HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2005 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Blockley, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
Absent: None
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard
Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None. Commissioners Tkac and Tragish stated that they have listened to the tape from
Monday's pre-meeting.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a) Approve continuance until July 21, 2005 of Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map 11263 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6)
4.2b&c) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1764
(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) (Ward 5)
4.2d&e) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1766
(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
4.2f) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 04-2005 (City of
Bakersfield) (Ward 1)
4.2g,h&i) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-0338 —
Williamson Act Cancellation (Marino Associates) (Ward 4)
4.2j) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 05-0403 (Cal-Kern
Development, LLC) (Ward 3)
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 2
4.2k&I) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-0535
(The Keith Companies) (Ward 3)
Commissioner Ellison recused himself from Consent Agenda Item 4.20).
Commissioner Tkac recused himself from Consent Agenda Item 4.2(h) and 4.2(i).
The public hearing is opened. Gordon Nipp requested 4.2(g), 4.2(h), 4.2(i), 4.20) be removed
from the Consent Agenda.
Patty Kusak, requested 4.2(k) be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Staff recommended that with the request for removal of 4.2(k), that 4.2(I) a companion item,
should be removed as well.
Commissioner Tragish requested removal of 4.2(a) from the Consent Agenda.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the public
hearing items under Consent Calendar 4.2(b), 4.2(c), 4.2(d), 4.2(e), 4.2(f).
Motion carried by group vote. Staff requested a roll call vote because there are some GPA's.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
5. PUBLIC HEARING —Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11263 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Randy Berquist with Porter Robertson indicated that
they have made every effort they can with Crimson and have satisfied the configuration of the
parcel. He indicated that he believes that some of the issues may have to do with monetary
compensation and things that are beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. Mr. Berquist
indicated his recommendation is for approval.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired about Crimson's previous concerns
for safety, and then two days before this hearing other issues are raised that may not be bona
fide issues. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if the canal boundaries are adequately
described for the purposes of approving the vesting tentative parcel, to which Staff responded in
the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish further inquired of Staff if they feel the frontage road for
the property has been appropriately identified at this point to approve a vesting tentative parcel
to which Staff responded they believe they have adequate access. Staff further indicated that
the easement is not a problem as the easement is shown, and Staff would not allow it to record
unless the easement was there between the end of the cul-de-sac and the well site. Staff further
indicated that they feel this has been adequately described to approve the vesting tentative
parcel map. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they have to be involved with surface waivers at
this hearing, to which Staff responded it has to be considered, and that if the drill site is granted
at that location they are waiving the signatures on the final map, or any further involvement with
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 3
the mineral right owner. Staff confirmed that the concern regarding surface waivers is not
sufficient to stop the PC from voting on the vesting tentative parcel map. Staff indicated that
they believe the PC can vote on the map tonight with the well site provision in it.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would move that a continuance not be granted.
Commissioner Ellison stated that his concern was adequate frontage access. Staff indicated that
the intent was to make sure that there was adequate lot width in order for a developer not to
make an extremely narrow rectangular lot. Staff stated this particular parcel appears to meet the
intent of that in providing a reasonably proportionate drill site with adequate access on the cul-
de-sac.
Commissioner Ellison stated that he would agree to not continue this item.
Commissioner Blockley stated he was prepared to leave it on the Consent Agenda, but
understands Commissioner Tragish's concerns.
Commissioner Gay stated that he will support Commissioner Tragish's motion.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11263 with findings and
conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", and also include the drawing that was
prepared by Porter Robertson attached to the June 10, 2005 letter, which is attached to the June
13, 2005 memo from Mr. Jim Movius.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments /
Zone Changes / Circulation Element Amendments / Williamson Act Land Use
Cancellation, Specific Plan Line Adoption:
6.1a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1342 (Project Design
Consultants) (Ward 3)
Staff report given. Public hearing opened. Renee Nelson, Clean Water and Air Matter, stated
that she was asked by the petitioners if she would submit and read the petition for the record
tonight. She indicated there were 149 names. She read the petition into the record. Ms.
Nelson also stated there are some major problems with the Negative Declaration for this project.
She indicated that CEQA does not allow disconnection of the land use process from the
environmental process, which must be considered at the same time. She indicated that it is not
enough to defer mitigation or other studies to a later date, and indicated they need to be in the
record so that they can be reviewed now and commented on. She indicated that they cannot
decide if the mitigation is adequate if they don't know what it needs to be because they don't
know what the project it. She indicated that they have to look at the project as a whole and know
what tenants will be there so mitigation can be addressed.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 4
Ms. Nelson stated that there is substantial evidence in the record that requires an EIR. She
requested that this project have a limit on the hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, quoted from the Negative Declaration, "There is no scenic vista that
will be impacted by this project." He requested that any design for this project be done inn an
aesthetically pleasing manner because it will be seen from just about every area of Bakersfield
and will be a landmark. He stated that the Negative Declaration minimizes the effect of lighting
issues. Mr. Nipp also talked about air quality. He suggested that it come back to the public for
input. He discussed the deficiencies such as: 1) cumulative air quality impact restricting the
study to a one mile radius, 2) leaving out the Eagle Meadows project and discussion of
cumulative impacts, 3) omitting the City in the Hills project discussion of cumulative impacts,
and other projects in the northeast. He indicated that the cumulative impacts of all these
projects to air quality is significant and ought to be addressed. He indicated that there are a
number of effective mitigation measures where the cumulative impact to air quality is reduced to
zero. He indicated that it is more realistic that the build out will be in five years, and not 15, and
he does not believe they would build '/2 a Wal-Mart type project, or take 10 years to build 221
multi-family units.
Mr. Nipp talked about biological resources being insufficiently addressed. He concluded by
stating that they feel a full fledged EIR should be done for this project.
Arthur Unger asked that his comments be included in the three agenda items that Dr. Nipp had
specific comments on. He would like the buildings to be more energy efficient. He added that
as fossil fuel prices rise, even less dense areas may prefer transit, but here they never seem to
take that into consideration.
Commissioner Ellison indicated that Mr. Unger's comments will be applied to all three agenda
items that Dr. Nipp referenced.
Ms. Nelson indicated she has never seen any kind of a BIOTA report. She indicated that the
courts have asked them to look at urban decay as a result of growth and what is being done with
the infrastructure.
Richard Curtis, 1401 19th Street, indicated that the 40+ acre size and complexity of this project
warrants an entire EIR.
Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, representing the property owner Stockdale
Investments, Inc., referred to Section 65860 of the California Planning and Zoning Law, requiring
that City ordinances be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Dmohowski indicated that the
application presented is really a request to make the zoning consistent with an already adopted
General Plan land use designation, which currently designates the subject property for a
combination of high-medium density residential (HMR), and general commercial (GC) as
required by state law. Mr. Dmohowski further stated that section 65862 states that it is the intent
of the California legislature that local government should amend zoning as close in timing as
possible to its adoption of the General Plan, which the City should have done years ago to be
consistent with the intent of the legislature, and the applicant should not be penalized today
because it didn't happen. Mr. Dmohowski pointed out that in looking at the representation of the
General Plan designation that City staff has displayed, he was forced to pay $20 for an official
copy of the City of Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Map, and it is interesting that the official
map that you buy at the Planning Department shows roughly 80 acres of HMR and General
Commercial combined. He indicated that looking at the map, it appears that those designations
on the large map (24X36 version) shows that the HMR is roughly the northeast quarter of the
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 5
northwest quarter of Section 26, and the general commercial appears to be roughly the northeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 26. Mr. Dmohowski pointed out that you should be
able to rely on the City's official general plan map, but believes their request is consistent with
the intent of state law that the City needs to bring it's zoning into conformity with the General
Plan at the earliest possible time. He indicated that they are in agreement with the findings,
conditions and mitigation measures recommended by Staff.
Mr. Dmohowski commented that there is a tendency to use CEQA not to protect the physical
environment, but to advance a variety of economic interests at the expense of the property
owner or the applicant. He spoke specifically to the letter of Mr. Harriman written on behalf of an
adjoining property owner who apparently feels economically threatened or at a competitive
disadvantage because of the pending approval of this project. He stated that he thinks this is an
inappropriate use of the CEQA process.
Mr. Dmohowski indicated that the applicant, Mr. Craig Carver, is in discussions with Ms. Nelson,
the Sierra Club, and they've had preliminary discussions with Mr. Harris about ways in which this
project can be designed to respond to the specific concerns they raise. Mr. Dmohowski stated
that their recommendation is to pass the Commissions' recommendation to the City Council as
quickly as possible, and they will continue to work with the potential opponents of the project for
a satisfactorily resolution of the issues raised.
Mary Jane Wilson, WZI, stated that there is a new URBEMIS program out and it's been out for a
very short time. Ms. Wilson indicated that most of the factors that are in the new URBEMIS
program are the same factors that were in the previous version. She indicated that this air study
was done in December 2004, and therefore the new URBEMIS program could not be used on
this analysis because it was not available. She indicated that the build out date is given to the
expert consultant by the developer, and WZI does not change any of those kinds of design
features. She indicated that they request this information from the applicant, and the applicant
tells them what their best estimate is. Ms. Wilson indicated that on the 27,000 sq. ft. that was to
estimate the construction over a 10 year period for the commercial, and 1/10 of 270,000 is
27,000, which was used as the estimate for the specific time period. She indicated that there are
numerous things in the letter from Mr. Nipp, such as the temperature, and actually the
temperature regimen that they use is 85 degrees, whereas the average temperature if done for
Kern County specifically and for the valley portion of Kern County would be about 77 degrees,
which would be even lower, and therefore the analysis is conservative.
Roger McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates, representing Craig Carver, stated they prepared a
traffic analysis in accordance with City standards and procedures. He indicated that they
identified mitigation measures both at opening day, and at regional basis using the KernCog
models that they are required to use. He stated that they identified mitigation at two signals to
be installed; one at the project entrance on Morning Drive and one on Highland Knolls at the
entrance to the multi-family. Mr. McIntosh stated that in addition, they identified impact fees
which are designed to pay for the regional impact improvements, as well as the local
improvements, and those are all identified in the report.
Dave Dmohowski concluded that the applicant, Mr. Carver, as a show of good faith, is wiling to
discuss with the opponents of the project some threshold of significance, whether it be 100,000
sq. ft. or something larger, which would automatically trigger a full EIR for future retail
development, especially where it's kind of a more sensitive from a political point of view, a larger
retailer to include a significant portion of non-taxable sales.
Mr. Dmohowski further pointed out that Morning Drive in the future will assume a much more
prominent role in regional circulation, and the Sierra Club has commented consistently on the
need for our infrastructure to keep face with development, and that there is even some
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 6
discussion of possibly designating that segment of Morning Drive from 58 up to 178 as an
extension of Highway 184, which acknowledges its importance in regional circulation in that area.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Ellison reiterated that some of the opposition against this project include: 1)
Urban decay and 2) the need for an EIR. He reiterated that some comments in favor of the
project included an offer of concession on the size of the proposed retail.
Commissioner Tragish commented that 270, 000 sq.ft. is a lot of space and that there are a lot of
ramifications to building that much commercial space in one location. He stated that there are a
lot of factors and impacts that he would like to know about, that may not have been addressed in
the information he has. He referred to the comment that the application should be passed
because it's going to be a planned commercial development and there will be an opportunity to
look at the property when it comes in. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not agree with
this because later on the PC is restricted on what they can impose. He further indicated that he
does not know if he has enough information with regard to what other commercial projects are
going on in the city. He stated that the East Hills Mall center does not appear to be a booming
commercial success, and there is an enormous amount of commercial development around that
center. He stated he does not know what impact this will all have.
Commissioner Tragish further stated that he does not believe the tentative tract map and
tentative parcel map have to be heard in conjunction with a GPA in order for the GPA to be
approved.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if when applicants come in for approval of commercial property
this large if they usually come in with an EIR, to which Staff responded that some have, and
some have not. Staff indicated that they do not see this large of a commercial center very often.
Staff stated that based on the written comments received, the testimony this evening, and their
inability to respond to these in writing, and the lessons learned during the Wal-Mart court case,
Staff is not recommending approving the Negative Declaration for this project. Staff indicated
that there are enough issues that need to be reviewed and discussed to provide additional
information to the PC and respond in writing.
Commissioner Tragish stated that with a C-2 zoning it is pretty wide open as to what can go in.
He further indicated the height can be two-stories. He stated that, in his opinion, with the
proposed residential around the proposed project, it would have impacts. Commissioner Tragish
inquired of Ms. Wilson about the square footage and the build out projection, and if a project
such as this with a 5 year build out would have a substantial impact on the numbers, to which
Ms. Wilson responded in the affirmative. She stated that construction emissions are treated
differently than the operational emissions, and stated that she would have to run the operational
emissions to see if it would be above 10 tons. Ms. Wilson stated that it is not that the project
would have existed for a longer period of time, but is because the fleet mix changes year by year
as new cars and trucks are purchased their emission standards are lower, and so the total overall
mix changes every year, and so when you look at the final build out year, and the intermediate
year, then you can see that there are differences because the fleet mix does change and the air
emissions (such as space heaters, etc., are pretty much the same), and that it is the overall
vehicle fleet mix, and that fleet mix change occurs whether to the facility regardless of when it is
finished it continues to change throughout its whole life.
Commissioner Tragish stated the bottom line is if it gets built within 5 years, rather than 10 years,
will it have an impact on the numbers provided in the air quality report. Ms. Wilson stated that
her staff has recalculated, and it would be okay in five years as it would still be under the 10
tons.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 7
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. McIntosh about the traffic analysis and asked if the project
was built in five years versus 10 years if it would have an effect on the traffic analysis, to which
Mr. McIntosh responded that they identified two levels of mitigation. One being opening day
mitigation, and the second a regional impact based on the 2020 Kern Cog model. He indicated
that the Kern Cog model at 2020 takes into account build out of the model and the computer
runs that are based on traffic today, plus a growth factor, the regional impact fees were identified
at approximately 1.3 million dollars for this project, and in addition, they assumed opening day
was in the next year or so. Therefore, they identified open day mitigation as needing two signals,
one at the entrance to the project on Morning Drive, and the second one at the entrance to the
multi-family.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if Mr. McIntosh is assuming a one year build out, and assuming
a five or 10 year build out if that is proper. Staff responded that it means that if Mr. McIntosh
was doing that and they expected the commercial shopping center and all those 221 residences
to be build in one year, then he would be tremendously conservative (over estimating) in his
estimates of traffic impacts sooner. Therefore, as far as timing as when things need to be
installed, the mitigation could be coming on line sooner than needed. Staff stated that it is not
necessarily a problem as it overstates the issue of traffic impacts.
Commissioner Gay stated that in responding to Ms. Nelson's request to define all the uses of the
center, that the C-2 zoning defines what uses would be allowed, and it is not for the PC to worry
about if they want two or three bakeries or a market, etc. He stated that the overall concept of
the project has some of the best possibilities. He stated that it has no one to the west for a
quarter of a mile, no one to the south, and no one to the east of them right now, and the people
to the north are separated by a large freeway. Therefore implementing new development in an
area like this does not have closed growth to it that would have an impact. He stated that
apartment complex would be their own people and will know the commercial is going in there
first, and from these points he stated he does not have a problem with the project.
Commissioner Gay stated that Mr. Nipp's comments about the aesthetics are good points. He
pointed out that the PC cannot control what retailers go into the development, but that with that
large of sq. ft. a big box could go in there. He stated that he does not support a vanity signal.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she would like to defer her questions and comments to the
continuance. She requested that when this is brought back to the PC that they have an
opportunity to go through the discussion again and answer any questions, to which Staff
confirmed in the affirmative. She further inquired if the public hearing would be opened or
closed, to which Staff stated that they would recommend that it be renoticed for a new public
hearing. She further requested a better understanding of the new version of the URBEMIS
model, and how long Staff will accept the old version. Staff responded that they are looking at
the new version right now, and the projects presented tonight are GPA and they will be coming
through the subdivision maps and they all have conditions that provide for when resubmitted
they have to run the new model.
Mr. Sherfy, legal counsel, stated Staff has received a number of comments that they have not
been able to respond to, as well as some of the comments presented this evening. Mr. Sherfy
indicated that Staff believes there are three options at this time: 1) deny the project or vote down
the GPA and zone change; 2) allow staff time to review the comments and prepare responses,
study the issues and come back with whether or not a negative declaration or an EIR may be
required and continue this matter until the next general plan cycle (which is Staff's
recommendation; and 3) approve the project and direct Staff to respond to all of the comments.
Staff does not recommend option number 3 simply because if it is determined that an EIR is
needed, they essentially have gotten nowhere as they will have to come back to the PC again.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 8
Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to continue
Agenda Item 6.1(a) and 6.1(b) to the next general plan cycle so that staff can review the
comments, study the issues raised and respond to the same, and so Staff can determine if a new
Negative Declaration needs to be issued or recommend an EIR, directing Staff to renotice this
item.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
Dinner break taken
The Planning Commission requested that Items 6.3a&b be heard prior to Items 6.2 a&b and 6.4
so that these two items could be heard at one time.
6.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1704 (Kern Delta
Land Development Corp.) (Ward 7)
Staff report given. Public hearing opened. John Hughes, resident of Rose Marie subdivision
directly west of the proposed amended changes. He stated their neighborhood watch group
believes that an amendment to the GP to allow expansion of an apartment construction in their
immediate neighborhood will lead to high density population, higher turn over of temporary
residence in the neighborhood, and hence a diminishing pride in ownership. He stated their
concern is the fact that the newest complex is less than 3800 ft. north of them, close to the
intersection of Panama and Wible. He stated that as of today, a police report printed for that one
specific apartment on 3400 Laurelton Avenue showed that during the last 18 months 43 calls,
which included such things as public intoxication, auto theft, forced entry, battery, prowlers,
loiters, shots fired, suspicious subject stop, and multiple counts of those. He stated they are
concerned that apartment complexes, although with best intentions in the initial development,
can deteriorate into these examples quickly. He stated that the homeowners consulted the GP
and entrusted that future development would closely adhere to the planned zoning. He stated
they were looking for a quiet residential neighborhood with a stable population of homeowners
that take pride in home ownership. He stated that adding additional and unnecessary apartment
units adjacent to their dream homes, and increasing the traffic that cuts through their
neighborhoods will aggravate many homeowners that take great pride in homeownership. Mr.
Hughes stated that this morning a petition was turned in to the PC with about 270 names on it,
indicating the rejection of 270 apartment building on the subject property. The petitioners
requested rejection density and zone changes on the above property for apartment construction.
Mr. Hughes further stated that in addition they have been able to collect over 45 additional
signatures to the same petition, which he submitted to the clerk. Mr. Hughes stated that most
have lived in apartments at some point and apartments do serve a valuable place in the
community, especially as homes become more expensive, and the value of property is
determined by location. He indicated that this location for these apartments is not a good match
for the community. Mr. Hughes again requested that the PC vote no on this zone change. Mr.
Hughes requested those in attendance in opposition to this project to stand.
Todd Funk stated that the lost sales on his home when he tried to sell it is a direct result of the
crime-ridden apartments which existed in that area. Mr. Funk begged the PC to do what is right
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 9
for this subject area. He stated that he is providing some requests if the PC does vote for this
project. He concluded by stating that apartments just do not fit in this area and asked that the
PC deny this application.
Michael Davidson, 3407 Trovis Avenue, stated that the apartment complex on Loylton has been
sold at least six times in the last eight years, and with each passing sale, there has been more
deterioration. He stated that while he understands everybody needs a place, he does not believe
that these apartments are worth the lives of the residences that are already there. He stated that
he does not see how traffic access is any better with apartments than residential, because with
apartments there is more traffic on a daily basis. Mr. Davidson stated that his neighborhood
experiences enough crime already and they do not want to see more.
Joe Jimenez, representing the homeowners in Stone Creek, stated that as a member of the L.A.
Police Department, he has experience in dealing with apartment buildings, and is aware of the
increased crime with apartment buildings. He stated that his community is opposed to this
project and asked the PC to not change the zoning.
John Ortiz stated that he lives just northeast of the proposed apartments, and he found out about
this proposed change two days ago. He stated that he has not spoken to one person who is not
opposed to this change.
Ed Munoz, resident of Stone Creek, stated he agrees with all of the previous comments. He
raised concerns about the over population of the area already. He stated that Wible Road is two
lanes (one in each direction), and the road is a mess. He stated the area is starting to develop
commercially and Wible is going to become a main thoroughfare. He stated that to allow this
project to go through would be a mistake not only for the homeowners, but for the city.
Frank Mucedo stated he lives in the Rose Marie area. He expressed his concern and objection
to this project. He stated he just became aware of this project last night. He requested a denial
of this zone change.
Kelly Begland, 3315 Cathedral Rose Avenue, stated that she does not appreciate that the zoning
is being changed at this time. She indicated that she would like an updated map, as it does not
show all of the housing where the map indicates dirt. She indicated that traffic is going to be an
issue. She also indicated that in front of the fireman's home there is a bus stop where children
are picked up from school and dropped off, and there already is a traffic problem in that area
without adding more units.
Matt Kedzierski, stated that his son's fourth grade science project, consisted of sitting at the
corner of Wible and Berkshire to monitor the traffic at that intersection to see how many people
actually came to a stop. He stated that blatantly running stop signs was 10 to 15 of the
population, and that less than half of the people stopped at that intersection. He stated that with
the increase in traffic this is going to become more of an issue. He stated that there is concern
for the high school students who walk single file across Wible. Traffic there is a major concern.
Mike Parmley, 3504 Buckeneer Rose Avenue, stated that in looking at some of the documents
provided by staff, there were numbers which referenced this type of complex in their area versus
city-wide, and he inquired if there are some numbers that they could look at to see if there are
also other areas that also don't have their fair share of apartments, and why would there be
some disparity between them and other parts of the city. Mr. Parmley further inquired into this
zone change that would allow for four times the number of apartments that were originally
allowed in the GP. He questioned that if Staff is off that far in the GP then perhaps they are off
that much in this project, and deserves taking a closer look. He stated that the map makes the
project area look larger than it really is in reality. He indicated that he has a hard time
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 10
envisioning 40 tri-plexes, four-plexes, duplexes on this size of property. Mr. Parmely urged the
PC to vote against this project.
Douglas Leong, Medallion Rose Avenue, stated that all of the qualitative reasons that have been
put forth far outweighs the lame excuse about accessibility as put forth by the Planning
Department. He asked the PC to take the side of the financial interests of the communities of
the various neighborhoods as a whole versus the financial interest of Kern Delta Land
Development Corporation.
Mike Lee, representing the applicant, stated that he just recently read the conditions of approval,
and they are in agreement with them. This includes improving Wible Road and so a lot of the
traffic issues raised will not necessarily go away, but this project will help considerably to
alleviate a lot of those concerns. Mr. Lee stated that it is in the best interest to have
development in there so that you can get the roads to go through, and their project will do this.
Mr. Lee stated that the proposed project has 37 units, however nine of those units are not a part
of the zone change, and are in the northern portion so the zone change portion would only
consist of 28 units that are being proposed in the zone change area. Mr. Lee indicated that when
he first looked at this project with the current zoning they were a couple of units over LMR, which
is up to 10 units, and that to get the additional three units they will need a GPA and that is why
they are in front of the PC today. Mr. Lee stated that he is not representing rapist, drug addicts,
killers. He stated that the traffic will not go through their neighborhood because there is only
access on Wible Road. He stated that single-family residences put on Wible Road might have to
back out onto a major roadway, which would be dangerous. He stated with apartments they will
not be backing out as there will be a two-way drive aisle.
Mr. Lee gave the unit size and approximate value per unit cost is about $150,000. He stated that
they are not building the apartments on Loyalton. Mr. Lee further pointed out that there is not
much else you can do with this property. Mr. Lee stated that he has a letter from an adjacent
property owner who is in support of the project. He further indicated that he does not know what
Mr. Kedzierski's science project has to do with the current project. Mr. Lee stated that condos
are not necessarily a good neighbor because what they are proposing is several individual
properties with a tri-plex or four-plex on it, managed by a professional person who is going to
have pride and ownership of those units. He stated that when you have a condo situation there
is possibly first time ownership and they get in real cheap and either sell real cheap or move out
and turn it into a rental. He further commented that you have 30 or 40 landlords who are off
someplace and they don't care what happens at the condo as the condo association takes care
of the maintenance. Mr. Lee suggested that those in opposition are comparing this project to
some of the worst apartment complexes in town, and that they are not all that way, and that this
project is not that way. Mr. Lee stated that in response to the issue raised about financial
interests, the PC needs to look at what is there currently, and ask if that is what they want for the
city. Mr. Lee indicated that by denying this project this is what they are going to get, and he does
not believe that it is good for the city's image. Mr. Lee stated that he wishes that there was
something more that he could do to assure the opposition that they are not ruining their
neighborhood. Mr. Lee further stated the City ordinance requires buffering from R2 and R1
properties, and one of those buffers is a masonry wall, and he believes that it is rather moot
because the project to the east already has a masonry wall, except where the drainage basin is
there is a chain link fence. Mr. Lee stated that some of Mr. Funk's concerns are legitimate, and
some of them are not because of the design that is there with a single story construction. He
stated that the city ordinances are in place to protect the different uses, and feels it is
appropriate.
Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that the comments about housing values,
etc. is redundant. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not believe you can classify people
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 11
who live in apartments as hoodlums, however, he does believe that if you have a crime problem
in an area with single-family residences, that there is going to be a crime problem with adjacent
apartments, and therefore he has a problem with this argument. Commissioner Tragish stated
that his concern is with the five driveways out of this project, and that if they were single-family
residences you might have nine driveways. He stated that it is also possible that if it is a single-
family residence area it could be designed in such a way that it would only have one or maybe
two accesses. Commissioner Tragish also expressed concern with the fact that it is an arterial
and is an area that is rapidly being built up, and having that many drive ways coming out onto
Wible appears to be somewhat dangerous. He indicated that he doesn't recall anything in the
Staff report that supports it otherwise. Commissioner Tragish stated that since it is a high
concentration of units (40-50), which he thinks is a bit much for that parcel, it might not be the
best location. In response to housing values in the area be depreciated, Commissioner Tragish
stated that he does not know if he agrees with this argument. In response to the suggestion of
condos, Commissioner Tragish stated that it might be a valid argument. Commissioner Tragish
stated that he is not sure what else can be built here, and he is not sure what the best use of the
property is. He commented that a PUD might be needed in this situation.
Commissioner Tragish stated that a lot of his concerns have to do with the traffic and the
configuration of the project. He indicated that because you can't do much with the project he
sees the only options as being rejecting it or putting a PUD on it, which may restrict the types of
units that are put in, etc. He indicated that there are new ordinances in place that require a
certain adherence to elevations and driveways, and landscaping which this project will probably
be subject to. He stated that if the PC decides to approve this that they make sure that the
developer/applicant be responsible for doing the curb and street widening all the way to the
north. He indicated that he does not think tonight is the night to talk about lighting as it would be
discussed when it goes through site review or through the PUD.
Commissioner Tkac requested clarification as to the needed zone change due to the additional
three units referenced by Mr. Lee. Staff responded that with the current zoning and the portion
zoned R-2 and a portion zoned R-2, they can probably 21 units on this piece of property. Staff
indicated that under the current General Plan designation if it was all zoned consistent with the
GP, (where the R-1 portion was R-2) they could build 28 units. As the applicant appears to be
proposing 37 dwelling units, technically if the zone was changed they could put up to almost 50
units on there. Staff stated the PC may want to consider putting a unit cap as a condition of
approval. Staff indicated that they definitely need the GP to get up into the densities that they
are looking for. Commissioner Tkac inquired of those 21 or 28 that could currently be built, what
specifically the applicant could built. Staff responded that of the 21 units, 13 could be in the form
of four-plexes or tri-plexes, but could not go over 10 unites per acre, and they could be multiple
story. With respect to the current R-1, the applicant could build 13 single-family homes, which
could be multi-story, but with individual lot lay out. Commissioner Tkac stated that it could be
disastrous to do whatever he wants to do with it, paying no mind to the rest of the community.
He further inquired that if the PC changes nothing tonight and leaves it as is, and/or rejects it,
how tall a fence would be required under current ordinances. Staff responded that with the way it
exists now that for the R-2 portion which nobody abuts, he would have to build a 6' fence in this
area because it is adjacent to R-1 zoning. In the other area where there is already a block wall,
the R-1 zoning itself does not require any fencing, so if the block wall wasn't there, you could end
up with a wood fence or something.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about development as it begins to come down into an area, such as
Rosedale where there is city/county/city/county, and the widening and narrowing of streets, if it
would start to come around and potentially be a 6 lane wide road. Staff responded that you can
see where the road improvements appear in front of the fire union facility, however, they would
have to take the entire frontage in one project (even if they development one lot at a time) and
improve it at that initial time.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 12
Commissioner Tkac further inquired about a PUD, and if they have any jurisdiction over that this
evening, to which Staff responded that the PC has full discretion whether or not to approve the
GP and the zoning,just the GP with the condition for PUD for the zoning portion.
Commissioner Gay responded to some of the opposition's complaints about crime and traffic
when they apparently have some issue with their own people not stopping at stop signs. He
stated that the issue is increasing the density in the neighborhood. Commissioner Gay stated that
in looking at this issue he inquired if they just put single-family homes on Wible Road how many
homes there would be, and Staff had responded that there would be about 10 lots. He stated
that he believes this would be a benefit to improve Wible Road. He stated that if he was making
the decision he would require single story units, ground mount air conditioners, landscape set
backs against the neighbors, and no more than five driveways and not 10. Commissioner Gay
stated they may even need to reduce the density. He inquired what zoning would be required for
condos, to which Staff responded that you need R-2 zoning and need at least a GP density that's
there now of LMR depending on the size of the units, or you might have to go with an HMR.
Commissioner Gay reiterated that to have condos you would basically need the same type of
zoning as is currently being proposed. He stated that with regard to a PUD he would support this
as it gives the PC and the community more control and notification of what would be going in.
Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if through the PUD development the PC could require
CC&R's where they had to have a comprehensive management group. Staff responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner Gay stated that he would support a modification of this to go to a
PUD that gives the city and community more control.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he believes this project is similar in size to a project along
Dove Creek/Allen Road with four-plexes, and the neighbors in the Palms vehemently opposed
the project and was a tract map stage project. Staff responded that there was a project probably
similar in density, but they had a little bit deeper land to work with such as they could double
stack the units on either side, where the current project is more of a thin strip. Staff indicated he
is not sure how much this project compares to the other. Commissioner Blockley indicated that
the length along their respective arterials are about the same, and in this other case, the
applicant had proposed a single street going into the development and one leaving the
development through the Palms, and the argument was made at that point that because it was
an arterial there shouldn't be more than that single access drive that was proposed. On this
project, the applicant provides something like six access points along the arterial, which seems
wildly different than previous recommendations such as in the other project. Staff responded
that it is a different site and has a different shape and layout to it. Staff does not believe the
illustrations presented by the developer do not seem to lend itself to the same type of lot layout
that Dovewood had. Staff advised the applicant from the beginning that if they are going to
have any driveway access onto Wible Rd. they are going to have to reduce the number of
approaches, and part of their mitigation was to do share drive approaches to reduce the number
down to five access openings. Staff would prefer none along that particular stretch of Wible
Road, but they do not know how it can be developed with that since it does not connect to the
neighborhood to the east.
Commissioner Blockley reiterated that what staff desires is no driveway, what is allowed varies
by circumstance, and that circumstance has very little to do with the arterial. Staff commented
that the project on Allen Road was about five times the size of this project. The Allen Road
project had actually proposed a public street going into a R-2 zone that had four-plexes in it.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he is going to try to stay out of the single family versus
apartment argument. He indicated that the things that he has seen for this project look vastly
different than the surrounding neighborhoods, and that is troublesome to him. He indicated that
the number of units is significantly higher than what is actually built in the neighborhood, and
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 13
there is significant community opposition. He further indicated that he believes that are
numerous options for this piece of property, contrary to what everyone says. He thinks that the
density could be higher and he is sympathetic to the city developing at higher densities.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he would be willing to support the change in zone without
changing the underlying land use designation. Hence, he would not support HMR, but the R-2 he
will.
Commissioner Lomas stated that Councilman Scribner is present. She clarified that they have to
follow the GPA guidelines. She stated that it is difficult to put a multi-family site in an existing
neighborhood, but it can be done successfully. She stated it has been done successfully when
the applicant went to the neighborhood and had meetings, and listened to their concerns so they
could be addressed before it even came before the PC. She stated that it would be in the
neighborhood's best interest to have this parcel developed because it's missing a road and has
traffic problems. She encouraged the parties to talk and try to work out a good compromise for
this project. Commissioner Lomas indicated that this parcel is odd shaped and they have to
come up with something that is useable for the applicant. She stated she does not feel that
houses makes the most sense, and that probably condos or apartments makes the most sense.
Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff if this project was looked at as a condo unit what number
of units could be placed there, not taking in single story into consideration. Staff responded that
there could be probably about 21 units. Staff indicated that with condos he figured probably 6 to
7 units per acre, and with almost three acres it would be between 6 and 7 units per acre, which
means that with 21 units with only eight single family because the density on that would be lower,
but there were 13 multiple family because the density on that portion would be higher. By
happenstance it ends up at about the same number. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she
thinks you can probably put more condos than 21 in. She pointed out that it is viable in another
use such as condos. She commented that if it was a nice condo project, she does not believe
the community would be objectionable to multi-story units, which would allow the applicant to put
more units on the project.
Commissioner Lomas commented as to the multi-family map. She stated that she does not
believe in exclusion of apartments, but there needs to be a need a and benefit. She indicated
that in this case there already are apartments in the neighborhood so if individuals wanted their
children to go to the school in that area there is an avenue for them to do that, and therefore
does not fill the need portion for her. She stated that she believes the voice of the
neighborhood should shape neighborhoods and not profit. She stated that she believes five
access points to this project area is a detriment. She reiterated that she does not see need or
benefit at this point, and she would support a continuance to allow the applicant to meet with the
neighborhood, or she would support full denial.
Commissioner Ellison inquired about Commissioner Blockley's option of having an R-2 with PUD
without the GPA change. Staff responded that it could be an option. Commissioner Ellison
concurs with Commissioner Lomas' theory of need and benefit, and cited Chapter 2 Land Use
Element Policy No. 6. He commented that they are trying to find the best compromise and
solution for this land. He suggested that the Commission focus in on a solution to the problem.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant could go out and build single-family residences if
the GPA and zone is denied. Staff responded that if he wants to build one unit and it's on one
parcel on the R-1 portion he can build one unit per parcel without the PC's involvement. Staff
indicated that if the applicant wants to create more lots than he has now, the applicant would
have to come back to the PC for the subdivision. The applicant could not build 10 houses on
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 14
the one parcel. In order to divide the property the applicant would have to come back before the
PC. If evidence was provided into the record that a block wall was necessary to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community or for orderly development the PC could include that
in tonight's motion. The PC would not have discretion on a map to require only single story
residences due to the welfare of adjoining neighbors, to which staff responded that they would
not have this discretion.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks there are other options. Commissioner Tragish
inquired of Mr. Lee if he has had any conversations with any neighbors as to their concerns. Mr.
Lee responded not until this evening when the Public Hearing started. Commissioner Tragish
inquired of Mr. Lee that if there was a two-week continuance if he would work towards their
concerns and seeing if the project can be reconfigured so a compromise can be made. Staff
indicated that they could probably do a two week continuance, but in order to get this back to the
PC Staff would need an answer from the applicant by a week from Monday in order to put the
package together. Mr. Lee stated that he believes it would be advantageous to work with the
community because if they see the project in more detail it will alleviate a lot of their concerns.
Mr. Lee stated that the difficulty will be satisfying over 200 people, and they would entertain that
option.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Hughes if someone could meet with Mr. Lee. Mr. Hughes
stated that if they had someone from each of the different neighborhoods they could meet with
Mr. Lee.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about Amber Canyon Place which ends in a cul-de-sac and
appears to come close to, but not abut the property that is on the applicant, and if it is possible to
extend it like is shown on a lot of subdivisions where that little strip has been reserved, and
extend the cul-de-sac in and end it in a cul-de-sac with no access to Wible. Staff responded that
it would be possible and there is an easement across that property where you could extend the
cul-de-sac into the piece of property. Staff pointed out that as LMR and the developer within a
reasonable amount of time is entitled to some zoning that would get him to that density, and if
the PC does not intend to eventually approve apartments on the property the PC needs to have
staff initiate a GPA to get this back to R-1. Staff indicated that the residences probably would
not want the road extended if there is going to be apartments in there.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he sees this project as sort of disruptive to the neighborhood
in general because it has a different character, feel and appearance then the rest of the
surrounding neighborhood. He stated that one way of mitigating this, while achieving the higher
densities which the City wants in a variety of dwelling locations which is required by state law, is
small lot subdivisions. He inquired if a small lot division is possible in an R-1. Staff responded no
because that would need either a R-2 zone or PUD. Commissioner Blockley stated that the
applicant is asking for HMR, which increases the density, which increases the requirement for
parking, which reduces the amount of landscaping, which is the primary contributory to this looks
really different then what I am living in. Commissioner Blockley stated this is the basis for his
objection. He stated that he is looking to reduce the density below HMR, which is why he
indicated he would support the R-2 change and not support the HMR change. He stated that he
believes the Amber Canyon Place option would preserve Wible Road as a road with a block wall
on it.
Commissioner Ellison stated that he concurs with Commissioner Blockley and believes that the
R-2 PUD without the GP change is the way to go with single story, and ground mounted AC's,
because it appears to be the best option for this property.
Commissioner Gay inquired if there was approval for an R-2 PUD what would happen to the
GPA at that point. Staff responded they would be denying the GPA and leave it as LMR, and the
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 15
R-2 PUD would only apply to the southern part of the project, which is the part that abuts the
residential and would therefore probably suit the needs. Staff commented that if this proposed
motion is made that condition number 4 from Planning regarding "limited to three and four plex
single story structure" that this may need to be deleted so that it does not end up limiting the PC.
Commissioner Gay indicated that he believes it is not up to the PC to go back and have to talk to
seven neighborhoods, but is up to the applicant to come back with something else for the PC to
approve and make the tough decision. Commissioner Gay stated that he would support a
motion to R-2 PUD, striking condition number 4.
Commissioner Ellison inquired of Commissioner Gay about his CC&R comments, to which
Commissioner Gay responded that there is the discretion for this through the PUD.
Commissioner Lomas stated that Commissioner Blockley's suggestion is R-2 to LMR, but with
access on Amber Canyon, and her personal biggest problem from a planning standpoint, is five
access points on Wible, and would not be in the community's best interest. Therefore, she
indicated that if it was put before them as R-2 PUD LMR access off Amber Canyon, then there
still would have to be a continuance so that this audience has the right to understand what that
means. She stated that she does not feel that they are in a position to do anything tonight
except continued. She indicated she would support R-2 PUD LMR access of Amber Canyon.
She would prefer to see a continuance, and that the applicant provide a contact phone number
that anybody in this room could ask Staff, and ask him, and have a meeting between everybody.
Commissioner Ellison stated that he would not support access through Amber Canyon as he
thinks it would be a detriment through the neighborhood.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he suggested access to Amber Canyon Place so that
whatever is built there would actually become more of the neighborhood rather than less of the
neighborhood. He stated that he envisions more of a small sublot division which would be very
similar to the kind of dwellings you have now. Commissioner Blockley inquired how many units
could be put on that piece of property to which staff responded 21. He stated that he believes
the city will be ill served by having a bunch of driveways on a six-lane arterial with concrete
block walls. He indicated that he would yield to something along that line with LMR and R-2 with
or without the conditions or without the PUD, etc.
Commissioner Spencer stated that as this project is currently being proposed, it is inconsistent
with the area, and would be inconsistent with any use that is being proposed if it was extended
into an R-2 PUD range. He stated that he would support a continuance to a time certain to allow
Staff to entertain comments from the neighborhood in general.
Commissioner Lomas clarified that the R-2 PUD means a small lot subdivision with access on
Amber Canyon, or a condo type project with limited access on Wible and not on Amber Canyon.
She would like the neighbors to have a say.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to continue agenda item
6.3(a) and 6.3(b) for two weeks to the July 7, 2005 meeting so that in the interim the applicant
and the representatives of the homeowners get together and try to address each of the concerns
and bring back something different.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 16
ABSENT: None
10 minute break taken.
6.2a) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1570 (Project Design Consultants)
(Ward 1)
Staff report given. Public hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's
recommendation. Dave Dmohowski with Project Design Consultants, representing Lennox
Homes, stated they are in agreement with the findings and conditions of approval recommended
by staff in the mitigation measures. Mr. Dmohowski commented on the requirement for a 10
acre park within the confines of the R-1 district proposed, and indicated that has met the
significant reduction in his buildable area for that type of development if all 10 acres were
actually required for dedication on site. He stated that they appreciate the fact that the City has
to pay fair market value for the parkland with an appraisal very recent to the time of acquisition,
but it significantly reduces the yield to the project. He stated that there are other conditions
which have the effect of reducing density, such as the requirement for super deep lots adjacent
to the industrial, as well as where they adjoin the agricultural there is a requirement for a 50 foot
setback. He would like to structure the 50 ft. set back so if the parcel to the east was to urbanize
before this tract reached the point of construction to sort of have a way of seeking an
administrative amendment to that condition without having to come back to the PC, that would
be preferable. He stated that their main concern is the park requirement and that the applicant is
wiling to do their fair share on site, but thinks the 10 acres should be split over the adjoining
parcels as well, as it is just a matter of time before those come before the PC. Mr. Dmohowski
stated they have not seen the recommendation by the Public Work's Department. He stated that
the applicant would be happy to participate in any improvements, however because of the county
jurisdiction they are not sure if that condition might be within the power of Lennox Homes to
implement without some cooperation by both the county and the city. Mr. Dmohowski reviewed
the Public Work's Department recommendation, and stated that it is acceptable, recognizing that
they don't have the ability to force condemnation of the right-of-way.
Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Gay inquired about the agriculture setback being
waived, to which Staff responded that they have done that where development is eminent and
has been with regard to the 140' to take that reduction off the 50' setback it needs to be waived
by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, but you could theoretically get rid of the 140' setback.
Commissioner Gay inquired what the trigger would be, to which Staff responded that if there is a
zone change application it would trigger it. The PC would have to approve it at this stage. Staff
indicated that he is not aware of anything happening on the southern section of land that would
warrant, at this time, wanting to drop the 140' next to the agricultural land. Mr. Dmohowski
indicated that they do not have any information about potential applications on the area to the
east on that southern section of land. He indicated that the configuration of the agricultural
parcels to the south is such that it is starting to look like a non-viable agricultural opportunity for
anyone simply because of the limited size and configuration of that parcel.
Commissioner Gay further commented as to the reduction of the 10 acre park, to which Staff
responded that Condition Number 15 requires a minimum 10 acre park site within the boundaries
of the 67 acres, and the Parks Department has been talking to adjacent property owners in that
area, and it very well may be that they end up able to share that with adjacent development.
However, Parks Department indicated that they still wanted that on there. Staff indicated that if
this is all Lennox Homes and they are asking for one acre lots in the northern part why they are
concerned about lot yield because you could make the lots up up there.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 17
Mr. Dmohowski clarified that the property north of Berkshire is actually not under the ownership
of Lennox Homes at this time, and that the property owner there had given consent to Lennox
Homes to represent them as their agent, and that area is planned and would be zoned subject to
the PC's approval for one acre estates. He indicated that the condition as worded, specifically
refers to the southerly 67 acres, and that is where the impact on lot yield really comes in. He
stated it was his understanding that the 10 acres was not considered north of Berkshire, but
entirely south in the R-1 zone. Staff had no response to these comments.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he spoke with Ms. Shaw about this project and the road
dedications, and still is not exactly clear. Commissioner Blockley inquired that given the various
widths shown on the diagram, exactly how wide would it end up. Staff responded that Berkshire
Road will be 90' wide, and generally speaking when they annex adjacent to the county the
roadways in the county that have not been fully developed are generally about 30' wide. Given
that, they may have to do eminent domain to actually do full width improvements on the south
side of Berkshire from Union Avenue to the western boundary of the southern half. Staff stated
that contrary to all her expectations, the county actually did get 45' of dedication south of the
center line on Berkshire Road. Therefore, they will be able to extend their annexation boundary
to the 45' road right-of-way and they would have the full road right-of-way width within City
jurisdiction. However, this does not include expansion at the intersection, but at least the main
roadway would all be under City's jurisdiction.
Commissioner Blockley confirmed that east Berkshire Road when fully developed to City
standards, would resemble the width of road shown on the west side on the diagram, to which
Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Gay inquired about taking out the Board of Supervisors and make it the governing
body's approval of eminent domain, to which Staff responded that it will not hurt anything to
leave it in there. Staff indicated that if it is in the county it will be covered, and if it's not then it's
just not needed.
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 04-1570 to
change the land use designation from SR to ER on 33 acres and from SR to LR on 67 acres, as
shown on Exhibit "A2" attached to the Draft Resolution, incorporating the memorandum of June
14, 2005 by Marion Shaw requiring the improvement of east Berkshire Road on the south side
with full width improvements, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving Zone Change 04-1570 from A to E,
one acre minimum, recommending Staff's modification to request E zone as described below on
33 acres, and from RS to E and to R-1 on 67 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the
Draft Resolution, incorporating the memorandum of June 14, 2005 by Marion Shaw requiring the
improvement of east Berkshire Road on the south side with full width improvements, and
recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 18
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1763 (SmithTech USA, Inc.)
(Ward 1)
Staff report given. Public hearing is opened. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's
recommendation. Bob Smith with SmithTech USA stated they are in agreement with the
conditions. Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Gay requested that this be pulled from consent thinking that it was tied to the
previous motion in 6.2, but was mistaken. Therefore, he is in agreement with Staff's
recommendation and would support it.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment 04-1763
to change the land use designation from SR (suburban residential) to LR (low density residential)
on 17 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the Draft Resolution, and incorporating the
memorandum from Ms. Shaw to the PC of June 14, 2005, and recommend the same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving requested Zone Change 04-
1763 from A to R-1 zone on 17 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2", incorporating the memorandum
of June 14, 2005 by Marion Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6.5a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1764
(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) (Ward 5)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 19
6.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1766
(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.7) General Plan Amendment No. 04-2005 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 1)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.8a,b&c) General Plan Amendment/Zone ChangeMilliamson Act Contract No. 05-
0338 (Marino Associates) (Ward 4)
Staff report given. Public hearing opened. Harry Love, representing the Sierra Club, stated a
letter sent on June 9th reflects the views of the club. He indicated that the choices are: 1)
Negative Declaration; 2) mitigated Negative Declaration; or 3) EIR. He stated the club would like
an EIR on this project due to ag land being lost and air quality issues.
J. F. Whittier, trustee for a Christian church that occupies 10 acres roughly in the middle of the
diagram. He stated that this property was purchased almost a year ago, and they currently have
a CUP.
Jim Marino, representing King Gardner Farms, the Baptist church and the third property owner,
Fabian Price who lives in New Jersey. Mr. Marino stated there are 20 acres in almonds, 10
acres that the church owns, 10 acres of vacant land, and 40 acres of almonds owned by King
Gardner. Mr. Marino stated that there are actually only 60 of the 80 acres that is actively being
farmed. To the west of this project is the Rosedale Ranch and a commercial site about a '/ mile
to the south. Mr. Marion read a letter from the Dept. of Conservation regarding the surrounding
land uses. He indicated that with the rearrangement and the focus on the Northwest Center
there will be a lot of traffic going out that direction. He stated that there is not another parcel
under the Williamson Act within a mile of this 60 acres, with the except of the 80 acres to the
south which already has tentative approval for cancellation. He stated that the current property
is in the way of the path of development. King Ranch has indicated that the progression of
development is pushing them out of business. In addition, due to the growth and the proposed
high school being '/ mile from the south boundary. King Ranch can no longer employ good
farming practices. To off set the impacts to his loss of farm land, he has gone further out and
bought 2,000 acres and is remediating the land and is going to be farming it. He stated they have
looked into the conservation easement when they started the process as a viable alternative to
cancellation, but the problem with that mitigation is that the easement and the agreement is
permanent encumbrance on the land and it does not make sense to get into an agreement
forever.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 20
Mr. Marino stated that there is a new formula for air quality, and there is not a lot of mitigation
because they could get under the threshold without it.
Mr. Marino stated that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval.
Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac recused himself on this item. Commissioner
Tragish commented as to King Gardner being pushed out of business, and stated that the price
of ag land has gone up and it does not become profitable to farm it when it has a higher better
value to it. He stated with regard to the farming easement being forever, it is his understanding
that it may be forever, but it can be changed either with the City Council or the County. He
further commented that the property with King Gardner Ranch does not come in at all one time,
and comes in little bits and pieces, and in the process avoid having to do an EIR. Commissioner
Tragish indicated that he would like to have a committee to look at this particular situation and
see if there is an ordinance that they can fashion to submit to the City Council that where you
have contiguous property such as this owned by one land owner that when they bring property in
there has to be an EIR, instead of taking it one piece at a time getting around the requirements
and restraints when a property is brought in over a certain amount of acres.
Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Love why he believed that they did not comply with the five
requirements?. Mr. Love responded that for number 1 that the cancellation of the land has not
really being served as there are other choices for housing besides this property and this contract
land. Mr. Love responded that it meets number 3. He responded that number four is debatable
and is a contiguous issue. With respect to number 5 he stated there is no non-contracted land
which is available for its proposed use, and he believes there is other land that is not under
contract that could be used for housing.
Mr. Love confirmed that he believes the cancellation for the land and the notice of non-renewal
has not been served.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the cancellation notice not being served, to which Staff
responded that this has been a non-renewal for years, and before it is sent to the PC they make
sure that they know that it has already has been in non-renew. Therefore, Staff knows that the
notice of non-renewal has been made.
Commissioner Tragish stated that the zoning for all the adjacent properties to the west are still
zoned ag, and based on that, it will result in the removal of those lands from ag use. He stated
that as to elements three and four they have been met by the applicant, and element five is
debatable. He stated he does not believe that he can support the cancellation of the Williamson
Act as they have not fully complied.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he concurs with some of Commissioner Tragish's comments.
He stated that he does not agree with the comments on the conversion of prime farm land.
Commissioner Blockley referred to the Definition of Farmland Trust, which definition does not
include land which happens to be used for ag which is immediately adjacent to urbanized area.
If there is ag land adjacent to urbanization it is by definition unsuitable for agriculture.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he will not object to it on this basis.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she agrees with Commissioner Blockley in that it is contiguous
growth. She inquired if the June 14th letter clarification and changes need to be included in any
motion, to where Staff indicated that it would need to be due to the "where as" clause.
Commissioner Gay reiterated his understanding that any building by the church would require a
block wall around the R-1 zoning. He stated that with respect to loss of farm land it is very
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 21
seldom that an applicant comes in and says that they are picking up another 2,000 acres and
putting it into production. Commissioner Gay stated that he will support the motion.
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 05-0338 to
change the land use designation from R-A to LR on 80 acres as shown in Exhibit "A-2", and
recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving Zone Change 05-0338 from A to R-1
on 70 acres, and from A to R-1-CH on 10 acres as shown in Exhibit "A-2", and recommend the
same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the cancellation of the Williamson
Act Land Use Contract on 60 acres, incorporating the memo of June 14, 2005 from James D.
Movius, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Ellison
NOES: Commissioner Tragish
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not believe that this application complies with the
Williamson Act, and specifically as to item number 2 of the elements as set forth in the Staff
report, and possibly with element number 5 as you have to draw the line somewhere, even
though all the property to the west is still all ag.
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 22
6.9) General Plan Amendment No. 05-0403 (Cal-Kern Development, LLC) (Ward 3)
Commissioner Ellison recused himself from this item.
Staff report given. Public hearing is opened. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated
that their comments are included in their letter, and issues are similar to those on other projects.
Susan Zimmerman, representing the property owners to the north, stated that when the family
applied for a GPA from R-MP to LR to permit the residential development of their property
before last fall, Sunray Petroleum, the developer's affiliate, opposed their application. Ms.
Zimmerman for the record stated that earlier today Larry Roland, referred to in documentation as
president of Sunray Petroleum, Inc., told her that Sunray Petroleum and Cal Kern Development,
LLC are, "one and the same." She stated that at the Council meeting Sunray represented that
further oil production was possible, and also later prevented the family, with a reserve study
allegedly supporting their position. Ms. Zimmerman stated that tonight it appears that Sunray's
stated interests in this oil field have changed drastically as they appear more interested in
residential development of this oilfield, rather than oil production. She stated that they have
even presented an oil reserve study this evening in the documentation which states that, "The
chance of encountering commercial oil on the Muir lease property is extremely low." She
commented that the Afona property and this Muir lease property are on top of the same oilfield,
and are adjacent. Ms. Zimmerman commented that curiously the same geologist, Thomas Ladd,
wrote both the initial report to the Afona's, and the seemingly conflicting report before you today,
and they are only two months apart. Ms. Zimmerman stated that their own assessment of the
property by WZI indicates that Kern Bluff Oilfield is a played out marginal oilfield. Ms.
Zimmerman stated that Sunray Petroleum/Cal-Kern Development has also submitted a plan for
preliminary review of the city for residential housing on this property, and the plan shows no
reserve for drill island, and no oil production reserve areas, and therefore would not allow for
any future oil production areas. Ms. Zimmerman stated that they have tried in good faith to have
Sunray properly abandon their idle wells on the Afona property according to DOGGER
Guidelines. She indicated that there are over 23 wells on the adjacent Afona property, but
Sunray has resisted, and even told them they wanted to drill 15 more oil wells on the property.
She indicated that she has copies of this in her possession which she will share with the PC. Ms.
Zimmerman indicated that historically the Muir lease before the PC now has produced much
more oil than the Afona lease which Sunray opposed. Ms. Zimmerman stated that they would
like to ask for a disapproval of this project, or that they condition approval such that Cal-Kern
Development, LLC/Sunray Petroleum, Inc. needs to negotiate with Afona in good faith and reach
agreement with them prior to development of their property so that their ability to develop does
not occur before their ability to develop. She stated that this condition would remove any
vestage of what might otherwise appear to be unfair business practices, and so that there is no
conflict between Cal-Kern's rights to surface development, and the Afona's rights to surface
development.
Mark Davis, manager of Cal-Kern, clarified that Cal-Kern Development has no relationship
whatsoever with Sunray Petroleum. He indicated that Cal-Kern Development bought this lease
from Sunray and they still owe them money, and that is the nexus between the two companies.
He indicated that Ms. Zimmerman indicated earlier out in the halls that she would drop Afona's
opposition if Sunray would abandon the wells on the Afona property, and he indicated that he
had no ability to speak for Sunray.
Mike Philips, representing the applicant, stated that they have reviewed all of the conditions of
approval, and the applicant has agreed to all of the conditions. Mr. Philips stated that the GPA
application was submitted March 16th and was determined complete March 30th, and the new
URBEMIS version came out in mid April and there is no way they could have redone the
application using the new model, but will be done as a condition of approval in subsequent
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 23
phases of the project.
Tom Ladd, professional geologist, stated that he has been in the oil business for 30 years, and
consulting for 25 years. Mr. Ladd indicated that he did do the evaluations on both properties,
and the Afona lease was given to him by Sunray, and their goal was different then the Muir. He
stated that Afona's goal was to find the upper limit of potential oil on the lease, and that is the
numbers he provided to them. He stated, in contrast, the Muir goal was to determine any
remaining reserves on the property. He stated that he does not see any conflict with the two
different evaluations. Mr. Ladd indicated that there were two separate contracts for the surveys
and he was paid by two separate companies. He stated that they found that a large amount of
oil had been produced from the Muir lease comparing it to the Afona lease. He stated that the
Afona lease is structurally more favorable in the upper side than the Muir lease, and further
indicated that the Muir lease had been steamed, which is an enhancement process for oil
recover, which the Afona lease did not have.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that it is his understanding that when
it comes to a GP the PC has a lot of discretion in voting approval or disapproval. He stated that
he is confused in that he does not know if there's been bad faith or not. Commissioner Tragish
stated that he has a problem with this based on the comments made. He stated that he does not
want to support at this time and would like to have a continuance. He indicated that he would
like to see a copy of the lease from last year.
Commissioner Gay inquired about Ms. Zimmerman's denial comments, and if they do not have
the LR designation, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Staff responded that Ms.
Zimmerman is talking about the issue of having wells where evidently the interest holder is not
negotiating in good faith to abandon the wells so they can proceed with development of the
property and they are now LR designation. Staff indicated that they are not comfortable with
tying approval of this project to the Afona project. Staff suggested that if something is going on
between these two different property owners and the inter-relationships of the mineral right
owners, it should be handled outside of this room, and the evidence presented before the PC
indicates that they can approve this project without encumbering them to do anything on the
project to the north.
Commissioner Gay commented that he does not like the allegations, but stated that they are also
last second allegations. He stated that it is not their job to figure it out. Commissioner Gay
inquired about the circulation element and if Panorama will continue eastbound through the
commercial and through this property, to which Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 05-0403 to
change the land use designation from R-MP to LR on 58 acres as shown in Exhibit "A-2"
attached to the Draft Resolution, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Ellison
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 24
6.10a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-0535 (The Keith
Companies) (Ward 3)
Staff report given. The public hearing is opened. Patty Kusak, a resident, stated her home is
on Stone Canyon, and is more closely related to the southern portion of the project.
She stated she mildly opposes changing the designation of the more northern property from
open space park to residential. She stated they have no parks in the area. She stated that in the
last 5-7 years the demographics have changed and many developments are coming in the area,
and she asked that it not yet be converted until a good analysis of a possible fee is
recommended for a park district. She stated that if it is converted they will not get the chance to
vote on it. She further requested that she would like to see where and how other parks have
come in.
A.J. Whitiker, with the Keith Companies, stated that he does not know if an additional poll of the
surrounding neighbors, in addition to a notice that went out for this hearing, would result in
anything different than the previous decisions not to pay for the maintenance of such a facility.
He stated that it is not a good location for a park. He stated that it's a very narrow site already,
and a 12 acre park site in the middle of it would severely limit development of this site. He
stated that they are providing a fully developed 2 acre staging area at the northwest corner of the
site that will provide direct access to the city's trail system.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas stated that on Monday the PC received a full
presentation. Staff gave a synopsis. Commissioner Gay stated that he would support a motion.
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 05-0535 to
change the land use designation from OS-P to LR on 11.58 acres, and from HR to LR on 12
acres as shown in Exhibit "A-2", incorporating the Public Work's memo dated June 10, 2005, and
the Planning Director's memo dated June 13, 2005, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving Zone Change 05-0535 from R-3 to
R-3- MH to R-1 on 12 acres as shown in Exhibit "A2", incorporating the Public Work's memo
dated June 10, 2005, and the Planning Director's memo dated June 13, 2005, and recommend
the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minutes, PC, June 16, 2005 Page 25
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Gay inquired about item number 3 (6.3(a) and (b)) and keeping the special study,
to which Staff responded that they keep the technical studies and turn the binders back
complete.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if at the next meeting they could make sure the air conditioner
stays on
10. ADJOURNMEMT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
11:21 p.m.
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
August 9, 2005