HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2005 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
Absent: Commissioner Blockley
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns
Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 2005.
4.1 b Approval of Capital Improvement Program Budget FY 2005-2010 determination
by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general and specific plans.
(City of Bakersfield — Public Works Department) (City-wide)
4.1 c Adoption of Planning Commission AD HOC Committee recommendations
regarding subdivision tree requirements and sidewalk design standards.
Commissioner Tragish would like page 3, paragraph 1 of the minutes to read: "He would like to
know how they're going to mitigate all the traffic coming from this project. He also mentioned
that the EIR report was not laid out in an easy and understandable manner, in a fax that he'd
seen previously." Commissioner Tragish further commented that there is a second paragraph
with his comments, and he would like it to read: "Commissioner Tragish said he wishes the draft
EIR in addressing the alternatives be a little clearer instead of saying there is nothing they can
do about it. He would also like to see more alternatives that will give the Commission more
ammunition and food for thought and reference when they have to decide whether or not they're
going to approve a project."
Commissioner Tragish also stated that on page 5 of the minutes, where his comments first
appear on the page, he would like it to read as follows: "Commissioner Tragish said that he is in
agreement with Commissioner Lomas' comments concerning the decel lane. It seems that many
of the projects that come through the Commission are requiring decel lanes as a safety feature,
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 2
and this project is in the middle of the block, and this area is rapidly developing, and traffic may
get a little heavier as all projects come off line, and a decel lane looking to the future would add
a lot to safety and convenience for not only the people living in the project, but for the regular
patrons of this particular street."
Commissioner Spencer included these amendments to his motion.
Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Gay to approve the
Minutes as corrected by Commissioner Tragish and the non-public portion of the consent
calendar. Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11263 (Porter-Robertson)
(Ward 6)
4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6446 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 2)
4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6453 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6462 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6444 (Pinnacle Engineering) I (Ward 3)
4.2f Approval of Zone Change 04-1572 (Pinnacle Engineering)
(Ward 3)
Public portion of the hearing opened. Gordon Nipp requested the removal of 4.2c from the
Consent Calendar. Patty Kusek requested removal of 4.2a from the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gay requested that 4.2d, and 4.2e, as well as 4.2f, be removed from the
Consent Calendar. Commissioner Ellison also requested removal of 4.2e and 4.2f. Public
portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Tkac joined the Commission at this time. There
were no more Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by
Commissioner Gay, to approve the remaining portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
by group vote.
5. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Tract Maps
Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report.
Public portion of the hearing opened.
Patty Lee Kusek, representing Crimson Resources Management, the owner and operator of the
well at the proposed site, stated that they have been unable to contact the developers. She
indicated that they own the mineral rights to the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of this
section. She indicated that they have previously waived all of their drilling rights on all of the
properties to the east of the Arvin-Edison canal, which was greater than 50% of their drilling
rights. She indicated that at this point the only place they are allowed to drill is in the area of the
proposed development. She indicated that their existing well has tight limitations that they won't
easily be able to get even a work-over rig in the area, or a new drilling rig if they intend to drill in
the future. She indicated that a typical work-over rig is 50-75' long, and the way the project is
set up, they wont be able to turn a large vehicle into a configuration where they are able to get at
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 3
the
well. She requested that the applicant get written waivers from Crimson before all approvals so
the details can be worked out. She would like to see communication and negotiation between
Crimson and the applicant, which has not occurred as of yet.
Randy Bergquist, with Porter-Robertson Engineering, stated that they accept Staff's conditions.
He indicated that they would be willing to work with Crimson, but would not want to continue the
project.
Don Venidick, subdivider in this application, stated that he was contacted twice by Crimson with
voice messages, and he also left voice messages.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Ms. Kusek since it is a 2-acre oil site why there is not enough
room to utilize rigs? Ms. Kusek stated that it is strictly the configuration of the well and trying to
maneuver a 75' truck is impossible to turn on that radius. Commissioner Tragish inquired where
the well was located, to which Ms. Kusek indicated she believed it was marked as 92' from the
cul-de-sac. Ms. Kusek indicated that she was told by the work-over rig that they could not get in
there. Ms. Kusek stated they were notified of this when they received notification of this
meeting. Ms. Kusek stated that it is registered as an active well, and they have the mineral
rights for the 40 acres below.
Commissioner Ellison commented that this is a very irregular drill site in that drill sites are
normally rectangular or square. Commissioner Ellison inquired if there are any safety issues
involved in servicing this well given it's current configuration with this application, to which Ms.
Kusek responded that yes, because if you attempted to put the rig at an atypical angle, you are
putting the people working on that rig in a situation that they are not familiar with, which increase
the risk of injury to the work-over rig people, or rig personnel.
Commissioner Ellison stated that safety should be a number concern for the parcels. He stated
that Ms. Kusek's company wants to work with the applicant, and that without changing the lines
he does not know how they can get better access to the well site.
Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if the lines are short of the City's standards for setbacks to
property lines, to which Staff responded in the negative, and that the 98' to the cul-de-sac radius
meets the requirements. Commissioner Gay commented that he believes most bulbs are 90' to
allow for trucks. He indicated that he would like to see the applicant work with the developer.
Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if a modification could stipulate a modification to the drill
site with Staff's approval, to which Staff responded that they would like more detail and that there
be a minimum size.
Commissioner Gay commented that the share driveways need to be more fully addressed in the
future.
Commissioner Tkac commented that he would like to see the applicant and Crimson work
together.
Applicant indicated they would agree to work with Crimson to tweak the lines to do whatever they
need within reason to provide them access to the drill site. He indicated that they are going to
enlarge the cul-de-sacs to the industrial dimensions. He indicated that they feel that they are
doing at least the minimum of what the City requires, and are willing to go the extra step. They
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 4
would just like the approval so they can get on to other things.
Commissioner Lomas stated that this is not the time or place to hammer out safety concerns,
and appreciates the other Commissioners' consideration to continue this, but she thinks the
applicant needs to meet with Crimson, as there is not enough information presented to consider
a continuance.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he also is concerned about the safety issues and would
support a continuance. He inquired of Staff if it is at the Commission's discretion to continue
this matter to address safety concerns of the drill site regarding its irregular shape. Staff
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish stated that if an agreement is not worked out during the continuance that
there be some evidence to support the safety issues.
Commissioner Gay stated that he reluctantly supports a two week continuance.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to continue the public hearing
of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11263 to the Planning Commissioner meeting on June 16,
2005, which is also considered Consent Agenda Item 4.2. Motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
6 PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps/Zone Change
6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6446 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 2)
See Consent Calendar.
6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6453 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, speaking for Sierra Club, stated
he has submitted a letter, as well as a computer model run on the air quality. He stated the
Commission should add a condition that the developer shouldn't build out more than 32 houses a
year and hold them to the condition. He thinks the community needs to deal with the cumulative
impact of traffic, and referred to the Rosedale Ranch draft EIR. He also commented on loss of
prime ag land.
Bob Smith, with SmithTech USA, stated they are in agreement with Staff's conditions of
approval. He stated that the ag land has not been farmed in years, and is directly adjacent to
development on the north, south, east and is definitely in the path of development.
Public hearing closed. Commissioner Tragish commented as to the formula used and Mr. Nipp's
comments. He inquired of staff which plan is required by the State, to which Staff responded that
the State does not recommend a specific criteria or requirement for a build out period, but is
determined by what the developer thinks is reasonable build out, and that is incorporated into the
model.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 5
Commissioner Tragish further commented on Mr. Nipp's comments.
Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff about the URBEMIS, and if WZI has latitude in which to
complete the air quality study, to which Staff responded that in certain parts of the study there
are certain variables that are discretionary, and other parts of the program are required
systematic things that are need to generate the figures. Staff commented that the developer has
the flexibility to make an assumption on their build out.
Commissioner Gay stated he would support the motion as made.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he would be voting for this as it stands.
Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6453 with findings and
conditions as set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", and incorporating the memorandum
dated May 26th by Marion Shaw, and May 31, by Jim Movius and recommend the same to City
Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
Break taken.
6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6462 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith with
SmithTech USA stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Public hearing
closed.
Commissioner Gay stated he asked that this be pulled from the Consent Calendar as he has one
issue which concerns the developer being in the process of watering and completing about 65
acres to the east of the canal, between the canal and 99 between the north and south side of
Berkshire. He stated that just to the west of the canal there is a single family residence
purchased approximately two years ago, and appears that it will not go away, and there is no
curb, gutter or safe way through for the kids in the Lenar development to get over to Greenfield
School which owns the property on the other side of the single family residence. He
recommended that the condition of this tract include a curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Commissioner Ellison inquired of Mr. Smith if he has any suggestions in response to
Commissioner Gay's concerns. Mr. Smith asked if they would have to obtain right-of-way or
condemnation?. Staff responded that they did not check to see if they have right-of-way in front
of the house, and therefore, it cannot be answered without doing some research. Staff indicated
that there is a standard condition that would take care of eminent domain should that be
necessary.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if they need to specifically identify the location of where
the sidewalk will be, to which Staff responded that they would want to identify how far westerly it
will go. Staff indicated that the curb, gutter and sidewalk is basically going through the westerly
property line of the farm house.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 6
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6462 with findings and
conditions as set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", and incorporating the tenant to
construct the curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of parcel 515-010-14, and recommend the same
to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6485 (Monarch Affiliates #2 LLC) (Ward 3)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Bob Joyce, a homeowner, stated that the developers
have been cooperative and have met and negotiated with the homeowners, and stated that he is
concerned with what happens with the ground behind his residence. He would like the developer
to confirm on the record that the privacy wall will extend the full length of the westerly boundary
of the proposed subdivision all the way down and including the westerly side of lot 78, which is
the proposed drainage sump area. He indicated that it is also his understanding that the wall
would extend and run east-west on the entire north side of the subdivision as well, and he would
like this to be confirmed in the public record this evening so that it is a condition of approval.
Mr. Joyce stated that he would also like confirmed on the record as a condition of approval that
the sump area be engineered such that there be a 20X20X20 foot rectangular gravel-filled
percolation pit in the middle of it to ensure that there is never standing water to avoid the
potential for any insect or mosquito problems. He further indicated that the intended drainage
facility running down the west side of this proposed subdivision is not to necessarily handle their
run off, but to really address and handle their run off as well.
Mike Thompson, lives adjacent to the subdivision, and is President of the Homeowner's
Association that has been negotiating with the developer for some time in an effort to make as
good a deal as they can. He stated that number 6 of the condition of approval regarding access
onto Comanche states that they will not allow a left hand movement onto Comanche before
there is a light. Mr. Thompson stated this is going to create a big problem as 90% of the traffic
coming from the subdivision is going to want to go to Bakersfield, which requires a left hand
movement. He stated that a U-turn is a very dangerous movement on Comanche. In addition,
he stated that the temporary or emergency connection that goes up to Cliff will be over used as a
method to get to Bakersfield without having to fight the left hand move that isn't allowed. This is
also another safety issue. Mr. Thompson recommended considering some sort of temporary
light that will allow the left hand move onto Comanche to keep traffic out of other neighborhoods,
and keep the safety issue in hand. Mr. Thompson also stated his concern regarding the sump
in the project. He stated the sump water is nuisance water and to prevent just having standing
water you can use a gravel bed of sufficient size that keeps the nuisance water below the surface
of the sump, and keep down the mosquito problem.
Mr. Thompson then went on to comment on Park Issue, Item Number 12 of the conditions. He
stated that to require a park within a small subdivision such as this one, is probably
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 7
unreasonable, and is just asking for money. In addition, the proposed park site is up to 'h miles
away, and requires pedestrian traffic, which will include kids, to go to the park. He stated that the
light at 178 and Comanche prohibits any pedestrian traffic, and therefore this is a problem.
Mr. Thompson commented with regard to a scheduling issue with regard to the wall that has
been negotiated with the developer. He stated that he would like to have a condition as to the
timeliness of the wall. He indicated that once the rough grading is completed on the subdivision,
he would like the wall and drainage facility to be the next order of work. This will give the
Homeowner's Association one more barrier to a whole bunch more people, whether it be
construction workers, or people buying their houses.
Finally, Mr. Thompson commented on the cumulative impacts in their general geographic area.
One being traffic and the light and water. He said that there are already people in the area who
have zero water pressure at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Thompson also stated that police services is an issue
as well and that recently a response time was given of 1 '/2 hours.
Gordon Nipp, for the Sierra Club, stated their issues are very similar to their issues on other
projects in the area, including traffic, air quality, and solar photovoitaic panels
Leo Chambles, 12529 Cliff Avenue, stated that he had to install a 3500 gallon tank to get
constant water. He stated that Cliff and View emergency access was put in by the homeowners,
and is not built to City specifications. He expressed concerns with the traffic issues, and stated
that the PC has an obligation to look at the entire area and come up with a plan or analysis of the
area so that the infrastructure can be done during the building, and not after the building.
Dr. Marvin Davisson, 12812 Cliff Avenue, and Dallas Medley 12844 Cliff Avenue, stated they
submitted a request last December to the County of Kern for a vacation of the easement that is
along the east side of Mr. Medley's property which is Canon Street, including Kirschenman
Avenue. He advised the PC that their request has not been acted upon by the County as of yet.
Mr. Davisson further expressed concern with the emergency access and liability issues. He
further indicated that their property borders the south edge of the tract, and they would request
that there be a condition that there be a block fence along the south border of the tract adjacent
to their property in order to protect large parcel homeowners from others coming on their
property. He stated they would also like to see that non-reflective material be placed on roofing,
and that heating and air units be on the ground. He also requested shielding from lights so they
can enjoy the night.
Arthur Unger stated his concerns about air quality.
Christopher Smale, M.D., stated he owns a lot out in the area where the development is going to
occur. He had community from the area stand up and raise their hand if they received
notification. He indicated that there appears to be a problem with notification. He indicated
that the primary function of the City is to provide for the health and safety of the community. He
indicated his concern with the standing water in the sump and disease. He also expressed
concern for the traffic issues. He talked about a lack of area for the children to play. He further
indicated that he attempted to obtain from the City police department what it cost to service a
certain area, and he was not able to obtain this information. He stated that the cost of police
service should be factored in to the cost of development.
Gaye M. Gazinsky, M.D., 12711 Cliff Ave., stated her property is directly to the south of Dr.
Smale. She stated that she is concerned about the safety of the children.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 8
Charley Patrick stated he lives on the corner of Comanche and Highway 178 on a 6-acre parcel.
He indicated his concern about the traffic, and stated that he felt the developer should pay for
the cars that he had to buy so that he could out run the traffic and get out onto 178
Those in favor of Staff's recommendation came forward.
Mike White, representing the applicant, stated they are in agreement with the conditions of
approval. He indicated that the County's June 7th Staff Report Vacation Hearing recommended
a 30' easement for secondary access. He indicated that he believes they will probably be
conditioned to have a boundary wall around the existing tracts, and would construct it upon
completion of the rough grading. Mr. White indicated that they like the recommendation to
remove some of the existing clay material from the retention basin and replace it with more
granular material so the water will percolate and not sit on the surface. Mr. White indicated that
with regard to the Fire Department issues, they had Jim Holiday and Dave Weirather, physically
go out and drive the site, and they determined that their secondary access was accessible. He
indicated there will be 140' deep lots instead of the minimum 100'. Mr. White indicated that he
can not comment on reflective roofing material at this time. He did indicate that A/C units would
be on the ground. He indicated that an additional study of the Burrowing Owl will be done prior to
grading. Mr. White indicated that Mr. Medley's request for a crash gate was denied by the
County as the road is a public road and that a public road cannot be blocked. He indicated that
their project is below the threshold of 152 lots with regard to an air pollution study. Mr. White
concluded by stating that they are consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Gay stated that he spoke with Dr. Smale and Tim Pierson. Commissioner Gay
stated that he advised Mr. Pierson that the current zone is R-1 and the applicant has the right to
do the development.
Commissioner Gay inquired about the secondary access, and Staff responded that the access is
a Fire Department requirement so it could not be removed without discussing with the Fire
Department. Commissioner Gay commented that this is Condition 11, and it does not mention a
crash gate, although they usually put crash gates. Commissioner Gay suggested requiring a
crash gate as long as it meets with all governmental regulations.
Commissioner Gay inquired about the V ditch, and why they are doing an open ditch instead of
having it piped over to the sump? Staff responded that the developer's engineer proposed the
ditch to pick up the drainage, and stated she is not sure how practical a pipe would be since it's
basically overland flow and does not come in at points like a normal storm drain.
Commissioner Gay inquired about Condition 26 for the block wall requirement, and inquired if
there would be a double block wall with the existing wall on the westerly line against Green Hills?
Staff responded that the applicant has agreed to build a block wall along the westerly side. Staff
indicated that the block wall from the Green Hills is not on their property line, but is set back
approximately 10' so that the walls would not be back to back. There would be a corridor in
between that the V drain would go through.
Commissioner Gay addressed the sump issues, and stated the issue with regard to water is
probably a Homeowner's Association issue. He stated that Staff will most likely modify signals
as the use increased in the area. He further stated that he did not see the animal issues
mentioned, and feels that many of the issues raised have been addressed by the applicant.
Commissioner Lomas addressed the issue of notification. She further asked staff to explain
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 9
what a property owner's legal rights to develop his property are. Staff subsequently responded.
She further asked for explanation of the purpose of a sump. Staff subsequently responded. Run
off from sprinklers would go in the storm drain which drains to the sump. She requested
appropriate language to be added that would add the gravel to the sump to deal with the
mosquito problem. Staff responded that Water Resources would deal with additions/changes to
the sump. Mark Lambert, with the City Water Department, explained the gravel pack in the
sump situation. He indicated that the gravel pack creates more problems.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the traffic issues. Staff indicated that the primary access to
this tract is on Buffalo Avenue which extends along the southern boundary of the commercial
property, which lines up with a local street that's going to be installed to help service Tract 6149.
Since there are less than 200 lots only one access is required.
Commissioner Lomas further inquired about overuse of the secondary access. She indicated
that she would like to see a condition on Tract 6485 to pay its proportion share of a signal in the
future. Mr. White indicated that the Westside condition was written in because they are trying to
coordinate the V ditch and where the wall is constructed, as well as taking into consideration El
Dorado Association's concern about how high the wall is and that it is limited to 8'. He stated
that they would accept a condition that a wall be on the north and south tract boundary as well.
Commissioner Lomas confirmed that an amended condition would include the west, north, and
south boundary block wall. Mr. White indicated that the south wall could be conditioned as a
maximum 6' wall because it is the top of a slope, and a maximum of an 8' on the north side,
which would include a 2' retaining wall.
Commissioner Lomas confirmed that she would like to see the A/C on the ground as a condition.
Commissioner Lomas lastly encourage the community's active participation.
Commissioner Tkac asked for clarification of the parks. Staff subsequently responded.
Commissioner Tkac commented on "dewatering" by taking water, refiltering it and reinjecting it
back into the ground. He further inquired about mosquito abatement. Mr. Lambert stated the
district will make sure the drainage basin is cleaned out, so mosquito fish can be placed, as well
as a spray to suffocate the mosquito larvae. Mr. Lambert pointed out that if the public has a
problem they can call the district who will address those problems. Commissioner Tkac inquired
of Mr. Lambert if vector control would be a more effective angle then a gravel pack, to which Mr.
Lambert stated that vector control would be more effective because with a gravel pack
eventually you're going to have water in there all the time.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the water flow issue to which Staff responded that if the fire
flow cannot be provided there would be no building. Mr. White responded that some areas are
higher up, and that their location is down lower, and further pointed out that those who spoke
about low water pressure are probably higher up. Mr. White indicated that the water agency has
advised them that they will have adequate pressure. He suggested that since the applicant is
building infrastructure maybe they can down the emergency access road and tie in a water line
and get more of a loop that might help their pressure out.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Staff about fire trucks maneuvering up the hills. Staff responded
that that has been looked at, and it was determined that the fire department can work with it.
Commissioner Tkac commented about his concern with the speed of traffic coming upon 24th
and M Street. He commented on drainage. He further indicated that we have one of the fastest
police response time in the state, although it doesn't seem very fast, and that it would be nice to
know what the cost is to service an area.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 10
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff about conditioning the applicant and the tracts that it
abuts a shared cost of a traffic light at Buffalo Street where it connects to Comanche. Staff
responded that a condition could only be placed on this current tract. Commissioner Tragish
further inquired about the scheduling of the wall, to which Staff responded that an appropriate
condition would be to have the wall completed prior to recordation of the subdivision. Staff
indicated that there is no way to track it after the grading is completed.
Commissioner Tragish pointed out that Condition 16 states that "Prior to the approval of a
grading plan, or ground disturbance, subdivider should retain a qualified biologist to comply with
survey protocol pursuant to Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game regarding burrowing owls, and be
subject to CDFG requirements."
Commissioner Tragish commented that this is a pretty dense project, which is right in the middle
of what appears to be some residential suburban-type lots, and could appear to be a buffer to the
extent that all the lots around it appear to be 1 or 2 acre lots. He stated that there is nothing
they can do about the density concerns.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the disputed access gate, and Mr. Weirather responded
that this gate goes across a county easement so they don't have total control of how that gate is
presented to the county and if they would accept it. Mr. Weirather indicated that if the county
would accept the gate, they would be fine with a crash gate in that location. A condition could
be placed to reflect this crash gate up on the county's approval. Staff indicated that the fire
department wants to the OP COM system, which would need to be a requirement in the
condition.
Commissioner Gay summarized the comments as: 1) Op Com system crash gate at the
emergency access subject to city and county approval. 2) Percolation measures at the sump
shall meet the city standards. 3) Ground mount H/AC system for all houses. 4) Tract 6485 to pay
pro-rata share of signal at Buffalo and Comanche. 5) The block wall north, west and south
boundaries not to exceed 8' prior to recordation of the tract map. 6) Extend the water main on
Canyon Street to the south tract boundary.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would rather see the block wall language read to be a
minimum of 8'. Commissioner Ellison responded that the north wall would be no greater than 8',
the south wall would be 6', and the west wall would be no greater than 8'. Commissioner Tragish
asked the applicant for clarification. Mr. White indicated that the north wall would be no greater
than 8', and no less than 6', the south wall would be 6', and the west wall would be no greater
than 8' and no less than 6'. He clarified the 8' maximum as no one wants to look at the wall.
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve and adopt a
Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6485 with findings and
conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", incorporating memoranda dated June
2, 2005 by Marian Shaw, and May 31, 2005 from Jim Movius, and adding to the motion that the
applicant shall: 1) Install an Op Com system crash gate at the emergency access subject to city
and county approval. 2) Provide percolation measures added to the sump to meet city
standards. 3) H/AC systems for all homes shall be ground mounted. 4) Tract 6485 to pay pro-
rata share of signal at Buffalo and Comanche. 5) The block wall north, west and south
boundaries to be no less than 6', and not to exceed 8' prior to recordation of the tract map. 6)
Applicant shall extend the water main on Canyon Street to the south tract boundary, and
recommend the same to City Council.
Applicant asked clarification from Staff regarding the traffic signal and how the pro-rata share is
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 11
determined, and if they would be able to apply their traffic impact fees, to which Staff responded
in the negative.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 12
6.5a&b Vesting Tentative Tract 6444/Zone Change 04-1572 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward
3)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Those in opposition spoke. Bill Martin, 1080
Paladino Drive, inquired about Condition 18 as it does not talk about the north side of Paladino.
He further inquired about Paladino Drive where it exists today is not where it's suppose to be.
He indicated that during that construction they are going to lose about 50-60 trees. He further
commented that there are issues because they are on septics, and if they take the full easement
(may be 55'), they are going to lose about 20' of their leech line, and therefore there is an issue
with the alignment.
Those in favor spoke. J.R. Moser, representing the applicant, stated the proposed community is
an age-restricted active adult aspect. He indicated that there will be no children, and therefore
will have lower trip count, less traffic in, and less corresponding pollution as a result. He stated
that they are agreeable to extend a sewer stub across the north from the north entrance on
Paladino which would enable the homeowners to have a point of connection that they could get
to and get off of septics and connect to the sewer system.
Gordon Nipp complemented the City in the Hills people for addressing some of the issues that he
is concerned with, such as the cumulative effects of the project on air quality, willingness to deal
with lightning issues, using solar power as an option to homebuyers, using native plants,
mitigating for the leopard lizard, and incorporating some Smart Growth features in their project
design.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Ellison inquired of Staff if there is a development like this in Bakersfield that can
be compared to? Staff responded that Castle & Cooke had somewhat of a similar concept, and
that Staff is satisfied with modifications made by the applicant in their application.
Commissioner Ellison inquired if the lot sizes are going to be adequate for the footprint of the
proposed home, to which Staff responded that they feel it does provide a lot of flexibility and
choice opportunity for seniors. Staff indicated that they feel it is a wise use of space, and
provides for more open space amenities because of the smaller lot sizes.
Commissioner Gay asked how this is limited to seniors so they don't end up with a Castle &
Cooke situation, and inquired if condition 19 should stipulate that CC&R's shall also carry an
age-restriction of 55+ years. Staff responded that the actual project description is for a planned
unit development, and therefore it is instilled in the project description as a condition of approval,
and will not be able to deviate from this. Commissioner Gay confirmed that the PUD stipulates
that it is a senior project thereby binding the application.
Commissioner Gay inquired if the people on the north side of Paladino are at or close to center
line with their property lines, to which Staff responded that the homes on the north side of
Paladino do look like they're maybe a little close. The applicant will only be doing the south half
of Paladino. Commissioner Gay inquired if the north property would bear the expense of putting
in the north end of Paladino. Staff responded that the City is not going to go back and require the
homeowners to put the street in. Commissioner Gay asked if the applicant's offer to extend the
sewer for a tie-in is adequate to assist the homeowners on the north side for future connection?
Staff responded that a condition could be added that would require the extension of the sewer
line from Paladino in order to serve properties on the north side.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 13
Commissioner Ellison inquired of Mr. Martin if the leech lines extend off the property, and he
responded that they are on the property and in the easement. He indicated that their property
was designed to allow for the 55' off-center. However, the problem is that the road when it was
put it, the road in front of his property is 3' south of centerline, and as you go further down the
road, the road curves and as you get further east towards Masterson it's actually the full width of
the right-of-way. Mr. Martin indicated that he wants to make sure that if he loses part of his leech
line that there is an option to connect to sewer. Commissioner Ellison then commented that that
option is being addressed.
Commissioner Ellison further inquired about the trees, and Mr. Martin stated that when the north
side of the street is put in, he is going to lose 6 trees, and another neighbor is going to lose about
4, which consists of established Eucalyptus and big Pine trees. He indicated that since the area
is "City of the Trees" it would be a mishap to see them go. Commissioner Ellison concurred.
Commissioner Ellison inquired of Staff about the misplacement of the road. Staff responded that
the road as proposed by the applicant is where the road needs to be. Staff responded that the
applicant appears to only be building the south half, and not the south half plus 8'.
Commissioner Gay confirmed if the applicant offered to extend a sewer line at Paladino to serve
the homes on a sewer lateral, to which Staff responded that it would be a sewer line.
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve and adopt a
Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6444 with findings and
conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", and requiring the applicant to extend a
sewer line across Paladino to serve the homes on the north side of Paladino and recommend the
same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve and adopt a
Negative Declaration and to approve Zone Change 04-1572 with findings and conditions set forth
in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
7. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change No. 05-0221 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval. No one spoke either for or
against the project. Public hearing closed.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 14
Commissioner Lomas indicated that the memo dated June 2, 2005 addresses all of the issues
that she had, and inquired if that would need to be incorporated into the motion, to which staff
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the memo and staff confirmed that the memo addresses the
two issues that were outstanding.
Commissioner Gay thanked the applicant and staff for showing the requested cross sections, and
making the realignment adjustment.
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve Zone Change
05-0221 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", and with the
Planning Department memorandum dated June 2, 2005, and recommend the same to City
Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
Break taken.
8. PUBLIC HEARING —Amendment to the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance
(Exempt from CEQA)
The purpose of this hearing is to receive input on proposed amendments to the City's Hillside
Development Combining zone. (Ward 3)
The Planning Director gave a short presentation regarding the Hillside Development Combining
Zone Ordinance.
The minutes pertaining to this project were done verbatim.
Roger McIntosh had the following comments. The ordinance is very unworkable. One size does
not fit all and I think we really need to look at what we're trying to protect here. Are we trying to
protect bluffs? Are we trying to protect open space? Are we trying to take all property that is
steeper than 8% slope? To put it into perspective, 8% is a little steeper than the grapevine grade
of the roadway going up south of the grapevine. That's a 6% grade. So this applies to all
property that is 8% or greater. Going through the ordinance, I just have several comments under
17.66.010, it states, the second paragraph there says: that the City Council shall adopt
development standards by resolution or ordinance which aide in the implementation. I'd like to
know if those are separate standards or ordinances and where are they and why aren't we
looking at them now? A lot of the sections are already covered in existing codes and ordinances.
The uniform building code covers quite a bit of the provisions in here that talk about minimize
erosion and geological hazards. Paragraph B there in that same section, I think you need to look
at density bonuses if you're going to restrict development in certain areas you need to look at
density bonuses to make up for the densities that will be lost in several of the slope areas.
Section 17.66.020, paragraph B4, this is the one that talks about recreation trails for pedestrian,
equestrian and multi-use purposes are exempt from the chapter. Recreational trails are probably
the most difficult types of improvements that are most difficult to handle. Usually, a trail will
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 15
follow the contour of the land. Sometimes it will go against the contour up and down and where
you have these low spots, usually water will concentrate at those areas and you have to take the
concentrated water and dispose of it off the side of the hill which causes erosion and that
becomes very problematic. I don't think there should be an exemption for trails. Public works
projects are exempted as well, number 10 there. I'm not sure why those are exempted. Again,
you have roads, tanks, water tanks, facilities that could be constructed on the top of a hill. Are
these going to be subject to these same setbacks or are you going to have a big tank sticking out
in full view? Number 11 there seems to be, have been added in to make sure that there is no
taking of property. I'm not sure what constitutes a parcel of land to be unbuildable and create a
loss of all it's reasonable economic use. That probably needs to be defined. And 11 B on page
4, where you allow for the proposed development shall be subject to the approval of planned unit
development zone PCD development agreement or specific plan, again there needs to be
provisions for a density bonuses that would be consistent with the general plan. Section
17.66.030, maximum grade of access that reference, or the actual reference, I believe, should
be 1994 instead of 1990. 17.66.040 contour grading, it's a little unclear as to what constitutes
public view. Public view could be from a roadway at the toe of a slope or it could be from a
roadway a mile away or half a mile away or two miles away. What exactly are we trying to,
trying to control there? A lot of the provisions in 17.66.050 are already covered in existing
ordinances. Your subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinances already cover a lot of these
issues as well as swept plans which are required under the NPDES program. They apply to and
govern soil stabilization, slope stabilization, re-vegetation, etcetera. Those are already required
by existing codes and ordinances. Paragraph O on page 6, soils engineering report which shall
contain but not be limited those are covered in the uniform building code as well as domestic
disposal of domestic sewage affluent if septic systems are proposed. Those provisions are
already covered in the uniform plumbing code. So there may be some duplication of that and
you need to make sure that there's no conflict there. Item 0-2 there, geology report, which shall
be include but not be limited to surface and sub-surface geology, those are covered in the
special study zones and those are required by your other ordinances as well. Drainage report
concepts, uh, drainage concept reports are required by subdivision ordinance. And I wanted to
request that item number 4 on page 7 under 0-4 Computer generated three dimensional graphic
representation of the project site may be required. That probably needs to be taken out. A lot of
this information can be depicted on two dimensional plans and models. So that should be
removed. Also wanted to speak to the 150 foot set back; when you put that into perspective and
you're looking at a 30% slope, a 30% slope is not that steep of a slope. The bluffs are probably
much steeper than that. When you set back a single story house 15 feet tall looking up a 30%
slope, your set back needs to be about 50 feet in order not to see the top of the house. On a 2 to
1 slope which is probably similar to what you see in most of the bluff areas, the steepness of that
slope if you're looking at it from the toe of the slope will cause that set back to be much less than
that because a single story house is no longer visible on a flatter slope, on a steeper slope. So
that set back would, in reality, be approximately I think it's about 30 feet. So the 150 foot set
back really doesn't do anything but take up a lot of space and doesn't protect people from seeing
the visibility of houses. Two story would might be a little bit more but not every case is going to
be single story or two story. Not every slope is going to be 30%. Not every slope is going to be
2 to 1. Every case is going to be different so to write that just as a general case really needs to
be looked at. 17.66.165 landscaping in publicly maintained areas, I'm not sure why that is in this
ordinance. It talks about the city shall, that landscaped areas to be maintained by the city shall
provide an oak tree and boulder theme. There's a number of different oak trees that will work in
this zone. There are a number of oak trees that will not work in this zone. Some oaks will be
croaked oak by the time, because they just won't survive. That needs to be looked at and
probably taken out. 17.66.170 drainage is already covered in the existing ordinances and I don't
think that needs to be in there. 17.66.180 under grading, paragraph 2E, grading slopes within the
public right-of-way or publicly maintained landscape easement and erosion control and
landscaping concept plan shall be submitted to the recreation and parks department for
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 16
approval. I think that should be reviewed by an engineering professional not the parks and
recreation director. Paragraph F on the next page, page 12, two to 1 steepest slope allowed
shall not exceed two to one vertical. There are already natural slopes out there that are steeper
than that. That section needs to be looked at as well. In
general, this, I think, this, this ordinance needs a lot of work. You'll see and probably hear a lot
about protecting the bluffs. This is much more than just the bluffs. This is much more, a much
more flatter slope that we're talking about here and in order to work within this ordinance, it will
be very difficult. Thank you.
Jim Nichols, speaking for the Nichols family made the following comments: The Nichols family
does support this ordinance. We think that there needs to be some modifications. As you may
be aware, the Nichol family owns of 5,000 acres in the Rio Bravo area in the northeast
Bakersfield. Most this land is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield and has been
designated for future urban use by the metropolitan general plan. For more than four decades,
our family has practiced careful stewardship of this beautiful landscape, land holding and
beautiful portions of land for agriculture and engaged in a thoughtful master planning for future
urban uses of our property. Evidences of our family's commitment to good planning and urban
design have been seen in the Rio Bravo Country Club development and the Rio Bravo Tennis
Resort. Our purpose in addressing the Commission on the proposed hillside development
ordinance is to remind the city of our commitment to excellence in planning and provide
constructive commentary on this very important and highly technical regulation. As part of its
interest in careful and responsible development, the Nichol family supports strict, enforceable
hillside grading regulations provided that they are clear, equitable and based on sound
engineering practice and provided they're not so onerous as to preclude economically beneficial
development of the property. In this spirit, we have asked our technical experts with extensive
experience in urban design in civil engineering and hillside studies to review and comment on
the draft ordinance. Our written conclusions and recommendations are attached to the package
that I believe you've all received. And thank you, I'd like to have Dave Dmohowski just make
some technical comments for us.
Dave Dmohowski, with Project Design Consultants representing Rio Bravo Ranch owned by the
Nichol family, had the following comments: Hillside development is a marriage of geology, civil
engineering, urban design and landscape architecture. And when done properly, it creates some
of the most desirable areas in California within which to live and also some of the most valuable
residential real estate anywhere in the country. The tragic slope failure in Laguna Beach just this
week, I think, illustrates the consequences of ignoring that relationship between geology, good
engineering and good planning. The history of that Laguna Beach project, by the way, goes back
100 years. It was a good place to live for 75 to 80 years before the first slope failure started
there. The geologic conditions that caused that were present in the early 1900's when those lots
were first subdivided. Without the benefit of any geo-technical review, without any organized
hillside development standards being in place at that time. By contrast, the Irvine Ranch, which
lies to the west and also to the north of Laguna Beach was very similar geologic conditions was
developed in the last 30 years with state of the art grading and engineering standards and
experienced virtually no catastrophic failure or any loss of housing even during the severe winter
rains, which by the way were the second most severe I believe in about the last 100 years. The
firm I work for is based in San Diego. I think some of you who know the San Diego area realize
that, I think the last flatland was developed there maybe in the late `60's. There's been a lot of
experienced learned the hard way in hillside communities and most hillside communities have
taken an extended period of time within which to evaluate what their general plan goals were for
sensitive land forms and have evolved a series of regulations and grading standards that work
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 17
and result in esthetically pleasing hillside development. Our engineers and planners at the San
Diego office were requested by the Nichol family to review this ordinance and we have a number
of specific comments and recommendations. However, I think that the cart is a little bit before
the horse here. Normally a community and many communities in Southern California have done
this over the last several decades start with a visioning process with an evaluation of what their
general plan, policies and goals are and as Mr. Movius showed on the screen, there's relative
little information or goals and objectives stated in your current general plan. And yet we have a
very detailed technical regulation in a very complex area of land use and construction. Without
really going through the discipline of identifying specific Iandforms, specific geographic areas,
specific public view sheds that the community believes should be preserved because of their
community-wide significance. So I know you have some somewhat very tight time frames that
have been posed upon you by the City Council but in an ideal world, you would spend a
considerable amount of time, I believe, identifying which Iandforms are most significant from an
environmental or view shed point of view and would amend your general plan with the normal
environmental reviews prior to adopting the implementing regulations. On some respects what
you have is a solution in search of a problem at this point in time. Regarding our specific
comments, we think the steep slopes of 30% or more need some further definition in terms of
land area with slope over 30% or height of the actual Iandform. We believe 80 feet would be a
good cut-off criteria because of the huge expanse of land in that particular part of town. We
think the handling of natural drainages needs more work. If you're intending to maintain or
preserve existing Iandform, the drainage in that area created by urban development is going to
follow the existing natural drainage courses and to restrict grading or improvements in those
drainages that would limit erosion and actually result in future vegetation and habitat, you kind of
defeat the purpose of your own stated objectives and goals. As I mentioned earlier, we think
significant ridge lines and Iandforms need to be specifically identified and mapped in the general
plan so there's no confusion as to what's in the public interest to preserve and what really doesn't
need to be preserved because it's an insignificant Iandform. I think if you took a literal
interpretation of the first draft of this thing, a small depression or a small mound of earth could
trigger a 150 foot setback because the Iandform happens to have a 30% slope characteristic.
And I don't think that was ever the intent but there's a lot of unintended consequences that I think
can creep into an ordinance of this type unless it's thoroughly reviewed by, not only the regulated
community, but the citizens. Mr. McIntosh mentioned the 150 foot setback, we think, and this
seems to be a somewhat arbitrary number, we think a starting number of perhaps 50 feet would
be more appropriate but it would be expanded through the review process where geo-technical
conditions or public view considerations would dictate a larger setback. The intent of requiring
contour grading on all slopes seems to be excessive and overly restrictive. If you have a slope
in the rear yard in the home of a hillside setting that's not visible to the general public or a major
public road, there's really no benefit in contouring even relatively tall slopes as the height of the
house and other landscape features tend to obscure the cut or fill activity that would occur to the
rear of the home. Also, I wanted to emphasize one thing that Mr. Movius emphasized that
landscape is extremely important in hillside setting and perhaps that's one area that the
ordinance could be revised or expanded upon in the future because landscaping can achieve the
same undulation of appearance that contour grading could and it's far, far less cost to the future
homeowner. We were very gratified to see that you have incorporated a variety of alternative
compliance procedures into the ordinance, specifically development agreement of specific plans,
I think in the case of Rio Bravo Ranch when we come forward in the coming months for our
master plan for review by the public, we would want to take advantage of some of those
alternative compliance procedures. Again, I think, Mr. Nichol and his family have demonstrated
their commitment to excellence in planning. They've created some landmark projects that have
become anchors of the northeast Bakersfield community and they want to be productive
participants of the planning process in the future and would look forward to working with the city
and the Bakersfield community. We have submitted, as Mr. Nichol said, a fairly detailed list of
comments so I won't go into any additional detail on those. We've handed those off to you and
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 18
your staff and we look forward to an opportunity for further input as this goes through the
process. Thank you.
John Fallgatter, President, Smart Grow Coalition, made the following statements: Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners and Staff, I appreciate this opportunity to speak. My comments are going to be
very brief. Our organization for years has encouraged the growth of our city to go to the east
side away from productive farm land. Our concern with this ordinance is it's a good start but we
want to make sure it's not so restrictive that developer's are going to be scared away from
developing in that area because of the undue cost of the 150 foot setbacks and some of these
things need to be addressed as was earlier discussed. So, it's a good start and thank you for
your time.
Greg Iger, concerned citizen, had the following comments: I have a few pictures that I brought
along if we could dim the lights a little bit. I don't know how long ago this was designed but this
is why it's important to have a strong hillside ordinance. This is what's happening down in
Laguna right now. Let me see if I can work this. The beautiful scenery in Bakersfield is in very
short supply. It really benefits all of us to try to preserve the rare, beautiful sights that we have.
Historically, Bakersfield has allowed a lot of unbridled development on the sides of hills and it
should probably be looked after a little bit more. Now we don't allow this anymore but still this is
a recent development. As you can see we have fence lines, white fence lines going down and
no matter where you stand you see those and you see the tops of the houses and I think if we
had a 150 foot set back or even a 50 foot set back from those fences, it would, it would be a lot
more esthetically pleasing. This is a view from the golf course at Tuscany. There's that white
fence that just stands out. I don't think we really need that. This is some development that we're
probably familiar with down in the Los Angeles area, not too pleasing. Castaic, these are
modern developments. Here's where they put up tarps to keep their landscaping from falling off
the side of the hill. We've some bad planning and we've seen some --- this is a new
development in Bakersfield. I don't know if it goes under the existing hillside ordinance or not
where one landowner has to prove to us that he owns this little corner here. More fences. Castle
and Cooke has made a development along the river where they have, I'm not sure of the
distance of the set back, but they have quite a bit of set back here and they have a parkway put
in between the river and their property as well as the road. There's also nicely developed
parkway off Panorama Drive which gives a buffer between the bluffs there and the houses. All
that we're asking is that we keep the nature, do everything in our power to support Bakersfield,
keep it beautiful. We have very few areas left that are beautiful and the bluffs are one of them.
This is our town. We should try to do everything we can to keep our town the way we want it
rather than just let everyone develop everything they want. We can tell them if we want a set
back and we don't want to see their houses. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tom Fallgatter. I'm the attorney for General Holding
and I have some comments to make but first I have a very high-tech demonstration that I want to
set up here for everybody to take a look at, so if you'll give me a second to set this up.
I'm a visual kind of person and I think a lot of people are, too. Before I get to my highly technical
exhibits, I want to comment that we have submitted a letter with several attachments so each of
the planning commissioners should get a copy of it. I don't know if its been distributed. That
letter asserts our position that the exemption that the staff has indicated that they're processing
this order under exemption from CEQA is inappropriate and the processing of this ordinance
requires an EIR. There's a wealth of information and a detailed argument on that issue for the
planning commissioners review. That's also been submitted to staff. There isn't very much in
there in terms of argument about the ordinance per se, it's a CEQA argument and we do feel
very strongly that this ordinance, the processing of this ordinance does require an EIR. High
points of the information that's contained in the letter and exhibits is that despite the information
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 19
that you may have heard this evening or may have read, this ordinance the way it is drafted has
the potential to impact approximately 10,000 acres of property and the basis of that is laid out in
that letter. There's a topographical study that's been done that shows the slopes 8% and plus.
And with the area that's in the city limits now and the area that's within the sphere of influence for
the city of Bakersfield, when you take into account the 150 foot set back, you get a number that's
very close to 10,000 acres. And that really is a nice segue way for me, that's the sequel
arguments, I leave those to the written submission that we've made. But my segue way is I want
to move to about four central points we have to make about the ordinance. In the flyover that we
took this evening of piloted by Mr. Movius, he starts at he mouth of the canyon, he goes down
the ridge that he also described later which we all kind of recognize as the, what we call the
bluffs. And then he turned around and went back up the area that we call the bluffs. And the
inference or if not the actual assertion is that this ordinance is designed to protect that area but
the actual language of the ordinance says that the threshold for invoking the provisions of the
ordinance is an 8% slope. So I would like to show you what an 8% slope looks like. That's an
8% slope, okay. And if there's any members of your staff or any members of the audience that
want to challenge that, they're happy to come up and check my math. So this is the size of the
slope that you are being asked to regulate. Every time you see something on television or you
see something in the Bakersfield Californian or as tonight when you saw this flyover, you're
shown a picture of the bluffs. The bluffs we all know and quite frankly most of us love. But this
ordinance isn't about the bluffs. You can all tell that that's not a bluff. That's barely a hill, I
mean, it's almost flat. It's what most people would think of as flat. The question is why do we
need an ordinance to regulate an 8% slope? Mr. Movius gave us an indication of why which may
be an acceptable reason. He said "it really came about because of concerns of fire protection."
If that's what the concerns are, then the existing ordinance as it is addresses fire concern.
What's happening is we are taking a fire concern that had to do with an 8% slope, which I'm
going to accept as being a valid concern, but it's being bootstrapped into something that we're
told is an ordinance to deal with bluffs but it isn't. It's an ordinance to deal with that. And there
are a series of studies that are required for every project that comes under the purview of the
hillside ordinance which is defined as the threshold as 8%, which will require all developers in the
northeast, not just developments on the bluffs who have 8% more slope to submit a whole series
of new studies that are provided for in the amendments that are proposed. I would urge the
members of the planning commission to think about why you would want to layer on a whole
series of new studies. You're shown pictures of basically vertical cliffs and said we need to
protect those. That's true, you need to do that. But why would you want to adopt amendments
to an ordinance that apply to something that looks like this. Now the 8% is the first stage and so
my argument on that is leave it alone as far as the current ordinance goes for 8% for fire
protection apparently it's worked as a safety measure. You don't need all these other provisions.
The, in his presentation, Mr. Movius actually spoke mostly about 30%. As he went over the hills
in the video or the presentation, he talked about a 30% slope. So I'd like to show you what a
30% slope looks like. This is a 30% slope. Now I ask you, does this look like the pictures that
you saw from the airplane that you were flying with Mr. Movius? That's the, that's the 30% slope
that we, under the proposal and the new amendments to the ordinance, will be regulated as
though they were bluffs. Where the commission and the community are, um, how do I want to
say this carefully, are under a mis-apprehension of what this ordinance is doing. You keep
seeing pictures of things that look like this, okay. That's a 40 to 70 or 80 percent slope, that's a
bluff and if it's 200 feet high it's, in fact, something that our community should be concerned
about. Mr. Iger's pictures were of real bluffs. He didn't show you any pictures except maybe the
beginning of some flowers going up one canyon, of anything that looked like this. He took
pictures of the same thing you keep seeing with regard to this ordinance — real bluffs. So his
argument, Mr. Iger's argument is we need to protect those. I agree with that. In fact, General
Holding Property, my client, contains real bluffs and the community has a right to insist that
those bluffs be treated according to the values of the community. But the great bulk of my
client's property has nothing to do with bluffs and the great bulk of the whole area that would
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 20
come within the purview of this ordinance has nothing to do with bluffs. And I think it is
extremely important that everybody pay attention to what you're being asked to regulate. This
ordinance is an incredible overkill and it's unnecessary. It just loads additional costs onto
developments. The commission and the council, the staff, the community, everybody involved
in trying to do this ordinance needs to think through what it is we are trying to protect.
You don't need to take that ribbon of small area and stretch it out to over 10,000 acres. It just
doesn't make any sense. So regulate real bluffs and come up with an ordinance that's designed
to do that. The 150 foot set back rule --- the 150 foot set back that's in the proposed ordinance
will apply to this level of slope. I don't think any of the pictures you saw from Mr. Iger or from
staff have anything to do with something that's of this nature. Let me give you an idea of what
you're talking about. If you go up to La Cresta which most people consider to be one of the
prettiest little neighborhoods in the greater Bakersfield area, you're going to see all kinds of
slopes that at one time were in excess of 30%. If you had taken this ordinance and put it into
effect in 1950, you would have wiped out probably a third or more of all the houses built in La
Cresta. Is that what the goal of the community is? I don't believe that. If you go out to the
Bakersfield Country Club area, again another prestigious and beautiful area, and you were to go
back in history to 1950 and look at the area around the Bakersfield Country Club and you were to
put an ordinance like you're being asked to look at now in place for the development of the
Bakersfield Country Club, you would be taking a huge chunk of the property there and making it
undevelopable. And for what reason? What's the benefit to the community in doing that? It has
nothing to do, again, with the beautiful bluffs. So my theme here, to say it again, ordinance is a
huge over reach. Community needs to define what it is. What is the, what are the substantial
formations that have significant community value and then how do we protect those? A couple
more comments, the, this process is being moved rapidly. And it does have huge consequences
for our city. I think it's incumbent upon the commissioners to do as Mr. Iger said which is to
protect the valuable community assets. There are aesthetic bluffs but it's also incumbent upon
you and the public has charged you with an obligation to pay attention to these types of
ordinances, to participate in the process which I've seen you do many times before and as this
thing is being pushed hard, I'm asking you as members of the planning commission to fulfill that
role, to ask the questions that need to be asked about this ordinance and to do the work, spend
the time with the community's help, with your staff's help, with the development community's
help to be sure that we put together an ordinance that does not place an inordinate burden on
development and yet at the same time preserves those special bluffs that are important to all of
us and that is well thought through and would it be something that the community can be proud
of and it will last us and protect us on into the future so. Again, I encourage the commission's
active participation in this process and I think you for the opportunity to address you this evening.
I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you.
Rich O'Neill made the following comments: I'm a concerned citizen and a community activist.
My desire is to make Bakersfield a better place to live. Did you notice how flimsy that material
was that displayed that example? Styrofoam at 8%, Styrofoam laid out at 30%, that's a little
deceptive. It's a little weak, much like those bluffs and canyons. The small canyons, the big
canyons. The big hills, the little hills. I read the, the ordinance, city ordinance and I think it said
an average natural slope of 8% or more. An average slope. So the land we're addressing could
have a slope at an 80% grade and a slope at 0% grade. If it averages out, it's 8%, depending on
how much land you're taking into effect, I think that makes a lot of sense to have an 8%. I've got
four pages of comments here and I'm not going to read them all but I'd like to give you a copy.
Let me hand those out real quickly. Thank you. If I could have you read those later. The last
thing I wanted to say is that we have identified those bluffs, the Kern River bluffs, and the area
above it for many years. I was on the year 2000 general plan. I went to all those meetings. We
talked about view shed. They wouldn't allow us to create a view shed ordinance but all those
bluffs, Hanglider Hill and the bluffs above Goodmanville, above Hart Park, the Cactus Preserve,
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 21
those were all mentioned in the year 2000 plan. The 20/20 vision process, many of you went to
those. Some of the developers even went to those. Some of them tonight went to the 20/20
vision plan and they identified green ways, not only the Kern River and its parkway, not only the
bike path down there but also the bluffs and the hills surrounding it. The open space and trails
plans led by Michelle Beck, we talked about those bluffs there and the developers were there;
many of them are here tonight. All of these plans mention the Kern River bluffs and it's a value
to our community and our culture and our heritage. They're all scenic resources worth
protection. Thank you very much.
Nancy Lerma made the following statement: I am a fourth generation Kern County citizen and
I'm raising the fifth generation here in Kern County. I was away for quite a few years for school
and I got married and came back and had some place to come back to and part of that reason is
the bluffs. My father, when he was young, lived in east Bakersfield and he'd ride his bicycle over
the hills to the river across the bluffs. And then I can remember my uncle taking us up and we'd
pick mushrooms up there and have many, many wonderful memories of that area so it's close to
me and I recognize as we went through that wonderful video clearly I could tell you so many of
the places. It was really neat to see that but one of the things that I think is great about the
hillside ordinance is that the tool to develop in a wonderful way. It's a way that we can control
the development so you don't go so fast and have to go back to all the problems that you
addressed here all night long that we sat for about three or four hours and listened to. It's a way
to prevent those problems from occurring in the first place. So creating some guidelines so the
developer can't say I followed all the rules and I get to do it and now I get to make all my money.
And I think making money on property is wonderful. I am very much for free, for property rights
but with regard to the community as a whole. And I loved the man who represented Nichols
about having the vision of the whole east quarter and I think what a wonderful time it is now to
put these rules in place and maybe even consider a larger regional park and some more open
space that can be purchased from the developers and make the developments that they create
more valuable. So I think there's a lot to do with these, that this particular tool that you've
created, the hillside ordinance and making it tougher will really lend to better development but
have higher value. Anyway, that's all I think I want to say. I'm very much for it. I would not let it
be watered down in any way and I think that we're really going to be happy when we see, when
we don't see these projects but they're there and they'll be pleasant to go to and it will be
wonderful even to have more trails all the way through that beautiful canyon that more of us can
access, not just the bluff trails but more trails to go along with that, along with the development
that's coming. So, I'm not anti-development, I just would really love to have beautiful
development and let my kids go away to college and come back to a great place. Thank you.
Lorraine Unger, representing the Sierra Club, had the following comments: We've been
following this for quite a while and the Sierra Club would like to be on record supporting the new
amended hillside ordinance and that houses should be set back from the edge of steep slopes at
least 150 feet. Not just houses but fences and what about those swimming pools they've told us
they'd hide. Those should be set back, too, regardless of what the engineers have been telling
us. In order to preserve the view shed esthetics from below the Kern River bluffs, we would
suggest that the ordinance be further (Unintelligible) to require that lot lines be set
back in addition to all these other buildings. Under such a regimen, the tops of the bluffs would
then be preserved possibly for a scenic parkway for the community. The area could be re-
vegetated with the native plants. The city has a list of (Unintelligible) or
Mediterranean plants that could be used that is mentioned in the ordinance. There are a lot
more plants that are not included and just by going to the California Living Museum, you can see
lots of perennial plants that naturally occur in California and many of them can be used in the
bluff areas. One of them is the Atriplex which many of us are not familiar with but it's a gray-
green plant that we think of as a weed and having grown up in the east, green is beautiful but
here, gray is important because the sun hits our plants many, many months of the year. We also
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 22
suggest that the ordinance contains certain strong grading restrictions that would limit cut and fill
to a minimum so as to prevent destruction of ridges and ravines. We also ask that your
commission make a timely decision so that the ordinance can be taken up as soon as possible.
There is such pressure for development right now, I have no fear that any restrictions would
impede development in this community. We are building just tremendously quickly and I think
we really need to look forward to this and perhaps still have a dream of an open space area on
top of the bluffs. Thank you.
Earl Norcross, the President of Kernville Bicycle Club, member of the Southern Sierra Fat Tire
Association spoke next. His comments were: I spend a lot of time up on those bluffs and I really
appreciate them and some of the pictures that we saw of the bluffs earlier were just fantastic.
That's what they are. If you have never been up there to see them, please do go up and see
them because they are really beautiful. I really kind of agree with most of everything that
everybody's said here. You know, I see that the developers and their big guns, they're here to
protect their rights as they should and we have the other groups here that are here to protect the
bluffs. And I see two different issues here myself. I see the bluffs and I see the hillside
ordinance. And in trying to mix them together is where you're having the problem. You're
having all this resistance from everybody. You got to deal with the bluffs and the bluffs, they just
need to be saved and protected and, and, and it, uh, I just can't but believe that there's some
deal can be made with the owner of the property up there to save those bluffs and protect them
or the good of the people. Thank you.
Christopher Smale, M.D. spoke next: I just want to say a few comments. Not too many years
ago, I believe it was the city, but I'm not 100% certain, had a big problem with methane up on
Panorama. They allowed a development to occur above the dump which was just below the
bluffs there. Supposedly the development up there was the best engineering of the day, but still
they had a problem with methane and those houses and we taxpayers were the ones that bailed
out that area. Not too many years ago, Alfred Harrell Highway was damaged by a slide. And not
only that but Panorama Drive was damaged by a slide. That was after a particularly wet year,
agreed, but nevertheless, erosion does occur. And when you have erosion, you're going to lose
something, whether it's a road, a house or an area. We saw the areas down in the L.A. area that
have been lost. Those areas were supposedly developed by the best engineering of the day but
they were still put in an area where they slid. I suggest we look at this area and we try to protect
the taxpayers by making and adequate set back such that these houses are not put at risk for
sliding in the immediate and the originally distant future. One other thing to think about — this
land up there, to this point in time hasn't had no water put on it except for the rain in the winter
time. Once we get houses up there, there will be irrigation water put on this land on a firstly daily
basis. The water will percolate into the ground. Over a period of years and after maybe a
particularly wet year, the land will become unstable. It will move. It's moved elsewhere. It's
moved elsewhere in Bakersfield. The only way to prevent that from occurring is adequate set
back which makes the problem pushed off into the remote future. Thank you.
My name's John Wilson. I'm a civil engineer in Bakersfield. I'm licensed in two states and also
a licensed A contractor. I've lived and worked in Bakersfield for 37 years as an engineer and
since I am turning 60 next year, my career is coming to a little bit of an end. I have no clients
here tonight. I serve no developers in that area at the present time. I have friends that asked
me to review the ordinance and comment upon this and I have meet with the members of
Friends of Bluffs to advise them and try and direct them and maybe some of their comments
couldn't be engineered or impossible to be done. They have submitted a letter to you dated
June 1st and I have reviewed that letter. That letter is sound engineering wise. It has good
sound principles to it. I've also sent a letter to Mr. Movius on May 31st about some specifics
because engineers like to be specific. If this ordinance was enacted and you heard Mr. McIntosh
state that almost all of the required exhibits that would be required by this ordinance are
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 23
mentioned elsewhere in the subdivision ordinance so you'd have to believe that there's not much
new to be done. My own personal view of this is that the items that are being required as an
ordinance would protect me as an engineer from a very litigious world we have now. The more
reports, the more information we have, the more maps you do, the less chance of attorneys
coming after you for the things that are happening as we see in Laguna and elsewhere.
Although, I don't welcome regulations and as I said I started in '69 there was a very few of them
and I've lived with quite a few regulations, new ones, ordinances, etcetera and I've come to fill
that the more regulations and they're good ones, like this one, you have the safer it is for me, a
professional, designing things. So I think the ordinance itself is a good ordinance. It does have
a few little clarifications to be made but that is the same as any ordinance. If you wait and take
direction and review ad (Unintelligible) this ordinance will never get enacted and
never solve the purpose and problem that you have before you today. Although I don't urge
haste, I think you've had a lot of people give a lot of good direction. I think you're staff would be
well advised to take these under consideration as quickly as possible. The longer things take,
the more they cost, the more things can go wrong. So like I says, it's a good ordinance, you've
got some good direction and good comments, I urge you to adopt it. Thank you.
Marci Cunningham, on behalf of Kern Equestrians for the Preservation of Trails, and I've
represented horseback riders on the Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee since it's inception
four and a half years ago. I'm going to make another comment that I don't have written down.
Normally I think of endurance because I ride endurance and I ride horses 50 miles, of spending 8
to 10 hours on a horse but I think I have a new definition of endurance being here since 5:30 this
evening. So I'm in awe of you people that are on the commission and my hats off to you for the
time and the hours that you spend and here I'm just here for one night and then dying. I thought
sitting on a horse was hard. Anyway, the approval of the specific trail plan for this area was a
step in the right direction and changes to the hillside ordinance will further our progress in the
right direction with regard to the development of this land and all hillside land in Bakersfield.
There's no doubt in my mind that regardless of any new restrictions on building on the hillsides of
Bakersfield, the developers of this land are going to make a ton of money. The building industry,
no doubt, will whine and lobby against any proposed changes to the ordinances and say that
these proposed changes are unfair and will cut into their profit. The bottom line is that General
Holding will leave Bakersfield with its pockets filled to the brim with profits and whoever ends up
building the homes in this area will have people lined up at their doors to buy these homes.
From the plans I've seen and I've seen the most recent drawings that General Holdings has
submitted to the planning department, there is extensive cut and fill of some fragile bluff areas.
It may not be the tallest areas but there are some areas that I think are just atrociously planned.
And while we will never get the amount of rain that southern California has received, isn't it ironic
that the recent news has been full of houses sliding down the hillsides in Laguna Beach. Just
look at the natural erosion that occurs now on these bluffs. And actually the natural erosion adds
to the beauty of the area. Does anyone want to see some of these bluffs flattened to terraced
plateaus and crowded with houses? If you have ever stood on Goodmanville Road, you can
hear voices from up on the bluffs. I have ridden my horse along Goodmanville Road and
wondered where voices were coming from only to look up on the bluffs and realize that the
voices were echoing down from this area. Can you imagine how loud it will be for the
homeowners in this area along Goodmanville if developers are allowed to build, to develop and
build right up to the edge of the bluffs? And I realize what Tom Fallgatter said but frankly, I don't
know if I believe him. One solution is to control building by requiring specific lot set backs. We
hear 150 feet spoken of, we hear others. But some of the bluff areas are so fragile, they are not
suitable for building. In some areas, and I realize that a lot of General Holdings is flat area, but
there are areas where their solution has been to flatten out some hill areas and fill the gaps in
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 24
with dirt. As I've said, I've seen drawings for the proposed development and am flabbergasted at
some of the areas that are planned for houses. If the ability to limit the amount of terracing and
bulldozing that a contractor can do on a slope is removed from the ordinance, what is going to
keep them from flattening every hill on the property? Certainly you can all remember the land
settling and losses that resulted from the cut and fill along Panorama near Fairfax. Does history
need to repeat itself before the light bulb comes on? I urge the planning commission to adopt
changed to the hillside ordinance that will enhance the beauty of this area and still allow for
reasonable development. Trails should follow the natural contour of the land whenever possible,
not just be put alongside a road. I have confidence that the planning commission and the city
council will step up to the plate and do what is best for the citizens of Bakersfield. Thank you.
C.J. Watson spoke next: I have 3,000 acres out there west of the golf course towards the mouth
of the canyon out there. We run cattle on it. And I also live on Alfred Harrell Highway across the
street from the bluffs so I'm kind of in both directions there, you know. I don't really want to look
out my front door and see houses on the hill there across the street from me but I own land out
there that we want to develop out there by the golf course. And if you have 150 foot set back,
they'll fall off the backside of the other hill. So it has to be some kind of medium there to make it
all work and the pictures of the fences hanging down the hills right now, those new houses, you
know, that doesn't look very well, but, you know, the landscaping hasn't grown up on those
places and made them look right, yet. And if you go out there and you look right now, it's dry
and those hills, you know, they're ugly. They're dry, they're ugly and you look at some of the
others where the houses are and they have the nice trees on the ridges, they look better than the
old dry hill that's over there. So there's a toss-up both ways but that stuff out there is, you know,
our land and we want to be able to develop some of it some day so I don't want a bunch of
restrictions saying, you know, that we can't do it some day. So that's just kind of my voice
between both directions. Thank you.
David Albers, a member of Friends of the Bluffs an organization dedicated to preserving
recreational use of the bluffs corridor, made the following comments: My wife and I live in
southwest Bakersfield and we often get up early in the morning, 4, 4:30 in the morning to go out
to the bluffs to run or sometimes we go out there a little bit later to ride in that area. It's a
beautiful area, unique aspect as you heard so much testimony tonight. I wanted to make sure
that you didn't lose sight of what Mr. Fallgatter showed you tonight. He had a real interesting
display which I thought was very effective and I hope his message wasn't lost. And that was a
bait and switch. I think what I heard him say was he wants you to pass the hillside ordinance to
protect the bluffs because they're so beautiful and then, of course, as soon as you do, he's going
to sue you under CEQA for not preparing an EIR. So he's just trying to slow it down and not
allow any protection anyways. In the meantime, of course, this client can get his map approved
and go out there and build with the same standards that we have today for flat ground which
have no relevance to building out there in the hills. It just doesn't make any sense. The
developers, of course, are saying slow down. I think slow down is a good message for tonight.
You should move fast now to pass this ordinance to slow the development down so that we can
have good planning out there, the right studies can be done and the area can be properly
planned. The bluffs are a unique resource and you've got warning signals out there all around in
the media today so I just encourage you to consider all those things in looking at this but to move
quickly and develop some good standards that will result in some good planning. Thank you.
Craig Smith and Michelle Beck stated the following: And we're with the Bakersfield Trails and
Bluffs Committee and we've heard the speakers tonight and speak to the ordinance itself. Many
people are referring to it as a bluff ordinance. It really is and it truly is a hillside development
ordinance affecting hillside development in the future. What we have now, as Mr. Fallgatter
pointed out, protects primarily towards fire but it doesn't protect, and Mr. Fallgatter didn't
mention, and many other people are missing the fact that the developments that are being
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 25
proposed and will be proposed in the future will end up sliding down. Whether its five feet or 50
feet or 200 feet down the slope. It makes no difference to that homeowner because it ends up,
their house, their site becomes uninsurable and they're not living there anymore. The mayor of
Laguna Hills and Laguna Beach, it was very interesting what she said. She said "this is a
common problem. They're going to building, they've rebuilt before and they're going to rebuild
again." That is not the solution for Bakersfield. We don't want to have homeowners having to
build, rebuild and then rebuild again. (Unintelligible) earlier on a different project
said we have lots of good staff trying to do the right thing. Do not miss that point with this
ordinance. This isn't a recreational group bringing this ordinance forward. It is staff. As staff
pointed out to you, they're going to listen to the public, they're going to listen to the developers.
They're going to listen to the interested parties and they're going to hire consultants, the best
consultants that have experience, San Diego and Los Angeles, perhaps not only within California
because there's lots of bluffs elsewhere, New Hampshire, Michigan and Washington. They can
take that whole combined experience and bring it right here to Bakersfield. And that's what
should be done. As Mr. Movius said, he stole one of his graphics off of someone else's
ordinance. It is our hope that we will be stealing from many other people's ordinance in order to
get our ordinance right. We ought to learn from everybody else's mistakes. Mr. Fallgatter
pointed out La Cresta and Bakersfield Country Club as being wiped out of one-third of homes
having a huge chunk of undevelopable property but the fact is over by the Bakersfield Country
Club there are developments that should not have been passed. I, myself, got Valley Fever from
one of the developments when they put a huge retaining wall up and decided to bring all the dirt
from across the street. So me and a couple other runners were running up Fairfax while they
were doing that and just by chance in 1992, all of us got Valley Fever within a month of each
other. That's what's going to happen also on the bluffs if you allow large amounts of grading, cut
and fill, not only concerning the houses sliding down but resting on fill that will settle. And that's
part of what those homeowners on Fairfax are dealing with right now. Those on the cut are
perfectly fine. Those on the fill are dealing with settling problems. My father had to deal with
settling problems in Los Angeles for many years because his house was on a perfectly great
slope and was perfectly fine for 10 years and then as the neighbors and he put fruit trees on the
side and swimming pools in the back, everything started settling. That's what happens when you
build on the bluffs and slopes. Everything's fine for five years, 10 years but it's the homeowners
that have to deal with the problems. I gave letters to each of the planning commissioners
yesterday and hope that was read. But the important part in that was a newspaper article from
Utah where they okayed a subdivision that in year 2000, the engineering firm said it shouldn't
have been built. 2002 they got another engineer come in and say, yeah, that's alright. They can
build here. And so, in fact, they did. This is year 2002 hat they okayed it. What was interesting
was on this article from the Central Utah Daily Herald, who'd they talk to but the Cedar Hills City
Manager. That's who the person was that talked to the news reporter. And he said, first of all, it
would have been illegal for the city to deny the development as long as the developer had any
expert opinion stating that homes could be built safely. Even if there were five others that said it
wasn't. The city manager said the practice of developers seeking a second opinion about geo-
technical warnings is "standard in the industry". When the city was faced with having to deal with
homes that actually slid down, their statement was "the city is very concerned about the families
who have been displaced by the landslide" but can't say anything about the situation that would
imply their property value has decreased even though every single person recognizes their
property value not only decreased but may have gone down to zero. His quote was "I think
anybody that builds on a hillside" again not a bluff, a hillside, "should probably do a little more
due diligence on hillside issues than people that don't." He said the city nor the developer was to
blame. Who'd they vote for at the very last line? The city manager said "we don't build homes
or design homes, if it fails, go talk to your engineer". The engineers that spoke today said
ordinances needed, it would help their practice.
Michael Taylor had the following comments: I'm the current president of the Bakersfield Track
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 26
Club. I support the proposed hillside ordinance with some changes and additions in mind. A
detailed letter of suggestions has been submitted by the Friends of the Bluffs. I echo most
suggested changes to the hillside development draft made in the letter from the Friends of the
Bluff to Mr. Movius. I would like to emphasize with slight changes and additions item number 2
to read "all development including grading shall be prohibited within 50 feet of an area 30 degree
or greater in natural slope except for public recreational use." In addition, I suggest attaching to
this item, number 2, no new lot lines within 50 feet of an area 30 degrees or greater in natural
slope. My hope is to avoid new landowners from fencing off public access, encourage current
landowners to honor the specific trail plan most of which falls in these types of slope areas and to
protect some of the natural water shed necessary to sustain the native plant live and at the base
of these slopes. As I understand it, drainage is not allowed off of most developments. If you
allow adequate bumpers, perhaps, needed water shed would be available to sustain those plants.
On the other hand, I realize landowners should not be responsible to improve areas they are not
allowed to develop nor should they have to maintain these same properties. Should trails be
required to run through developments, developers having made improvements to trails should
not be required to maintain them. I understand that this is outlined in the specific trail plan and
have been told that the city's park and recreation department would maintain these trail slope
areas. Mr. Fallgatter, as mentioned by the previous speaker, seems to be under the impression
this ordinance is the bluffs development ordinance. It's not, it's the hillside ordinance.
Furthermore, the 8% and 30% is hard to visualize on four to six foot spans. It looks a lot
different when you're looking up at a mile that you might have to run at 30 degrees, it's a big
difference. I urge this commission not to allow the many distractions offered by developers here
tonight to postpone this much needed ordinance. Thank you.
David Campbel stated: I didn't plan to come up here to speak this evening but I felt strongly
after listening to Mr. Iger that he had the real point of the evening. There's been plenty of
technical arguments about 8% and 30% slopes. They all go together and to me the value of the
ordinance, which I do want to speak of largely in support, is that it is keeping a sense of
wholeness about the whole area. It's not about doing something with this piece and that piece.
Those slopes, 8% to 30%, create an environment that exists in very, very few places. And by
keeping those together, we have opportunities for views, for recreation and in the right places for
housing to occur. I guess that's really what I want to have to say which is that this is a good
ordinance. It needs developing, it needs improvement but it's on the right track. I have
mountain biked out there for about 10 years. It's not a natural area. It's full of glass and old
concrete and it's been ripped up by motorcyclists. It does need to be, it is not natural anymore.
And one possibility that certainly could come with this ordinance is to restore some of the
vegetation that needs to be there for our full enjoyment. I speak in support for the ordinance.
Lori Taylor, Vice President of the Bakersfield Track Club, spoke the following as an interested
citizen. 1, too, am a person that recreates out in the area. I speak in support of the ordinance
and would like to just offer some opinions. I do support that there should be set backs. I'm not
an engineer. I can't tell you how much is appropriate. I leave that to the committee to do that
but I believe that set backs are appropriate in areas of 30% natural slope. I also believe it's
appropriate to restrict lot lines. Again, I can't tell you what I feel is the appropriate amount but
that we can do that to preserve the bluffs and the areas of natural slope and also to preserve the
esthetic value of the area in general. I would like to see some mechanism in the ordinance that
would support the specific trails plan that has already agreed upon and some way to incorporate
that into the hillside ordinance, not only for the plan that's already in place but for any future trail
plans that may come about in future developments in the whole corridor. I would like to see
something in the ordinance about preserving open spaces. Obviously there's areas that cannot
be developed because of the terrain and it would be nice to have some sort of open space plan
incorporated into the hillside ordinance. I support, of course, minimal grading on the areas and
leaving natural areas natural as much as possible and restricting cut and fill and restricting the
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 27
amounts of fill that can be incorporated into the area, again to preserve as much as the natural
area as we can yet have development that is pleasing to the eye, good for the community and
benefits all. I believe that the area that we speak of, not only the property that's held by General
Holdings, but the corridor in general up to the mouth of the canyon is unique to Bakersfield and
believe that it does need to be protected and appropriate development needs to be done out
there and monitored and I leave that to the commission to make the appropriate decisions. It
would be nice to have density discussed. I know that there's areas where there's going to be
restrictions because of the natural terrain where they can't have a lot of houses there. I would
like to have the density of those areas protected and not have houses on top of houses and to
preserve the natural areas as much as possible. And I believe, lastly, that an ordinance, of
course, is needed out there. I'm in support of the current ordinance that has been proposed. I
believe that the areas of slope that we're talking about are significant despite what Mr. Fallgatter
says and that we need to have appropriate regulations in place to protect the area. Thank you.
Ed Coyne, with Gateway Financial, a property owner in the Rio Bravo area stated:. My
comments tonight are not about the bluffs. My concern is that the proposed ordinance impacts
gently rolling hills that can be used for badly needed housing for Bakersfield. I would draw
attention to section 17.66.50 which is item Q that concerns the 150 foot set back from the 30%
slope. I think that that set back was established in large part to protect views from outlying
areas. I'm entirely in favor of that, however, I think the views can be protected with a smaller set
back, particularly when you consider the, that some of these slopes are not really that steep.
They really are gently rolling hills. I think that the views can be protected with a 50 foot set back
provided that streets and residential properties are landscaped with trees. Trees, as were shown
in the exhibits that were presented this evening, you know, do provide a real buffer and do
protect the view shed. I think this is really a quality of life issue here for Bakersfield and I would
just draw attention to some of the other beautiful areas in our state where there are homes
constructed on hillsides. For example, throughout the bay area, the San Francisco bay area,
there area hilly areas; if they didn't build on slopes there over 30 degrees, they'd have half as
much housing as they have today. They surround their homes with trees and those trees over
time grow up and those hillsides with homes on them and with trees on them are absolutely
beautiful. And I think that given time we can preserve, you know, potential land for housing
stock here in Bakersfield and so I think that those home and those trees become part of the view
and I think the other side of it is that the homes that have views benefit from that view also. And
I think that type of housing is a real benefit to the community. Thank you.
Arthur Unger just speaking for myself. Before you accept trees, you're going to have to talk to a
forester. I'm all for trees up in the Sierra but you got to water trees, you have to wonder are the
roots going to hold the dirt or are they going to pull the dirt down. Anyway, trees belong in the
Sierra, they belong back in New York. We like a triplex. Thank you.
CJ Watson stated made a few more comments: I just wanted to, I was just thinking of one thing
here to say. The land out there, you know, the homeowner or the property owners are going to
sell the land, you know, eventually and stuff and there's a lot of it getting split into 40's and 80's
and stuff and there, people are buying them and they're just absolutely making junk piles out of
them. People are buying them are putting mobile homes and all kinds of tanks on top of every
hill and they really look crummy. They're right next to me. But designed housing tracts on top of
some of these hills would look a lot better than some of this stuff they're doing out there. And
anybody that's been out there can see the difference, you know. And if you do a housing tract on
a hill, you guys have control of what some kind of landscaping, some kind of improvements and
stuff. And just 40 acres, a guy goes out there and gets a permit, puts a mobile home out there
and all his junk, nobody has any control, much control over it and they look pretty bad. I just
wanted to add that. Thank you.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 28
Randy Berquist said: Real quickly, I was here with the project before this commission some time
ago where there was really one issue — circulation. And we went to a workshop for four months
and I would certainly hope that you would give the attention and the time and the input from all
the consultants and the public and find out what we agree on, what we disagree on, what are the
specific issues. I think we can come to resolutions on probably 90% of these issues but I do
believe it will have to go to workshops and we can get down to the details of what needs to be
done. Thank you.
Beverly Banks made the following statements: And I'm a concerned citizen. I am definitely in
favor of the improved hillside ordinance. I think it will do a great deal that needs to be done in
this community. One thing that has not been mentioned is that buried below our local bluffs is an
irreplaceable resource known worldwide as the Kern Marine Mammal Bone Bed. This bone bed
stretches a long an underlying strata of what was once a huge inland sea and it goes from the
area around Sharktooth Hill which may one day be in the city, across Hart Park and into the
surrounding bluffs. This bone bed contains fossils that may prove invaluable for future
paleontologists. The bone bed also contains spores of (Unintelligible), the fungus
that causes Valley Fever. It seems logical and possible that the disruption of the bone bed by
extensive cut and fill operations and failure to follow natural hillside contours might trigger a
large outbreak of Valley Fever cases. An improved hillside development ordinance should be
very helpful in curtailing the damage to an irreplaceable resource, it should also reduce city
responsibility or even liability for producing another Valley Fever epidemic. The set back, I think,
is quite appropriate for the kind of land that we have here. Erosion is a tremendous problem and
the more cut and fill that we do, the more erosion that we are going to have. And the settling of
this erosion prone land is extreme. We can see that on every area. So I am in favor of this
ordinance as improving the health and the welfare of our children and their children.
Melody Krill, a residence of the Goodmanville area, who has lived there since December of 1999
and we moved out there, my husband and I did, because it was the serenity. It was nice and
quiet and you can see the animals and stuff like that and we lived in the city and it was so
peaceful and everything. And now, you know, I live pretty close, well, the bluffs are right there
and I'm kind of nervous and it's getting late because I normally get up at four and it's almost four.
So, and well when the noise level, you know, I know it's going to increase by the impact of
people because there's going to be more population up there up on the bluffs and well, right now,
you know, I can, the bluffs, I mean the highway is like 500 feet above there and there's just like a
trail above me where I live. And I can be in my front yard and I can hear people talking up on
top, you know, that's 500 feet up. And then I'll be down by the river which is three acres down
the way and I can still hear them up there. And I know that the more people that's going to come
in the area and if we don't have that set back, you know, then that means that we'll hear more
noises and things like that. And, well, I just, you know, hope to, well, I want to support the, you
know, the ordinance and stuff so. Thank you.
Commissioner Tragish made the following comments: I'd like to thank you everybody. We've
sat here, we're staring at each other at 11:30 at night and took the time to be motivated and
make your comments. It's really important to get public impact and review of this stuff and many
times the public doesn't show up so it makes me very happy that you're all here. In any event, I
believe what we're supposed to do at this point is give our comments to staff and I'm going to do
that right now. After listening to all the comments and reading some of this material, apparently I
guess the byword of all this stuff is to weigh everything pretty carefully. I have some comments
regarding the statements made by Mr. McIntosh. I don't know if he's still here. He's talking
about a density bonus. I wasn't quite sure what he was referring to when he was talking about
density bonuses. In other words, if there's less homes because of the ordinance therefore they
somehow get a bonus and place more homes somewhere else, I don't know. But I'd like us to
look into that and see if it's a tool that we can use and specifically what exactly he was intending
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 29
in his comments. He also made comments regarding the fact that he thought that the
recreational trails are very difficult because they wander and the follow all over the place. I
guess a lot of my comments are anchored the same way. I'm just concerned that we have either
enough specificity or that is we're taking into consideration all the different permutations and
potential circumstances that can arise and that our language is flexible enough to fit those types
of situations. And as I said, Mr. McIntosh was making comments about how difficult it is to put in
trails because they do follow windy paths sometimes which may not be compatible to some of
the requirements in the ordinance. And he also raised something that I noticed when I read it
that there were exceptions for public works and I don't know what the reasoning is for that. If
we're asking every developers and other individuals to comply with these ordinances, why are
we exempting the public works? I would think everybody would have to come under that
umbrella. I really don't know if I understand why it's exempt nor do I really feel comfortable
agreeing with that. I wish we'd kind of get some explanations there, some examples of why that
would be applicable, what the reasoning is for that. He also raised some other comments that I
thought was interesting regarding the fact that he believes we need to define some of the terms
that we have in the ordinance and he sighted some of the sections already in the record. But
one of the things he asked about is what constitutes a public view? Is it one mile, 50 miles, three
blocks? I think his comments are well taken that what specifically are we talking about. We
talked about the public view or the public view shed. I presume it to mean the immediate area
that you can visualize from your own location out there but you're high up on some of those
bluffs and it can be quite extensive, 20 miles, 15 miles, I don't know. I think his points are well
taken. I guess the big issue that we have that we've heard discussed over and over again is the
150 foot set back and it seems to me that the comments made by Mr. McIntosh and I'll get to
some of the other ones I can remember from the individuals, again is well taken, to the extent of
what is it we're trying to accomplish and are we just throwing a (Unintelligible) at
something. I don't know where we came up with this 150 foot set back. I'd like to know what it's
supposed to address and some situations in may be too much depending on the house, the
height of the house, the location. I think it's a little bit vague to me. I want to come up with
something that's fair. I want to come up with something that does what we're attempting to do
and that's to preserve those bluffs. Some of the other comments that were made about it is that
at 150 foot set back perhaps in some instances you may have little or no homes up there or you
may be taking these people's property which concerns me greatly. I haven't got an objection to a
150 foot set back. I just don't know if it's an end all for every situation and I don't know where he
came up with the 150 foot set back. Can someone explain to me well, it's 150 foot because
these are the general parameters; I could probably understand it better. I think there's some
comments about the slopes by Mr. McIntosh which I'm not going to address. Let's see. I think
there was one of the big comments I heard this evening was that we should slow down, give
everybody time to look at it. You know, I got to tell you, the City Council committee looked at
this thing. The City Council looked at it and took all this testimony. We're taking this testimony
and we're going to do it again before we make a recommendation. That's going to be two times
for us and then it goes back to the City Council again. The Planning Department, God knows
how much time they're spending on this and all the impacts, not impacts, and all the comments
they're taking on it and they're taking from us tonight; from you out there, from me and the other
commissioners. So I think there's plenty of input on this thing. I think there's plenty of analysis
on it. We're spending a heck of a lot of time on it. So I don't know if I quite agree with hey, slow
it down, let's take six months to a year. I don't know if that really is necessary at this point. I
think we have a lot of information we heard this evening; a lot of information from people's
letters and I think the planning department has a lot of information, too, and I think they realize
that this is a plan in works. That's why we're having these conversations. I think there was some
comments about the ridge line and the land forms need to be specifically identified in the
ordinance. I think it was made my Mr. (Unintelligible) because of unintended results
and I'm not quite sure, again, not being an engineer what he's talking about. This is part of my
dilemma in listening to all this stuff as a layman is that I just don't have enough understanding
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 30
about all the different ramifications of some of these items such as the definitions and where
they apply and when they don't apply. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the generality of some
of the things we have in there. I think one of the other things that Mr. McIntosh talked about that
there was some provisions in the ordinances that are already covered elsewhere and I don't
know if sometimes you put the language in your ordinance to make it consistent where you have
it elsewhere. I don't have a problem with being repetitive. He seemed to indicate that there was
contradiction to what's found elsewhere or it adequately covers it. Well, whether it adequately
covers it or not, if there's a contradiction between what we have in there and what's found
elsewhere in the ordinance I think we need to clean that up if, in fact, that's the case. Let's see.
Yeah, I thought Mr. (Unintelligible) comments were interesting. I, it never cease to
amaze me his eloquence and how smooth he is in various encounters with him over the years
and it was very, very well done but I do feel the way some other people felt that his position was
yeah, let's take care of the bluffs from where I stand with General Holdings, most of it is flat but
you're right we have the CEQA problem and we may assert our rights there. I, it's kind of
duplicitous to a certain degree but again I admire it. I think Mr. Fallgatter's comments about the
fact that the actual language of the ordinance talked about 8%, not 30%, 1 tend to agree with
what somebody else said and I think what the intent was of Mr. Movius was that it's an average, I
believe and I think it makes sense if it's an average because slope can change throughout its
circumference. The comment that, which seems to be a big comment by some of the people
who spoke this evening, that this ordinance will wipe out hundreds if not thousands of
development. Again, when we have stuff come out in front of us in the evenings, we have to rely
on what's credible and we try to rely on people who can back up what they're saying or make a
presentation of some sort. I don't know if that's necessarily true. We're trying to limit to a certain
extent the development that takes place on the bluffs only to the extent that it preserves the
bluffs. I don't think we're intending to wipe out the development industry in Bakersfield at all. By
the same token, if we intend to preserve the bluffs and that happens and there's not as many
houses that normally would be crammed into the bluffs well then that's a natural consequence
and that's what were headed for. But I don't know if it necessarily wipes out all construction to
the extent some of the people indicated. But I think that as it gets fine tuned that those concerns
will also be addressed. I think that there's a saving clause in the ordinance that says to a certain
extent, hey, if there's something special about your development that needs to be addressed,
you can do a PUC or a PUD, let's do it. Let's sit down with the planning department and we'll
discuss it. You'll have to excuse me with all these notes because all of you talked about so
many different things. I think one of the other comments about this 100 foot set back makes the
property undevelopable and that may be the case as I indicated previously but I think as we fine
tune this set back issue that will probably address that to everyone's satisfaction or to everyone's
dissatisfaction whichever applies. Let's see. There was one comment I thought was made by
somebody, I thought was very interesting and I noticed this when I had been out in that area a
few times is that there is a noise refraction out there. I don't know, I don't know if the ordinance
needs to address that because I think we may have other ordinances that address that but there
is a certain amount of noise refraction from the bottom to the top. I don't know if it's from the top
down to the bottom on those bluffs. That's the only comments I have. Primarily what I'm
concerned about and what I'd like us to kind of get into more is a little bit more specificity as to
the rationale for the 150 set back as well as the slope percentage because I want to make sure
we're addressing that which we want to solve. And I think it's being discussed enough and we
have enough people involved in this that we'll come up with the right formulas that we want. I
think that the hillside development zoned draft that we've seen, I think is an excellent starting
point and my compliments to the planning for putting it together. It's a very difficult circumstance
to put together a plan like this and I think they've done an excellent job of it and I think it's a
tremendous start or a tremendous middle or a tremendous ending whatever way you want to look
at it. Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gay had the following comments: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 31
comments, I think to Mr. Movius and some of those like Mr. Tragish, I'm having a hard time
grasping the 150 foot requirement or request. While I support the ordinance and feel the
ordinance is very necessary, I think the development community even though they don't like it
seems to do much better when we have defined guidelines for them to fall within. But, you
know, I just, some of these numbers, I'm not quite sure of. When we want 150 set back on a
house, yet the pool can be 20, that's 130 foot between your house and your pool and Truxtun
Avenue right outside is roughly 90 feet so that tells me you're going to need
(Inaudible). So I think some of these things as Mr. McIntosh mentioned, we need to look at and,
you know, sometimes we can put a restriction on that becomes crazy because you've turned a
17.66.080 and they're talking about driveways at 200 feet. I hope they're not talking about single
family residence driveways. That's a landing strip, not a driveway. So I think some of these
things we may have create more problems in trying to do things and end up in kind of a vicious
circle. I think if the development community would like to slow this down and drag it out for
months then I think the city should really look at a moratorium and free all applications that are in
and not even address them until we have an EIR if that's what Mr. Fallgatter wants is an EIR,
then let's freeze this whole project until we decide to come back and address, address that issue.
So I think we've got to balance the private property rights and I think get an equitable solution
that will benefit the community for years to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Lomas stated: My understanding as the purpose of tonight's hearing was to take
public testimony and no opinion was asked of this commission. We are to weigh in at the next
time this comes back before us so I don't have opinion, I just have three questions. And I don't
ask for answers now, I would just like them addressed. Actually, one I'd like pretty soon. One
was, I'd like to understand a better, I'd like a better understanding of slopes. A good example to
me to demonstrate would be what are the slopes at Tuscany, things that I'm familiar with.
Number two, several speakers spoke of writing letters. I don't have any of these letters. That,
I'd like right away so I can go over those.
Commissioner Ellison made the following comments: I'm seeing no other lights on at this time
so I'll step in and say my piece. I want to thank everybody for their patience tonight. We had a
long agenda before this item. This is a very important item to the community. We will do our
best job here like we always do. What I heard from the commissioners tonight, I didn't hear the
word committee. I think this commission wants to move forward with the next hearing waiting for
staff to comment and respond to these issues that were brought up today. So what I would ask
for now is a motion to refer the comments to staff and so we can close this down.
Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer all the comments
tonight to staff for their compilation. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley
9. COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Movius announced there will be a pre-meeting for the general plan cycle on June 13th for the
June 16th meeting, and a pre-meeting on July 5th on Tuesday, for the July 7th meeting.
Minutes, PC, June 2, 2005 Page 32
10. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tragish said that since Mr. Gay has been present during all of tonight's comments
if there's any way that Mr. Maggard would entertain having him stay until the matter comes back
to us for the public ordinance? Commissioner Ellison advised Mr. Movius to put any of these
things back on July 21St agenda.
Commissioner Tragish further commented that he thought comments were to be referred to Mr.
Movius, and he stated that there are some things that he just needs more information on and
thought he could point back to Mr. Movius for comments.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he only got 100 pages faxed over to him and he inquired if there
was another way to do this. He stated that he would like to receive it in an e-mail. Staff
responded that they believed they could scan the document and then e-mail.
Commissioner Tragish indicated that he was not sure that he wanted 50 or 60 pages e-mailed to
him.
Commissioner Lomas requested that hers be e-mailed. She stated that she would like to have
the transportation project PowerPoint by e-mail.
Commissioner Ellison inquired if they should be pulling the Hillside Development Ordinance
material out. Staff responded that would be okay.
10. ADJOURNMEMT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
11:49 p.m.
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
July 25, 2005