mr. Carter expressed concerns about potential industrial uses along the Hageman-
Mohawk area. There is a separate set of smaller parcels that have been deed
restricted at Mr. Carter's request to limit the uses that can go along there to be more
compatible with the ultimate residential development across the street. That was
something that both parties wanted and the restrictions were recorded at the tim~
Equilon purchased the property. There is adjacent property that is the lighter industrial
use, and the property that has a heavier industrial use is the heaviest industrial use that
will be there. Equilon is satisfied with the arrangements that have been made at the
private level to protect the facilities, and is in support of the project.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of Mr. Carter if he had a reply to the June 13th
correspondence from -Ted James to which Mr. Carter responded that he had not
reviewed the correspondence, and staff gave Mr. Carter a copy for his review.
Commissioner Kemper commented that the phasing east of Mohawk and south of
Hageman provides the buffer they were concerned with between the residential area.
She also commented that the adequacy of the EIR involVing the Landco issue is not
something that has to be nailed down in this EIR, and therefore she could support
approving the Ell:{, although thero aro still concerns about the projects themselves.
Commissioner Boyle inquired of Mr. Fallgatter if they are. satisfied with the liability
issues of the distance and the separation, to which Mr. Fallgatter responded that they
are satisfied to support the project. There is the potential for liability but the risk
evaluation with these changes is acceptable.
Commissioner Boyle further inquired of Mr. Fallgatter if there would be any concerns by
residential homeowners with any future expansion by Equilon to which Mr. Fallgatter
stated that they aro satisfied that probably Equilon would not be able to expand. The
acquisition was fundamentally a buffer. The concept is to eventually, probably sell ·
most of the property, maybe keeping a strip that will essentially never be developed.
They purchased as a protective buffer, and the phasing was very important to Equilon
because ultimately Equilon does expect to sell some of the property, and they want
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 11
tight controls so they don't have opposition to the existing facilities. The existing
facilities have an assessed value of approximately three hundred milliOn dollars just for
Equilon, and they did not want to jeopardize it.
Mr. Carter responded to Commissioner Sprague's question regarding the June 13th
correspondence, and stated that he does not view it as a negative letter. He views it as
Ted James speaking from a disadvantage because he does not know what has been
done in the last year on the project. When he was dealing with the county, these were
concerns, but Mr. Carter believes they have ironed those issues out since then.
Mr. Carter stated that they have provided the buffer zone, which is better than what
currently exists on the property. This all took place within the last two to three months
and Mr. James has not been privy to recent developments.
Commissioner Sprague stated his concerns about the mineral rights.have been cleared
up. He is concerned with Mr. James letter and the traffic circulation levelS and whether
or not Knudsen needs to be an arterial or collector. If there was a guarantee that
Landco would be a major street through there that would protect the road frontage on
the adjacent property owner to the east for any development that they might want to
do, he would be happier in approving the EIR.
Mr. Carter said that it was their plan to improve a street.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the issue at hand was the adequacy of the EIR and the June
8, 2000 letter, and the statements made therein are unsubstantiated opinion without
any support in fact and you have 22 pages in the EIR that deals with human health and
risk of upset. The studies that have been done and the regulations established by the
city have reduced the risks to a level of insignificance. The traffic impacts presented by
the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Nothing of substantial
evidence has been provided to contradict this other than unsubstantiated opinion. If
the Commission were to make a decision based on the comments of the June 8 letter,
a court would hold that is not substantial evidence to support the decision. If you take
the 73 pages of specific analysis that was done of the project before the Commission,
Mr. Hernandez stated that he is more than convinced that a court would hold that it is
substantial evidence to support there is no significant impacts as the project is
proposed and as the mitigation measures have been proposed and will be adopted by
the Commission. Mr. Hernandez stated that you have two paragraphs versus 73
pages of analysis.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the discrepancy issue of the alignments has nothing to do
with the EIR that's before the Commission. Landco has been studied as part of the
traffic studies that have been proposed to support the adequacy of the EIR.
Mr. Mclntosh stated the alignment of Landco does go through that commercial corner.
It cuts through the corner of the C-2 area. His evidence is the County Circulation
Element which he has to comply with when he does a traffic study. He has to take into
account Landco Drive. The inadequacy of the EIR is significant. This was not studied.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 12
Because there is a discrepancy between what the'city recognizes as the alignment of
Landco versus what the county recognizes as the alignment of Landco. He thinks that
question needs to be answered before the Commission can find the EIR an adequate
document. They need an answer to this Landco alignment issue.
Commissioner Sprague asked if staff had an opinion. He said that it appears to him
that Landco is on this property and in the EIR although staff said it isn't. Mr.
Hernandez stated that he thinks it is abundantly clear that our circulation element
shows Landco is located where it is proposed by the project proponent. That controls
every land use decision that the Commission makes. Mr. Mclntosh contends that the
maps attached are not the maps that should really be there, but that's the evidence
before the Commission. That particular alignment was never adopted and the county
recognizes that Landco is located as shown on the City's General Plan Circulation
Element Map. Commissioner Sprague asked if we have that in writing? Mr.
Hernandez said that he could get it in writing. He has spoken with their County
Counsel's office and they agree with the city's interpretation of the Landco alignment.
Mr, Carter stated that it has been their intention to develop, at least a half street, along
the east side of that piece of property. Whether Landco ties in to that at that point or it
ties into Knudsen does not matter to him. He owns the property and it benefits him
both ways. The county and city traffic engineer have agreed that it is better that
Landc0 goes into Knudsen. They will develop Landco on the east side of this piece of
property to an arterial-type street.
Commissioner BoYle inquired if they can impose a condition that the developer will be
required to build Landco in a matter that is consistent with both the city and the county
Circulation Elements, so that if, in fact, there is a dispute as to which way it has to be
done, then he will have to build it to the higher level, or work with the adjoining land
owners to change the County designation, to which Mr. Hernandez responded that is
an appropriate discussion for the general plan amendment and the zone change that
will follow this action by the Commission.
Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to accept the
EIR Resolution making CEQA findings Section 15091 and 15903 of the State CEQA
guidelines and recommending certifying of the Program Environmental Impact Report.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle
NOES None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens
A 15 minutes recess was taken.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 13
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS,
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS'
6.1.a) General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment File No. P99
0482 - North of the River Sanitation District and Kyle Carter (Ward
Combined with Agenda Items 5 and 6.1 .b.
6.1.b) Zone Change P99-0482 - North of the River Sanitation District and Kyl(,
Carter (EIR on file) (Ward4)
Combined with Agenda Items 5 and 6. la.
Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to
resolution.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following spoke in opposition.
Mr. Mclntosh, representing Olive-Landco Associates, stated that he has a
concern that there appears to have been language added into the staff report
that he does not have access to and he does not have a copy of. The language
states that if approved tonight this action would supercede any and all actions
by the County of Kern. He would like further clarification and reiterates the
discrepancy between the county's alignment of Landco and the city's alignment
of Landco. He believes that before this application is approved the Commission
has to make a consistency finding with the General Plan. He questioned which
plan has to be complied with.
Luis Woody, owner of property on the southeast end of Seven Seas Avenue
which is zoned M-3-PD. They run a well servicing business and his primary
concern is what complaints they will receive from running their 24-hour a day
operation with residential housing nearby? They have a certain amount of noise
that goes with well servicing and well servicing rigs.
Elwood Champness stated that they own-to-lease commercial and industrial
properties and these leases provide them with the majority of their income. The
properties are located on the east end of Seven Seas Avenue and are adjacent
to the proposed LMR property zone change and they have two tenants on the
property who enjoy the use that M-3 zoning allows. They have leased for 20
years to heavy manufacturing and industrial users and plan on continuing using
all of the possibilities the M-3 zoning permits to assure them of continuing
occupancy. The present tenants serve the oil and drilling industry on a 24-hour
basis. The company that is the closest to the proposed LMR development
provides chemicals in liquid and dry forms and provides large pieces of
equipment to their customers. Large trucks and forklifts move large equipment
and 'dry materials. The liquid materials are transported by large vacuum trucks.
A facility for mixing, blending and storage of chemicals in liquid form are
available in large volumes at all times. From time to time the repairing of the
Minutes, PC, jUne 15, 2000 Page 14
equipment consists of steel fabrication, welding, sandblasting, painting, lifting
and the moving and setting of heavy equipment. These operations produce
adverse byproducts, including traffic, noise, odor, dust and vibrations. This M-3
business has been in operation for many years without any neighbor problems,
because they are removed from any residential use. They are concerned
about the nearness of the proposed LMR project that is planned to their east
and north. To the east of his property is the Equilon Refinery. He understands
that it has a safety buffer of approximately half a mile zone extending to within
approximately 1,300 feet of his property. The prevailing wind is from the
northwest to the southeast carrying any undesirable elements to the proposed
LMR project. He believes the closeness of the LMR project will eventually
curtail his properties' usefulness. Some of the M-3 permitted uses allowed to
operate on the proPerty when it was zoned, could be alcohol distillery, animal
slaughter house, brewery, canary, dead animal fat rendering, garbage,
aceytlene and other gases, ammonia and chlorine, iron steel yard, oil refinery,
oil reduction, saw mills, smelting, bottled gas storage, chemical storage,
sandblasting and on an on. There are no side setbacks required. The
proposed LMR adjacent to the M-3 property does not allow for a buffer zone.
The Equilon facility has thoughtfully provided approximately a half-a-mile buffer
for safety from their operation. He believes that a quarter of a mile buffer zone
is reasonable between the proposed LMR residential and the M-3 heavy
industrial properties. Rather than residential, a buffer zone combination of M-2,
M-1 and/or C-1 would be appropriate. A block wall and a short distance will not
protect the residence or his operations from having serious problems. He
developed the M-3 property on Parcel Map 4906 20 years ago. Mr.
Champness quoted from the County zoning section 1940.010 - (the purpose of
an application), and stated that he believes the purpose of the application must
be upheld for the validity of his business and the safety of the residential
community. Mr. Champness left a copy of the county zoning ordinance with the
Recording Secretary.
Wally Blodgett, terminal manager for Roadway Express, which fronts Fruitvale
stated they are a 24-hour, seven day a week operation. They have a heavy
traffic level after hours. When most people are home sleeping, their trucks are
moving and their dock is running and they have heavy equipment coming and
going 24 hours a day. They are across the street from where the residential
growth is going to happen and they do not feel that their existing, legally zoned
activities is going to be compatible to the residential development.
Mr. Mclntosh stated that he found the reference in the staff report dated June
15th (typed May 17th). He reiterated that if approved the county's actions would
be superceded by the city's action, again the discrepancy between the two
plans.
The following spoke in favor of the application and/or the applicant:
Mr. Fallgatter, representing Equilon, stated they are in favor of the project as it ·
has been proposed.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 15
Henry Hill, 5308 Summer Wind Way, property butts up against Phase I and II.
He has looked at the abandoned wells and children playing in the abandoned
tanks. The developer has come in and removed all the tanks and all the
hazardous areas, and put in beautiful homes. He would like to see more
beautiful homes.
Kyle Carter gave a history of the property along with all his efforts in getting to
this point o[ development and his good faith efforts to be a good neighbor.
Commissioner Kemper asked if Mr. Carter would show the possible location for
the drainage sump.
Mr. Carter showed it on the overhead.
Public portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner Sprague commented that Mr. Carter is an excellent home builder
and has talked to many of his customers and no one has had a negative thing
to say about Mr. Carter's construction. Commissioner Sprague said that Mr.
Carter has answered his concerns and gone over the Landco Drive element of
allocating a 55 foot area there east of the commercial zone which would work
with the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Sprague stated a concern
about the M-2, M-3 along the western edge of the lower property that Mr.
Champness is talking about and inquired if Mr. Carter could get some mature
green belt trees along the east side of the wall that would give the shield
between the industrial portion of the property to the west and the residential
community to the east? Commissioner Sprague said that would give him
comfort in looking favorably at this project.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he does not agree that the approval of this
would supercede the county's situation as mentioned by Mr. Mclntosh and
inquired of staff how the City Commission supercedes any approvals done by
the County? Mr. Grady said what that is intended to indicate is once the project
is approved in the city, whatever was in the county goes away. This is typical
for any project that is approved as part of an annexation.
Commissioner Sprague inquired how the Commission could guarantee that they
had a 55 foot right-of-way for Landco east of the commercial property if they
approve this project tonight? Mr. Grady said the applicant has agreed to
provide the right-of-way, and it would be confirmed by recommending a
condition that would be added to the approval of the project.
Commissioner Sprague further inquired how they could get the landscaping
running in continuity on both sides of Mohawk, in a mature form with larger
evergreen umbrella type trees, 36 to 40 inches in circumference as well as 20
foot on centers so that you have the closer green belt look. He stated that he
would like'to get a provision where the green belts run in continuity on both
sides of the street, he thinks that it would enhance the project and the area and
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 16
would give the Commission some comfort in the residences being built adjacent
to the industrial zones.
Commissioner Kemper stated that she is comfortable with the R-1 section to the
north and the C-2 section and the 55-foot strip for the future development of
Landco, and agrees with the landscaping requests of Commissioner Sprague.
She stated that her main concern is the R-2 section to the south in that she
thinks they need to work out a compromise with a buffer zone along the M-3
property. Her main concern is where the R-2 touches the M-3 there should be a
block wall and a buffer zone.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he is not thrilled with the project because he
does not understand why they want to put residential homes so close to
commercial. He stated that he would support a condition that the applicant
provide a 55-foot easement on the east side of the C-2 property, for extending
Landco down to Hageman, and that the applicant will work with the adjoining
landowner to derive a different alignment or different standard whether it be
arterial or local collector. He stated that he does think that aesthetics are
important part of granting a General Plan Amendment. The additional
landscaping is important due to the adjacent industrial property.
Commissioner Kemper stated that they could either continue to work out some
of the specifics this evening, continue the project or, she asked of staff, if they
could leave the issues regarding the buffer and the trees to be at the discretion
of an agreement with the director or do they need to work it out tonight more
specifically? Mr. Grady said they could leave it to his discretion in the future or
they could adopt the following condition:
1)
It is required that the applicant make 55-foot wide offer of dedication for
road purposes from the east line of the GC property prior to the issuance
of any building permit within the GC area, and between that area where
the LMR abuts the M-3 zone there shall be a 40-foot buffer where only
sumps, parking or landscaping may be developed.
Commissioner Kemper inquired of Mr. Champness and Mr. Woody if they would
be comfortable with this buffer zone, to which Mr. Champness stated that he is
not satisfied because sound at night travels a long way and when the
equipment is running at night it travels further than 50' or 100' or 170', and it still
concerns him. He does not want to loose his tenants over some new neighbors
that have moved in. He does not know exactly what the distance is. Mr.
Champness stated that he would like to work with Mr. Carter, but he does not
want to risk his retirement. If someone would tell him that the new neighbors
would not raise heck with his tenants, he would be all for it.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 ' Page 17
Commissioner Sprague inquired if they were doing this the other way around
with M-3 against the residential if they would have a 65 decibel noise ordinance
that we would contend with from the adjoining property, to which staff
responded that they would have a block wall and there would be noise
mitigation to adhere to.
Commissioner Sprague inquired how they would ascertain or determine what
the present noise level is coming from the M-3 as it would radiate onto the M-2,
M-3, to which staff responded that if it is a new use going in they would apply
the standards that are in the General Plan. If it is an existing use, and someone
is complaining about the noise then Code Enforcement would have to go out
with a noise meter and measure it to determine if they are exceeding it. Staff
stated that currently they do not know what the noise level is. Noise was dealt
with generally in the EIR but staff does not know if the noise level was actually
measured for the EIR.
Commissioner Sprague stated that the problem with adjoining land owners is
noise contamination issues where they might lose their tenants and their source
of'income, and he was hoping with the trees they might cut that noise level, and
questioned how they can deal with this to give them some comfort that there is
going to be some shield or control from the noise?
Commissioner Boyle stated that the Commission could provide a condition that
the applicant will provide walls, landscaping and buffer so that the noise will be
reduced to a specific number of decibels.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of Mr. Carter if he would be agreeable to the
noise issue proposal of Commissioner Boyle, to which Mr. Carter stated that
while he was not an expert in noise, he is agreeable to walls, landscaping and
getting along with his neighbors.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of Mr. Mclntosh if the 55 foot right-of-way is
satisfactory to his clients on the eastern property, to which Mr. Mclntosh
responded that the requirement is for a 55 foot offer of dedication prior to
building permit, and later on in the agenda there is a requirement for a
dedication of a right-of-way of 55 feet prior to the action going to City Council.
It is possible that no building permit will ever be pulled on this, and he thinks that
it would be more appropriate to have it dedicated prior to that action. As far as
55 feet, that is not consistent with either City's General Plan Circulation Element
nor the County's Circulation Element, as they both show as collectors. One
shows it as a collector, and the other one does not show it as anything. He
does not know where the 55 feet came from and it may not be consistent with
any Circulation Element.
Mr. Mclntosh proposed a requirement of dedication and alignment pursuant to
the County's Circulation Element, which would be a 45 foot half street alignment
which would also effect the property on the east side. The Landco alignment
should be consistent with the Circulation Element as we know it.
· Minutes, PC, June t5, 2000 Page 18
Mr. Mclntosh stated and proposed that they discuss with the City and the
County to resolve the discrepancy between the two Circulation Elements.
Staff stated that they have no further comments on the 55 foot right-of-way, and
stated that the noise analysis did do field measurements along the perimeter
streets and they did not do site specific measures, and therefore they do not
have a meter reading from the M-3 zone property.
Mr. Champness stated that if his tenants agreed to turn their equipment on in
the evening so the noise level could be measured and then from that
measurement then perhaps it could be determined what buffer will be needed.
Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis,
to adopt the resolution making findings approving the request of General Plan
Amendment No. P99-0482 to the Land Use Element from LI, SI, HI to LR, LMR
and GC on a 170.9 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A' and approving
the requested amendment to the Circulation Element by deleting Mohawk Street
as an arterial north of Hageman Road to Olive Drive, changing Hageman Road
from a collector to an arterial between Mohawk Street and Knudsen Drive, along
with modifying the alignment by swinging it to the north a few hundred feet, and
to establish a collector segment for Hageman Road between Knudsen Drive to
State Route 99/State Route 204, as shown on the attached Exhibit 'B' and
recommended same to City Council with the following cOnditions:
1)
Require that the applicant make 55 foot wide offer of dedication for road
purposes along the east line of general commercial property prior to the
issuance of any building permit."
2)
Between that area where the LMR abuts the M-3 there shall be a 40 foot
or more buffer depending on the noise study so that the noise is reduced
to 65 decibels within 50 feet where only sumps, streets, parking or
landscape may be developed.
3)
Add additional trees along Hageman at the discretion of the Planning
Director along Mohawk.
'Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle
NOES None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 19
Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis,
to adopt resolution making findings, approving the requested Zone Change No.
P99~0482 to amend the zoning districts from an M-1 (Light Manufacturing), M-2
(General Manufacturing) zone and M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to R-! (One Family
Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and C-2 (Residential
Commercial) zones on 170.9 acres, generally bounded by Olive Drive on the
north, State Route 99 on the east, Downing Road on the south and Fruitvale
Avenue on the west as delineated on Exhibit 'C' and recommended the same to
City Council with the additional conditions on the previous motion.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle
NOES None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens
6.2.a)
General Plan Amendment P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc (Negative
Declaration on file) (Ward 6)
Combined with Agenda Item 6.2.b below.
6.2.b)
Zone Change P00-0234 -'Castle & Cooke, CA INC(Negative Declaration on
file) (Ward 6)
The'applicant requested a continuance of this project until September 21, 2000.
The applicant has agreed to pay the cost of redoing the staff report, resolutions
and public hearing notice which includes republishing and mailing the notice for
the public hearing.
Public hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke, stated that they had a buyer
for the property who has since backed out of the purchase and now the
applicant would like to rethink the project.
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to
continue this item until September 21, 2000. Motion carried.
6.3.a) General Plan Amendment P00-0235 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc (Ward
Combined with Agenda Item 6.3.b below
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 20
6.3.b)
Zone Change No. P00-0235 - Castle & Cooke, CA Inc. (Ward 4)
Mr. Grady told the Commission that they should have a memo dated June 15
from Marian Shaw with some amendments to some conditions to the proposed
project. Nothing else has changed since Monday and staff is recommending
approval.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke, stated they have reviewed the staff
report and the Memorandum.dated June 15, 2000 from Ms. Shaw, and they
agree with all of the changes and conditions of approval, except for item
numbers 3 and 4. Those conditions deal with the construction of both Mountain
Vista Drive and Campus Park Drive. Their concern with item numbers 3 and 4
are that they require construction of improvements which is owned by Panama-
Buena Vista School District, and the construction of a second lane along
Campus Park Drive and Mountain Vista is improving property that is not owned
'by the applicant and they would object to that requirement. They ask that the
Commission. approve the conditions of approval with the exception of those two
streets with additional construction of lanes.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
'Commissioner Sprague inquired what is meant by "provisions" as referenced in
Item No. 3 which reads "provisions for adequate drainage must be made." Ms.
Shaw responded that they did not want street drainage from a curb and gutter
running across the school property without making some kind of a provision for
a drainage easement with the school,
Mr. Mclntosh stated that the provision issue within Item No. 3 goes along with
this concern for constructing additional improvements along the frontage of that
property. That is why we are asking for that to be deleted. They will take care
of the drainage within the frontage of the property that is owned by the
applicant, but they are opposed to providing any additional improvements on
someone else's property.
Ms. Shaw stated that the concern they had at the intersection of Mountain Vista
and Campus Park Drive was the school to the south and they wanted t° make
sure that an adequate provision was made for access to and from the school to
the south.
Commissioner Brady inquired of staff if the justification fOr having the applicant
build out the roadway is that when this project is built out there will be increased
traffic which might make it dangerous for school children and others accessing
the school, and therefore because this project will be developing in this fashion
it is necessary for them to go ahead and build out that roadway to the
intersection as requested, to which Ms. Shaw responded in the-affirmative, but
added that it only requires one additional lane.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000
Page 21
Commissioner Brady stated that he believes the developer can provide the
roadway that's being requested because he does not think that it is a good idea
for schools to be built in locations where the roads aren't developed. It
happened in this case, but he believes there is sufficient nexus in this case to
justify it and it has to be done.
Mr. Mclntosh asked that when they make the above finding if he could explain
the difference between the PUD that was approved approximately six months
ago, and why the condition was not required then and what the difference in the
condition would be between then and today?
Commissioner Brady stated that it apparently was not caught earlier and that
now it will have to be done and believes there is sufficient basis for applying it
now. He has a concern about the fencing around the newly built canal. He
asked staff when it is appropriate to put the fencing in and if the applicant is
required to build a fence, to which staff responded that the fence will be
required when development is within a quarter of a mile of the canal.
Commissioner Brady requested a diagram of the quarter mile radius for the
canal.
Mr. Mclntosh showed the canal alignment.
The relocation of the canal will prompt appropriate fencing.
Commissioner Brady stated that he will support the project with the conditions
set forth in the June 15th Memorandum from Marian Shaw.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he will be supporting the project and he will be
supporting the condition set forth in the Memorandum.
Commissioner Sprague inquired if staff could point out these street problems
and the fact because the public needs to know that when schools are built plans
are drawn, but they don't get built that way, and neither do streets and roads,
because when it gets back to Sacramento and it gets to the State level, they
start overriding city jurisdictions, and consequently many times the adjoining
property owners are blessed with having to put that street in at their cost for
secondary access streets. He would like to have staff point these items out to
the Commission.
Commissioner Sprague also inquired if there was any way they can work with
the schools department to make sure they provide for secondary access streets
and how do they enforce that at the State level, to which Mr. Grady responded
that they have no ability to influence the design of the school facility. Street
locations typically are part of the negotiations between the owner of the property
and whether or not they are fronting on a road that is designated on the
Circulation Element. If it's a local street that is not required by a Circulation
Element then they may or may not participate in its construction. You would
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 22
have to adopt an ordinance that requires that as part of the negotiations for
school siting that local streets would be included and built by the adjoining
developer.
Staff will research adopting an ordinance and give the Commission a
recommendation.
Commissioner Dhanens asked if the property is owned by the school district but
it's not developed yet, to which Ms. Shaw responded in the affirmative. The
school would have to complete the development of the curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
Mr. Mclntosh stated the irony that the school district who owns the property
neglected to put the proper laneage in when they built the junior high school,
but they still own that piece of property and this developer should not be
required to put in what the school is obligated to do. They have gone to the
State and gotten enough money to put in two lanes in front of their property. It
is not right that this developer should have to do what is the school's obligation.
It is not a Health & Safety issue or orderly development issue. The school
.district should put the improvements in if they own the property. If they sell the
property that developer should put those improvements in.
Mr. Mclntosh further stated that condition number one states that PG&E shall be
consulted concerning protection or relocation of their gas transmission line. Mr.
Mclntosh commented that they have no problem protecting the line, but they will
not in any way be required to relocate that gas line. It's a major gas line that
runs from Milpitas to somewhere in Texas. To shut that down, you'd have to
shut down half of the western U.S. They would like to strike the words "Or
relocation" if that wOuld be agreeable with the Commission.
Commission Dhanens asked where the junior high school is that has been used
as an example, to which Mr. Mclntosh showed where the current junior high
school is, designated as R-1 and the school district built two lanes up to the
intersection of Campus Park Drive and Mountain Vista. The state will not fund
any school projects that are within 1,000 feet of major gas lines so this particular
site may never be an elementary school.
Commission Boyle asked if there was a possibility that the elementary school
will not be built due to the gas line, to which Ms. Shaw responded that they do
not know about the ruling to which Mr. Mclntosh refers to.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if they could include a condition if Mr. Mclntosh
obtain a letter from the school district that if they're not going to proceed with the
site because of the gas line that the condition be deleted, to which Ms. Shaw
responded that the condition is not in there because of the school on the corner,
it is there because of the junior high down the street.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 23
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to
adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the
requested General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use designation from
HMR to LR on 8.62 acres as shown in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to
City Council and incorporate the changes set forth in the June 15, 2000
Memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission and delete the
phrase "or relocation" in condition No. 1.
Mr. Fidler, the Building Director, stated that a quarter of a mile has been taken
out of the ordinance and now its in the subdivision so if you need something that
you want to Protect like fencing the Commission is going to have to make that
motion.
Commissioner Brady requested to amend his motion to add a condition that with
the relocation of the canal as set forth in the application that the standard 6'
chain link fence be constructed concurrently.
Commissioner Kemper said she would like to add one more possible
amendment that would be "the reimbursement." If that occurs they would be
reimbursed.
Mr. Mclntosh stated that the relocation of the canal has nothing to do with the
zone change or the General Plan Amendment. That it is an agreement that was
ironed out between the canal district, City, Castle & Cooke and adjacent
property owners. That agreement may not have even been signed yet, but the
agreement calls for the relocation of the canal to be taken care of by the canal
district. The Commission is trying to impose a condition on a zone change that
is subject to another agreement that goes to the Council that doesn't have that
provision in it.
Commissioner Brady stated that he does not care who puts up the fence but he
just doesn't want kids drowning in it.
Mr. Mclntosh denied that as a part of the application that a canal is being
relocated. This application is for a General Plan Amendment and a zone
change. They can not relocate a canal under a General Plan Amendment or a
zone change application. It's owned by the water district.
Commissioner Brady stated that he could not support a proposal without a fence
around the canal.
Ms. Shaw responded to the issue of reimbursement by stating that "Since the
corridor is currently owned by a school district, the concern is'that a developer
who would come in and buy the property later would get a free ride. Perhaps it
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000
Page 24
may be best, instead of talking about a reimbursement agreement, basically
putting everyone on notice that if that property does not develop as a school,
but comes in later under another development that they would be responsible
for paying their share of the improvements being put in front of the property."
Staff stated that there are two options:
1)
Commissioner Brady could require that if the canal is not relocated that a
specified time be stated that the canal be fenced in it's present location;
2)
As a condition of approval of this General plan Amendment and zone
change, place a condition on the relocation of the canal as it is being
proposed by the applicant that it be fenced concurrently. What that does
is it makes it a matter of discussion between the applicant and the canal
company, because the property of the applicant is what is going to be
benefitting from the relocation of the canal. It moves it from the being
on a diagonal of the property to the perimeter of the property.
Mr. Mclntosh commented that the fencing of the canal will either take place at
the time of development or upon relocation of the canal, and that he thinks that
either of staff's two options above may be appropriate. He pointed out that even
though there have been negotiations to relocate the canal, the canal probably
won't get relocated until the end of this year. They have no intention on starting
any development until such time as the canal gets relocated, but they have no
control over the timing, nor the construction itself. A year's time may be
appropriate. "One year or subsequent development."
Staff stated that the ordinance provides that anything in the subdivision has to
be fenced before any occupancy. If they move the canal, then the Commission
needs to put in 'the condition because the ordinance would no longer apply.
Commissioner Brady asked if the Commission adopted the language proposed
-by the applicant if the condition would be satisfied.
Mr. Mclntosh stated that the agreement has not been approved or adopted as it
was his understanding it was going to the water district for approval and to the
City Council.
Staff clarified the issue stating that if the canal does not move, the ordinance
will cover it. If the canal moves you will need to make a motion that it's built as
the canal is being moved. If the canal is moved, the ordinance only requires
that it be fenced before there are any occupants.
Commissioner Brady stated that he would like to add a condition, either in the
GPA or the zone change or both, that states "concurrent with the construction of
the relocation of the canal that fencing on the east and west side of the canal go
up." Commissioner Brady also amended his motion to include the language
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 25
proposed by Marian Shaw regarding the reimbursement of the applicant for
construction of the roadway if the school sells the property to a non-
governmental agency."
Mr. Hernandez reaffirmed that "the canal movement touches upon the.property
that is at issue for this GPA, so it would be'appropriate to require a condition if,
in fact, the canal is moved that the fencing be constructed concurrently with the
movement of the canal, and that the ordinance would cover the construction of
fencing upon further development of the subdivision on this property."
Mr. Brady stated that that was what he wanted to say.
Commissioner Boyle asked if the ordinance would apply to a subdivision map
that was only. for the west half of the property which does not have the canal on
it, to which staff responded that it would not.
Commissioner Boyle suggested that Mr. Brady amend his motion to require
fencing Upon the existing canal at any time that they pull a building permit within
one quarter of a mile of the existing canal as a matter of public health and
safety, and if the canal is relocated then the Commission can adopt the
language which has been suggested.
Commissioner Brady amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle.
Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to
adopt a Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the
requested zone change from PUD to R-1 on 65.44 acres as shown on Exhibit
"B" and recommend the same to City Council and adopt the changes set forth in
the June 15, 2000 Memorandum from Marian Shaw and the additional
amendments to my prior motion as stated.
Motion was carried, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 26
6.4.a)
General Plan Amendment P00:0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC
(Wards 2 & 5)
Combined with Agenda Item 6.4.b below
A five minute break was taken.
6.4.b)
Zone Change No. P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC
Staff report given recommending approval
Public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke in opposition to
staff's recommendation for approval.
Jane Pruitt has lived on Canter Way for 33 years and many of the senior
property owners are opposed to the zone change to have commercial
development because of the increase in traffic on Ming which will hinder access
to Ming. You can only exit the shopping center to the east past Canter Way and
this will cause additional traffic problems. She inquired if a traffic study has
been done on the property? She is also concerned about the trucks delivering
supplies because of the lack of proper streets and controlled intersection at
Canter. She is further concerned with the lights, noise and congestion in the
parking area. Are the lights to be left on all night and how will this affect the
apartments that line Rain Tree and the condos on Ming that are facing the
shopping center? She questioned if the commercial proposal is rejected will
there be apartments built, and if so, would the zoning have to be changed for
apartments?
Juanita J. George has lived in the Westwind condo complex since 1972 and her
unit looks over Ming Avenue and directly into the proposed shopping center.
There already is noise and traffic problems now. With the added noise level that
would be expected with the anticipated tenants they would not be able to use
'the two bedrooms overlooking Ming Avenue.
Rita Carol, 4801 Vergo Court, in the Condo Association across from the
proposed zone change. Over the years they have experienced vandalism from
students who come through the complex and this new commercial site will only
increase the problem they experience. Ming is already too congested between
New Stine and Valhalla and this proposed commercial site will only increase the
traffic problem. She does not think this is smart planning. If this is passed they
will need to have a buffer zone to lessen the additional noise.
The following spoke in support of staff's recommendation.
Stella Mullins stated that her unit is in the corner immediately south of Unit A in
the site plan. She represents her husband and neighbors on Emerson and
Sherman Way which is south of this development. Ron and Jackie Carlie,
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 27
Linda and John Rombersec, Jessie and Diane Esparza, Jim and Merilyn Herns,
Lynn Ralph, Bob and Gina Young and Berry and Cindy Philips; a total of eight
residences with four of us backing onto this project. The church has already
disbanded, deciding to sell the property and giving the proceeds to a mission.
And to maximize their profits hopes to change the zoning to permit a
commercial development. As the closest neighboring property owners we are
faced with only two choices either apartments or commercial. They are against
adding anymore apartments to this area which is already very saturated with
apartments. This development will act as a buffer between their homes and
Ming Avenue and Patriot's Park. The property management company, Halferty,
should be responsible for any future problems which may, or may not include,
graffiti, noise abatement, pest control, night deliveries, private police, etc. They
are also concerned that there be a minimum of a 45' setback to the rear of the
development, recessed loading docks, proper landscaping with enough trees
and an 8' block fence. No night deliveries, no night garbage pick up, no night
parking lot clean up, no 24-hour businesses, no bars, no adult bookstores, and
sufficient parking spaces, etc. They are concerned about the traffic problems,
but does not think their property values will be lowered. Any traffic problems
that currently exist, or will occur in the future will be exacerbated by the growth
and expansion of Bakersfield to the south and west. Ming Avenue. is a major
artery and until the time the City does something about circulating freeways
there will continue to be problems. They are for this change as long as the
members of the Planning Commission enforce the rules.
Tamara Loughmiller with Halferty Development, the applicants for this project,
said that the church has been vacated and redeveloping this will generate
prOperty tax and sales tax. They have met with the neighbors twice; first in May,
second last week. The applicant stated that the latest site plan they have does
not reflect the site plan on the wall. She said they think they have addressed
the neighbors and staff's concerns and have a project that will be beneficial to
all.
The Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, in the Staff Report, are like Copeland's,
and exceed what the current City requirements are for most issues such as
landscaping and setbacks. Required setbacks are 20 feet, and they have
agreed to 45 feet. The landscaping requirements, the spacing of trees in the
code is 35', they are agreeing to 30', and in fact the landscape plan indicates 20
to 25 feet on the perimeter. On Canter and Rain Tree the code is 8' and they
have that to 15' in keeping with what Copeland's has. On Ming the code is 10',
and it is now 15 feet.
They have 10 pages of conditions presented by staff, among all of those most
are agreeable. There are three items that need to be discussed in more detail
-and some of those may just be clarifications.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 28
1)
Traffic Study mitigation measures were incorporated into the traffic study
that was performed for the site, and the first portion states that the
mitigation as in their report is what a condition will be, and then in
number five it lists a different condition.
2)
The right turn on Ming. The site plan for numbers two and three ask for
a right turn lane on Ming Avenue going on to Canter, and one going onto
Rain Tree. The Canter road is primarily a residential road and in talking
with the neighbors they want to discourage as much traffic as possible
from going on Canter, and they would like to encourage going onto the
site, so the right turn lane going on to the site at the main entrance is the
one that they would like to keep, and the one going on to Canter, per the
neighbors request, and in keeping traffic off of that road they want to
eliminate that one. The third one on to Rain Tree Court is almost
physically impossible because the apartments next door have a setback
from the read, and putting a right turn lane in there, which is their
property to start with, puts about 10 feet between a person's window and
where the street would be so she would ask for those two conditions to
be removed.
3)
The parking issue: starting at Ming Avenue moving back into the site the
two restaurants pads (red) are parked according to car (1 per 75 square
feet = 111 parking stalls). The neighborhood retail (green) are typically
a grocery store and its surrounding, whatever is in that grocery store
center. Regional center would be more of something that is a daily use
or a weekly type use, and those need more parking stalls, because they
are more frequented. One per 200 is a good number for those. These
shops would be more of a daily type use. They don't have any tenants
currently but they are looking at a card shop and Panda Express. These
require 40 stalls. In the back they would like to have tenants that are
more promotional/retail rather than daily/weekly use such as Copelands,
linens, office supplies and furniture stores are some examples of what
types of stores where one per 300 is adequate. They have a total of 4.8
per thousand which is just under the 1 per 200 and in all of their centers,
the tenants require 4 per 1,000 for the whole site, and so this is more
than adequate historically for the developments they have done.
Some of the concerns from the neighbors were then addressed.
The analysis of level of services with or without the center indicates the
intersections stay the same in the year 2020. The center will not be a draw
where they are pulling people from across the City to bring more traffic onto the
streets. It will be more of a convenience for the shoppers that area already on
the streets and in the neighborhoods.
There are lighting requirements. Some lights will stay on for safety reasons but
will be kept at a Iow level.
They 'have agreed to put up an 8' wall.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000~ Page 29
. Regarding the condos across Ming they are trying to work out some mitigation
issues with them. They have offered some money for their budget so that they
can put up the walls that they would like.
Vince Roach with CB Richard Ellis, representing the Church, commented about
the eyesore of vacant buildings currently existing. K-Mart has just signed a
lease for the old Builder's Square center with the Burlington Coat Factory.
Commented also on the new Food 4 Less and ^lbertsons centers and how
generally vacant buildings do not stay vacant long on this corridor.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sprague laid out the following concerns:
1)
The south and east boundary of the site: there should be an 8' foot wall
and it should wrap around the residential project to the east as it turns on
the driveway onto Canter. The fire lane needs to have lights on it similar
to Colonial Square's fire lane where the lights are on conduit, and come
up with a foot of the top of the wall and radiate light back onto the
shopping center and the fire lane so you don't get reflective light back -
into the residences; especially true on the apartments on both sides.
2)
There should not be any lighted signs or lights on the buildings facing
the residential property.
3)
The 15' landscaped areas need 36" evergreen trees; tightened up to 20-
25 feet on center spreading circularly so that they touch each other and
grow quickly. Landscape should be matched on both sides of the street
on Rain Tree.
4)
There should never be any truck parking, loading or unloading on Rain
Tree..Need a 6' concrete wall or noise barrier along Rain Tree from the
restaurant pad back to the cul-de-sac driveway that shields that area
away from the residential apartments to the west.
5)
Recess in the ground the truck delivery block on the buildings in the rear,
and as it is recessed there should be some block wall retaining to shelter
the noise from loading and unloading against the residences to the
south.
Signage will come up later and the lighting on the signage needs to be
considered.
7)
Need to ID the decel lanes to egress and ingress the center from Ming
Avenue.
8)
Concerned with the drive-thru squawk box location which would radiate
noise north across to the condos, as well as south onto the existing
apartments that wont be removed.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 30
9)
Concerned with the traffic circulation that comes around-Starbucks and
how it comes back into the center and traffic congestion.
lO)
Would like an idea of the size of each parking space and the number of
spaces actually required. Need to look at the size Of the spaces and the
number of spaces.
.11)
Need to prohibit parking by employees of the center in the residential
parking lots adjacent on Rain Tree.
12)
Would like to see some sidewalks installed on Canter and Rain Tree and
poSsibly on Ming that makes it pedestrian friendly.
13)
Code requires the installation of handicapped ramps at each corner on
Ming Avenue at Canter and Rain Tree.
14) No night deliveries need to be made.
15) No parking lot cleaning, or noise making between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 - a.m. for the benefit of the residences.
16)
Traffic increase on Rain Tree is 1200 cars per day? Steve Walker said
that the street is adequate for this. The street can handle 12,000 cars
per day.
Commissioner Boyle questioned the number of parking spots to which Mr.
Grady responded that the parking ratio is the one used for Copelands which is 1
to 300. The standard for the current multi-use center is 1 to 250. The first
35,000 square feet is 1 to 200 and then additional square feet is 1 to 250. They
did count the restaurant the same and the drive-through window the same.
The difference is the applicant wants to use the Copeland's standard which is a
single tenant building for a multi-tenant building and staff does not. agree with
that.
Commissioner Boyle commented that in general he likes the project. He would
like to do things to accommodate the existing neighbors. Does. not know if they
can legally add as a condition the contribution to the condo association that was
mentioned earlier. Mr. Hernandez responded that the city cannot make this
condition on the applicant.
Commissioner Boyle stated that the parking issue needs to be resolved. The '
condo residents' concerns can be addressed in terms of landscaping, larger
trees and more frequent use of trees along Ming Avenue to diffuse the lighting.
Would suggest continuing this matter until they can get a resolution on the
parking issueS. Currently the plan is almost 15% below what the city standard
requires for parking in a multi-tenant center.
Commissioner Brady inquired what a typical decel lane length is to which Mr.
Walker responded that on that street as a minium they try to get a 150 feet of
storage length, plus a 90 foot lane change taper. The frontage that they have
Minutes, PC, June t5, 2000 Page 31
there is adequate to get that. There is the necessity for a right turn lane at
Canter Way and they will have their own traffic going to the street. They are
not asking for a right turn lane onto Rain Tree.
Commissioner Brady inquired if the decel lanes were necessary for public safety
to which Mr. Walker responded in the affirmative because of the
preponderance of rear-end accidents as vehicles slow down.
Commissioner Brady asked about the turning lanes for delivery trucks to which
Mr. Walker responded that the curve radius that would be on the major street
would be a 30' radius return which is adequate for semi truck traffic turns. The
storage lanes would be a typical 150' minimum with a 90' lane change taper and
would accommodate typically a 48' plus tractor cab, so it shouldn't be a storage
problem.
Commissioner Brady inquired if westbound traffic will be able to enter the center
through Canter Way and what the length required will be to accommodate for
semi trucks and will the turn lane need to be extended to accommodate the
traffic, to which Mr. Walker responded that they don't expect a large amount of
truck traffic. The left turn lanes currently on Ming are shorter; approximately
100; where now with this project they will be using a 150' or more. It would still
be adequate for a truck. They had not identified that as being a specific problem
for truck or vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Brady inquired what the Projected traffic is turning on to Canter
from the West? Mr. Walker checked the Traffic Study and responded that
considering the peak hour times for the shopping center, traffic is expected to
be 30 vehicles per hour would make the left turn.
Commissioner Brady stated the turning lanes for westbound traffic into the
center needs to be addressed further.
Commissioner Brady stated that they need to put in the decel lanes and he
would not support it without the decel lanes.
Staff commented that the median break into Canter is a short one from the old
'standard and it is probably not possible to lengthen that particular one because
there is the long left hand turn lane slot that goes into Valhalla going east on
Ming. The Rain Tree left turn lane from westbound Ming would need to be
lengthened.
Applicant responded that the current breaks will not be modified. There is a
current break that allows westbound traffic on Ming to make a left turn onto
Canter and a left turn onto Rain Tree. They are not modifying those.
Commissioner Brady inquired if the central entrance will have a break in the
median for westbound left turning traffic to which the applicant responded that
they are not proposing that currently.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 32
Commissioner Brady inquired if the applicant is going to have to eliminate one
of the breaks that now exists in the median which is for the entrance to the
present church, to which Mr. Walker responded in the negative. Mr. Walker
clarified that there is a left turn going east to north into the condos. There is a
left turn going west to south into Rain Tree and west to south into Canter. The
one into Canter is not able to be expanded to the east because of the Valhalla
entrance further on.
Commissioner Brady stated that the applicant needs to look at how they are
going to get westbound traffic on Ming into the project. He does not feel that
there is sufficient storage for traffic.
The applicant stated that their engineer would work out the clarification of the
turning lanes with staff. Commissioner Brady stated that he will not approve the
project until it is worked out.
Commissioner Brady's technical questions to staff before the meeting have
been noted and do not change the conditions with respect to the project.
Commissioner Brady stated that the lighting standards up to 40' high is nOt
acceptable or appropriate. He stated that the goal is that no light goes off the
premises.
Commissioner Brady inquired about the vines for landscaping, to which the
applicant's architect responded that they wanted to break down the elevations
of the buildings. The vines would be trained on to something.
Commissioner Brady inquired where the trash bins are located, to which the
applicant responded they are 35 feet away from the apartments with a five foot
setback from the apartments themselves. Commercial trash pick up is down on
a case~by-case basis. Commissioner Brady commented that he does not like
the trash bin so close to the apartments.
Commissioner Brady inquired if Restaurant Pad A is a sit down place, or if it was
a drive-through to which it was indicated that it would be a sit down type of
restaurant.
The Fire Marshall does not see a problem with the parking and area behind the
building for safety reasons.
Once the truck is dropped down into the loading dock you will only see about
the top three feet of the truck. Commissioner Brady inquired if the noisy part of
the truck, (the engine, the stack) will be buffered by the block wall when it is
down in the loading dock, to which the applicant responded that the wall will be
65' long which is the length of the truck. Commissioner Brady stated that the
top two or three feet of the cab and stack that are above the wall is going to be
a problem because it will not be buffered by the wall. The applicant responded
that they could raise a section of the wall to 10' high.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 33
Commissioner Brady is not in favor of creating any breaks in any of the walls
because he does not feel the neighborhood Wants people using the stores
accessing their neighborhoods.
Commissioner Brady reiterated that the traffic and light issues need to be
addressed further.
Commissioner Kemper stated that she preferred to' have diagonal parking spots.
A Bougainville vine does not do well when it freezes. Creeping fig does very
well for a year around vine.'
Commissioner Sprague stated his concern about the left turn on to Canter and
would support a continuance of this matter and appointing a committee to work
out the concerns brought up. He stated that he likes the project better than
apartments.
The applicant stated that she would prefer to walk through the concerns now.
The applicant further stated that diagonal parking spots would reduce the
number of spots. The landscape setbacks and the building setbacks is more
than double what the code requires.
Commissioner Sprague stated that the proper thing to do is to continue and
form a committee and resolve and mitigate the problems.
Mr. Grady advised that this is a general plan amendment and zone change and
if it is continued there is one meeting in July, and if they don't meet that time
frame then they will be dropping this until the next cycle. Which means if it goes
to committee they wOuld have to meet next week so they would have a chance
to respond to whatever changes would need to be made in the project so that
information could get out again.
Commissioner McGinnis reiterated Commissioner Sprague's concern that there
are still outstanding issues and that he would support a continuance, but would
not support the project at this time because of these outstanding issues.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that passing this land use would further the
commercialization of Ming Avenue which has always been a complaint of
Bakersfield citizens. He suggested maybe continuing for two weeks to see if
these issues can be resolved. He thinks the biggest issue is the parking issue,
and all the other little details could be worked out.
Commissioner Dhanens, short of denying the project, would like to continue this
matter for two weeks to see if staff and applicant can resolve the pa~king issue
and maybe give the Commission some additional time to see if some of the
concerns can be addressed.
Commissioner Sprague asked if staff would be able to resolve all of the issues
within a two week period, to which Mr. Grady responded that with respect to
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000
Page 34
parking they can resolve it tonight. Staff does not believe that this project needs
to be sent to committee. Staff will probably need more direction from the
Commission as to exactly what they wanted on a majority of the issues.
Applicant responded that a work session with a committee would work for them.
A motion was made by COmmissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner
Boyle, to form a committee to iron out the problems. Commissioner Sprague
volunteered to serve on the committee and bring it back in two weeks.
Commissioner Brady stated that he would not be present at the next meeting,
and that he did not have a problem with the parking as it is now. He supports
the motion.
Motion carried.
Commissioners Sprague, Boyle and Kemper will serve on the'committee.
Commissioner Boyle will act as the chairman and contact staff and the applicant
regarding a meeting time for the week of June19th.
6.5.a) General Plan Amendment P00-0238 - Karpe Real Estate (Ward
Combined with Agenda Item 6.5.b below.
6.5. b)
Zone Change No. P00-0238 - Karpe Real Estate (Ward 4)
staff report recOmmending approval was given.
pUblic portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Roger Mclntosh representing Karpe Real Estate stated that they will have the
dedication in before this item goes to City Council for hearing, and they agree
with all the conditions of approval.
Public portion of the hearing closed.
There were no Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to
adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration
approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from GC and SR to LMR as shown on Exhibit "A" and recommend
the same to City Council."
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 35
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brady, :Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle,
Dhanens
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded' by Commissioner Sprague, to
adopt a ReSolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration
approving the zone change from C-1 and E to R-2 as shown on Exhibit "B" and
recommend the same to City Council."
Motion Carried by the following roll call vote:
-AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle,
Dhanens
NOES None
ABSENT: None
6.6.a)
General Plan Amendment P00-0253 - DeWalt Corp. (Ward 4)
Combined'with Agenda Item 6.6.b below.
6.6.b)
Zone Change No. P00-0253 - Dewalt Corp. (Ward 4)
Staff report given recommending approval.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke in opposition.
Greg Crenshaw lives directly across from this project and he is not pleased
because his house is built about three feet down below the road, and according
to the plan the exit to the parking lot will be right out in the front of his living
room and all the exiting lights will be shining in his living room. He does not
want a bar across the street from his house.
Tim Beard has property on Meacham Road and before he purchased he was
supplied with a map which indicated the zoning for all the surrounding property.
He was informed that there was going to be residential housing where they are
now proposing to be a restaurant/bar. The bar is just over the state required
600' distance from a school which is already there. There will be an increase in
traffic which brings safety concerns for the children.
Minutes, PC, June t5, 2000 Page 36
Randy Macio on Tescary Drive, immediately north of the proposed development
said the applicant assured the neighborhood that they would meet all of the
parking regulations as presented and that there would be no problems and he
was concerned when he received the notice that they wanted a variance on
parking and are talking about 21 spaces less which is well over 10%,
approaching 12% less parking, and his big concern other than the traffic in the
area, is that parking could spill over if the applicant does not meet the parking
regulations. He does not want a restaurant that does not have sufficient parking
in his neighborhood. He also is concerned with the issues involving the children
in the area. Since the applicant has not kept their assurance on the parking
issue, he questions what other surprises the applicant has in store for them.
The following spoke in favor of the project:
Cathy Fritz with DeWalt Corp., representing Merlo Investments on the current
project. The site is currently a 3.9 acre site with a 105 year old house on it. It's
surrounded by many old growth trees, and the trees will remain on the property.
The site plan will include a fine dining establishment in the existing structure. In
addition they plan a new casual dining restaurant to the west of the existing
structure that will be known as the Red Rock Grill. North of the existing
structure will be another fine dining facility that will be more open-sided gazebo
structure with pull down plastic sides for bad weather and can also be used for
gatherings or banquets. There are two gazebos planned that can be used for
outdoor weddings. They have agreed to allow no music.
They have extensive landscaping. They propose trees along the streets
pursuant to City standards and along the north perimeter they are proposing a
variety of tall evergreens that will screen the property from the adjacent houses
and will have 6' high masonry walls per the code. The westerly property line will
have a 6' high masonry wall and a 7' wide landscape buffer.
They have eliminated some structures so that they have less square footage
and less parking required.
This project is unique to Bakersfield. The house and grounds will be placed on
the Historic Society list on .the 18th of July.
Any other project that might come into this property in the future would have to
come before the Planning Commissioners per a condition of approval. Further,
anything that is modified once it is put on the Historic list would have to come
before the Planning Commission.
Property owners within 600 feet of the site have been notified, which is 300 feet
more than the City requires, and they had over 60 People show up for the
meeting. They did have some issues, but overwhelming, the response was
positive.
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 37
Applicant agrees to Planning Condition Number 3 within Exhibit "A" of the Staff
Report that says they are to install any landscaping necessary to buffer lights
into other property owners.
Glen Berkshire representing Sodona Manor and the Red Rock Grill, stated the
view grounds in and of itself creates a place where someone wants to go
because it is unique.
The applicant will be providing their own security on the ground 24/7 and will
provide 2 limos with their own drivers at their own expense and two vans on site.
If anyone has a problem they will be able to handle it.
Tim Berry stated that it is a site destination but it is surrounded by houses with
barking dogs, children and obviously they have a difference in opinion as to
what a site destination is.
Commissioner Kemper inquired about moving the crash gate off Meacham so
that there is less impact on the residents to which the Fire Marshall responded
that the one was not required. Staff responded that one entrance 'was fine.
Commissioner Kemper suggested moving the entrance east to lessen the
impact on the residents on the south side of the street to the west.
Commissioner Sprague stated they have covered conditions from security,
transportation, traffic and the landscape and he supports the project.
Commissioner Brady inquired if the applicant would agree to combining the two
entrances on Meacham into one, to which the applicant agreed and stated that
they would try to locate it more centrally in the site or it could stay where it is
now, which it is as close to Calloway as it can be.
Commissioner Brady inquired of the residents where they would like the
entrance off of Meacham to which John Cheatwood stated that the exit on the
West side will also shine into his home.
Greg Crenshaw made comments about children being in danger because of the
alcohol.
Commissioner Brady stated that he does not feel the alcohol will be a problem.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he feels the preservation of the property is
worthwhile. He inquired of staff about the condition of no music and how a harp
or violin would create a problem on a three acre site, to which staff responded
that this was at the applicant's request.
The applicant responded that they would like to have a violin or harp but they
just wanted to be the best neighbor that they could be.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he would support the project.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that he is in support of the project. - .
Minutes, PC, June 15, 2000 Page 38
Applicant stated that the parking requirement was for 157 spaces; with her
newly calculated square footage of 11,119 (memo says 11,712) there is a total
of 144 parking spaces required and they are providing 146. Applicant used a
ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet for the restrooms. Applicant said that She
has been told the Municipal Code doesn't have a specific breakout for the
restrooms from the restaurant so she used the 1 per 300 the same as for Office
Commercial zoning Applicant requests approval with the parking as shown with
the 146 spaces. A space or two may also be added if one driveway is
eliminated.
Commissioner SpragUe made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to
adopt a Resolution with findings adopting the Negative Declaration and
approving the requested General Plan Land Use Element Amendment from LR
to GC as shown in Exhibit "B" subject to mitigation measures, conditions of
approval shown in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to City Council.
Incorporate the June 15th memo from Mr. Grady and the verbiage regarding the
drive on Meacham, the three-piece violin for ambian and the parking if is
satisfactory to staff as presented.
Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to
adopt Resolution with findings adopting the Negative Declaration and approving
the requested zone change from R-1 to PCD as shown on Exhibit "B" subject to
mitigation measures, conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A",
recommending same to City Council and incorporate the June 15th memo, the
driveway issue, the string violin three piece and the parking.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac,
Dhanens
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING - Revised PCD Zone Change P99-09'11 (Cornerstone Engineering)
(Ward 5)
See consent agenda.
Minutes, PC,'June 15, 2000 Page 39
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
8.1)
General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of approximately 23 acres
of land by the City of Bakersfield for a fire station, park site and future Paladino
Drive right-of-way, located generally south of Paladino Drive, east of Morning
Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward3)
See consent agenda.
8.2)
General plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of % acre of land by the
City of Bakersfield for Joshua Park, located generally north of State Route 178,
east of San Dimas Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Wa~d2)
See consent agenda.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written or verbal communications.
10.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Brady asked staff to look at possible changes to the Municipal Code to
deal with a method of addressing fences around canals and a method for how and
when they would be funded.
11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT
PRE-MEETING.
It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on Monday, July 3, 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 1'17 a.m.
July 12, 2000
Pam Towqsend, Recordi_ng Secre~ry
Planning Director \