HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 20 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
0 `
Regular Meeting — October 20, 2005 — 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
Absent: None
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Steve Ewing
Staff: Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. CLOSED SESSION:
Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation; Closed Session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A)
of Government Code Section 54956.9.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to go into closed session pursuant
to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code Section 54956.9.
Motion carried by group vote.
4. CLOSSED SESSION ACTION:
Mr. Sherfy stated the PC did hold a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9,
subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A), however there was no reportable action.
5. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Barbara Camp and Deidre Hall stated they would like to speak on agenda item 10.1
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
6.1 a. Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 2005.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public hearing items.
Motion carried by group vote.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 2
6.2 Public Hearing Items
6.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6359 (Robert Lusich) (Agenda Item 10.2)
6.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6536 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Agenda Item
10.4)
6.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6537 (RABE Engineering, Inc.) (Agenda
Item 10.5)
6.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6538 (RABE Engineering, Inc.) located at
the northwest corner of 36 Street and Q Street (3701 Q Street). (Exempt from
CEQA) (Agenda Item 10.6)
Public hearing opened. Robert Lusich, the engineer for tract 6359, agenda item 6.2a requested that it be
removed from consent calendar.
Commissioner Tragish requested removal of public hearing item 6.2b (regular agenda item 10.4) and public
hearing item 6.2c(regular agenda item 10.5).
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the consent calendar public
hearing items (6.2d).
Motion carried by group vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Development Plan Review 05-1227 (Skarphol Associates) (Ward 4)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given.
The following were done verbatim.
Howard Smith, 1401 Calloway Drive, stated they are satisfied with the plan the way it is laid out so far. We may
like to see a change possibly to the landscaped border right behind their property on the west end, which is a 7-
foot landscaped area, and we have 20-feet on the south side, which is excellent, and we have 20-feet at our
neighbor's fence which is excellent. The only thing is right there where the arrow is at this time, we'd like to see a
20-foot landscaped area, if possible.
Deborah Smith, 1401 Calloway, stated one of the big issues why we want the 20-foot is that as you can tell from
all that being built on Calloway and the stream of traffic, we are building a master suite on the back of our house,
and will have a retreat from all the noise, but if there is parking lot, there will be cars, their alarms, possibly people
congregating and a lot of stereos, possibly people coming in and out. We are not going to have anywhere to
retreat. So if they could give us the 20 feet with the beautiful landscaping they are talking about, it would buffer a
lot of the noise and would satisfy them. Otherwise, we would prefer to have buildings back there in the parking
where the buildings are so that we can have a buffer for our privacy and peace of quiet which is our main
concern. We still don't like the entrance on Calloway, but apparently there is nothing they can do about that.
Rae Monteburnum and I live on Harvey Court, just north of the Smiths, and I too would like to pose a concern
about the entrance into this property on Calloway. As I am coming out every morning, it is very difficult to get into
traffic onto Calloway, and it's my understanding that this complex is going to employ some 200 people, and have I
don't know how many tenfold of that of people who are coming in to use the services of the complex. So, the
traffic is going to be increased. There's been representations to this panel that traffic is not going to be increased,
and I would say that defies my day-to-day experience. I do have a concern about the entrance from Calloway
and would like to see perhaps reconsideration of that. I do think the Smiths have a point with having an equal
border around their property that everyone else is going to enjoy, and would like to as the Planners to consider
that as well.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 3
Florida Lowe, 9713 Harvey Court, said thank you for all the modifications and for hearing their voices at the last
two hearings this project was discussed. She stated her concern is also the entrance onto Calloway Drive. My
children go to Columbia Elementary, which is just off of Brimhall and Mondavi Way, and there was an instance
that happened last Friday where the bus actually could not stop because of the flow of traffic, and decided to go
ahead and go around the block and try it once again. We do have an actual designated bus stop on our street,
however, the district did not have a short bus to make the turn on Harvey Court, so they had to have a longer bus,
and in doing so that moved their bus stop to the edge of the street. The concerned parents called in and got it
modified to where the children would still wait on Harvey Court in front of their home until they see a visual of the
bus and then the bus would then honk and open the doors so the children could get on safely and the bus could
get on about its route to school. So if that is happening now when the children are attending late because the bus
cannot pull over I do fear that that is going to be a real issue in the future with backed up traffic. There's been
instances where cars have been backed up from the light at Brimhall on Calloway Drive past our street at Harvey
Court and we're going `hello, can we get in?' We just want to get into traffic here. And there have been really
nice folks that let us in. However, there's been times when we just wait and wait. So another thing is that if that
driveway cannot be moved to another location, possibly off of Brimhall where that will be a three-lane road
eventually, then in fact, maybe a light can be put in at our street, which will be more money on the City. There just
has to be a safe entrance for the residents to be able to get in and out of our block to go to school and our work
places.
Thomas Fallgatter, representing the applicant stated they have read Staff's report and accept all of the conditions
Staff is recommending be imposed on the project. Mr. Fallgatter stated that they had a meeting with the residents
and at that meeting they agreed to two additional conditions in response to the neighbors' concerns. One
agreement that we made was that we would agree that there would be no sweeping of the project between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. We also agreed that there would be no outdoor recreational or break areas,
such as picnic tables or anything like that along the north or northwest perimeter of the property where the single
family homes (including the Smiths). We have agreed to extend that area along the very northeast corner of the
property where it adjoins the Smiths property so there would be no break areas in that portion of the project.
Those are the two conditions that we made to the neighbors at the Monday night meeting, and we're willing to
have those made additional conditions. There's been a couple of people speak about the problems with regard to
traffic. I think that Mr. Movius mentioned in his Staff report, but I want to remind the Commission that we have
now agreed to provide a deceleration lane on Calloway, and we think that in terms of the traffic situation, our
project with the decel lane being added will actually help a little bit. I mean it's an arterial, there's going to be a lot
of traffic, but we think the decel lane will actually improve the situation there.
I want to state I understand the Smiths concerns with regard to the landscape strip on the west side of the Smiths
property. Our problem is we have site constraints in terms of parking places. We cannot lose another row of
parking along there to create a 20-foot strip. We don't find ourselves in a position to be able to solve that issue for
them. I would point out that their home is out towards Calloway, and even though they want to add onto the back
of their home to get away from the noise, which I understand also, even with the add-on that portion where we
have only the 7-foot landscaping is quite a distance from their home, whereas the area where we had made the
20-foot landscaping is much closer to their home. We have tried to address their concerns.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tkac commented that a decel lane is absolutely critical for that area. He inquired if this is how it is
going to be designed if there are going to be any goods and services in the front area that are going to keep
people rotating in and around this area. Mr. Fallgatter stated there shouldn't be any goods or services at that
point as it is just an entry way and people would shift forward and go into the particular building.
Commissioner Tkac commented that he likes the landscaping, and inquired about the lighting along the back side
where those residents would be most effected by any lighting. Mr. Fallgatter stated that east of the sump over to
the trees on onward, in the center of that going down south is the closest light to the neighbors, which will have a
15-foot pole, as opposed to the standard shopping center lights which are quite a bit higher.
Commissioner Tkac inquired what the tenants will be in this project to which Mr. Fallgatter stated that it will be
mostly professional offices, however on the site plan there are provisions for a bank facility, but it will be in the
building, and can only be located at the furthest point in the project away from the residents in the SW corner
back out on Brimhall.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 4
Commissioner Tkac stated that he likes what he sees, and most of his concerns and have been addressed.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he looked at the project and spoke to Mr. Fallgatter. He stated that looking at
the Smith house in the NW corner of this property, the Smiths' property faces Calloway and probably picks up
much of the noise off of Calloway. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Smith and his south boundary and the
heavy landscape on his south side. Mr. Smith confirmed this observation. Commissioner Tragish inquired about
the sign in Mr. Smith's yard, which Mr. Smith indicated was for his business. Commissioner Tragish stated that
looking at the east fence it looks like about two-thirds of it is heavily landscaped. Mr. Smith responded that the
east boundary is Calloway Road. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if the end of his property is where the
end of his fence is presently located, to which Mr. Smith confirmed.
Commissioner Tragish reiterated that looking at the property there appears to be a substantial amount of
landscaping on the south and east side of the Smiths' property, and about half of it looked pretty heavily
landscaped. I don't know if we could do a 20-foot setback, nor do I think one is really necessary given the current
landscaping of Mr. Smith's property, which is heavily landscaped in the areas I've indicated, plus there will be a 7-
foot setback, plus some heavy landscape proposed by the applicant. So as to the concerns regarding a 20-foot
setback I don't think it's appropriate and I don't think it's warranted, and I think the current configuration of Mr.
Smith's property does not lend itself to that.
Commissioner Tragish stated the other comments that were made have to do with alleged traffic problems and
apparently relocating the access point from Calloway to Brimhall as an entrance to this project. Apparently our
traffic person isn't here, and he inquired whether or not this traffic issue has been adequately addressed. The
applicant responded that they did not have a traffic study done on the project, but at Staff's
recommendation/insistence we did provide the decel lane, and it was our understanding that that addressed the
technical issue of the traffic. One of the speakers mentioned that they can't get out of Harvey Court on occasion
because of the traffic, and we think the decel lane actually helps because people coming to this project will be
able to get out of the flow of traffic and wont further stack up. If there were a single entry all the way back on
Brimhall, there is just going to be more people stacked up trying to get around the corner, and in addition, it is my
understanding that the project requires two entrances in terms of safety and other issues.
Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Movius for direction on the traffic issue. Commissioner Lomas stated that she
vaguely remembers there being discussion that this project needed two entrances, to which Staff responded
affirmatively. Mr. Movius indicated that presently there is an entrance from Calloway and Brimhall, and
eliminating the one on Calloway would create tremendous traffic problems as far as people trying to get into the
site. Mr. Movius feels that this issue as been adequately addressed.
Commissioner Tragish commented that he heard that the applicant agreed to add two conditions. One being that
there be no sweeping of the project between the hours o of 10:00 p.m. an7:00 a.m., and two that no outdoor
break area or recreational area be at the north boundary or the east and south boundary of Mr. Smith's property.
Mr. Fallgatter stated that this is correct although it would be the west, south boundary, of Mr. Smith's property, as
well as all of the north perimeter.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Movius if there is a condition that talks about a decel lane, or if it is
something that was given to them after the Staff's report was prepared. Mr. Movius responded that it is presented
as part of the project design so they are approving the design tonight and they could not delete it, and it is not
needed as a condition.
Commissioner Tragish stated that given all the concerns this evening I believe they've been adequately
addressed, and I am in support of the project.
Commissioner McGinnis noted for the record that he has had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Fallgatter prior to
today's hearing. I feel that they've made adequate efforts to try to meet with the community to make their project
an integral part of the community, and have made concessions that I feel are reasonable. They may not have
met all of the neighbors' demands, but I feel that within the constraints of their project I think they've made the
modifications that they need to make, and I too am in favor of the project.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 5
Commissioner Blockley stated he is glad that the applicant has agreed to the no sweeping prohibition at certain
times of the day, as well as the break areas being limited in their locations. I feel the decel lane will be beneficial
to the project so I am in favor of the project.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he did have some concerns with the traffic flow but when the applicant's
representative contacted me and discussed that they were adding a deceleration lane, I was happy to see that
that change was made so that that would address the traffic issues. I think most of the major conditions and
concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Lomas stated that all of her questions have been answered. She inquired of Mr. Fallgatter if they
could possibly come up with a compromise as far as in landscaping on the 7-foot western boundary of the Smiths'
property that would offer more of a shield/barrier with a certain type of tree, or certain type of landscape that
would create essentially what they are looking for. Mr. Fallgatter responded that they could probably do
something, but I am not sure what that would be. Mr. Fallgatter stated that the conditions call for the trees to be
every 20-feet along the perimeter and on that side they could double that and make them every 10 feet. This may
be too much in terms of the trees, but they are willing to double the plantings on the west boundary of the Smiths'
property with the same size as in the existing condition. Commissioner Lomas indicated that this would read
"The western boundary of the Smiths' property."
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve developmental plan for file 05-1227
as delineated and attached Exhibit 3, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, adding
conditions "no sweeping between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and no outdoor break area on the northern boundary,
including the Smith property, and double planting of trees along the western boundary of the Smith property.
Motion was passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. PUBLIC HEARING — Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact /
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-1746 and Ashe No. 3 Annexation (DEIR (Ward 6)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Mike Houlihan, MBA Consulting Firm, reviewed the environmental
issues associated with the project.
No one commented on the adequacy of the draft EIR.
The public hearing is closed.
The following was done verbatim.
Commissioner Tragish commented that in reviewing this, and in reviewing previous ones, it appears that the draft
EIR addresses the impact to streets and traffic usually within the immediate area, and maybe a little bit beyond
that. In this case, it's White Lane and Berkshire and some of the other streets that were referenced (Taft
Highway, Panama Lane, Pacheco). My concern is when looking at this draft EIR is recently it has come to my
attention as I drive home everyday that at Stockdale and Gosford/Coffee Road, the cars coming from the east are
probably backed up five blocks, and every year, and every month it seems to be getting more extensive, and I
think a lot of the traffic centers, the secondary impact to my mind is really where most of the problems are
beginning to occur. I'd like to see some treatment or analysis as to how this particular project is going to impact
the secondary traffic areas, such as the one that I just referenced at Stockdale and Gosford/Coffee Road. What
appears to happen as these new projects go in, and they put their streets and lights and the decel lanes, you're
really backing up the congestion two, three miles down the road; that's where it's really backing up as people are
making the long drive home. I understand that there are shopping centers and other areas of office where people
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 6
can go to work is distributed throughout the city, but I don't see any treatment of that issue in my mind, and that's
my first comment (I'd like to see the treatment of secondary traffic effects of this project on areas a little bit further
extended from what they've already treated.) The second comment that I'd like to make, and that I was a little bit
confused on, is that the draft EIR has certain basic premises, and one of the basic premises is the proposed
project and the reason that bothers me is because I like the draft EIR to address my concern to the extent that I
don't want to limit it to the proposed project; I'd like to see what the EIR impacts and treatment would be as to
both the minimal build out, maximum build out the proposed build out. The reason for that is that we do not know
down the line what turns and twists in the road this project may take. It may build out more than anticipated, it
may build out less. As I look at the figures in the Staff report, it appears that there is 1,302 houses (maybe that's
the maximum—I'm not sure). When I read the proposed draft it looks like the homes that they are proposing is in
the 800, 900 area. (I'm not quite sure.) Commissioner Tragish inquired about this to the Mr. Movius. Mr. Movius
stated that he does not have an answer. Commissioner Tragish commented that he would like to see the draft
EIR indicated the impacts of, not only the proposed build out of the project, but the minimal as well as the
maximum, and how that would effect this particular report. Mr. Movius stated that it is typical for EIR to base
assumptions on reasonable build out, and in Bakersfield we rarely see maximum density, especially in R-1 areas.
Typically, if it allows up to 7.26 units per acre, and typically what you end up with is about 4 or 5 units per acre.
So the applicant has based their assumptions on that. If they built out something higher than that we would have
to re-evaluate the EIR document and determine if it is still appropriate with regard to impacts on a higher density.
It is not typically done where you evaluate what's called the worst case situation of a project like this if you know
you're never going to reach that worst case situation, and it sounds like you're wanting an evaluation of the worst
case, and it's not required under the CEQA Guidelines for preparing EIR. Reasonable build out assumptions are
adequate. Staff further commented that in a C2 zone you can build many, many stories high of commercial, but
we never seen that, so when you seen an EIR for a commercial project, it's typically based on a two-story
maximum commercial build out because they know they're never going to get to the 10 stories that they could
build out. Staff stated that the way it was addressed in the this EIR is adequate, but will respond in writing to
Commissioner Tragish's comment.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would still like to see this EIR be addressed in the way he has expressed. I
have seen too many projects come through here and change and change zoning, and change configurations. I'd
like to know from the go-get the parameters of what they're intending to do.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to refer the draft EIR on General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Number 04-1746 and Ashe #3 annexation draft EIR to Staff for preparation of the
final EIR.
Motion was passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARING – Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Sky 19 Development Project No. 05-1063 located between State Route 178
and College Avenue and between Morning Drive and Vineland Road, Section 19, Townshio 29S,
Range 29E, MDB&M. (S &J Alfalfa Companies) (Draft EIR) (Ward 3)
The public hearing to receive comments regarding the adequacy of the draft EIR is opened. Staff report given.
Cindy Azeltime, lives directly north of this development (Cosmo, on the corner of Cosmo and Paladino). She
stated that she would like to oppose this mainly because in the information that the water will be obtained from
Cal Water and the water treatment plant that has recently been put in, which is almost in my backyard, I don't feel
that it's fair, along with other residents out there, that have no water. We oppose any development out there until
we can get water supply to us. Right now we haul water in water trailers from the fire hydrants. We have been
working with Cal Water and the City and have gotten no where and this is why 1, and the other eight residents,
oppose this.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 7
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concerns are similar to the previous agenda
item. My concern is that I would like to see some treatment in the draft EIR pertaining to the secondary effects of
traffic. I've noted in the draft EIR that most of the impacts discussed are in the relative immediate areas of this
project, and I believe that it also has secondary effects to the south of it pertaining to Highway 46 and the various
arterials that feed into it. My second concern is also the same as before, that I'd like to see the draft EIR treat the
maximum build out and the minimum build out or the proposed build out, and my reasoning for this is that I see
these projects come through, and I see that they change as they come through or change into something else,
and if it's in the EIR it's something that we can review as it goes through that process. The thing that always
bothers me is that the proposals/promises don't always bear fruit at the end of the tunnel.
Commissioner Blockley stated that his comment on this is similar to those made in past projects where it has
been proposed to remove circulation elements which are generally collectors and this is one of those cases where
a collector is proposed for deletion, and another is being proposed to be reduced in status from collector to local
street, and the concern that I would like the EIR to address is non-vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and general
circulation using alternative routes. I realize in the northeast the collectors aren't always continuous through
projects. I think it is worthy of some study, and in particular in the northeast the connection of the collectors or
substitute streets with the Northeast Specific Trails Plan.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the remainder parcel north of 178, and a better understanding of why it's
included. She stated that within the document it refers to a couple pages regarding seismic activity and faults,
and stated that she would like a better understanding and perhaps a map of where these fault lines are. She
also inquired about the reference to Shark's Tooth Hill and if the City recognizes this as resource, and if there is a
policy that deals with protecting this resource. She also inquired about the proximity of Shark's Tooth in relation
to this project.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the smaller parcel on the north end of the property, and if the alignment
as shown with 178 going to coincide with the future alignment proposed of 178. He further inquired about the
notation of the "pollution measure" aspect, and particularly in this area on the east side where there area a lot of
the Valley Fever spores, if there is anything that comes within their purview and the workers stirring up all the
dust. Staff responded that they will respond with a written response in the final EIR.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to refer comments to Staff for preparation of a
final environmental impact report. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Tract Maps
10.1 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6191 (San Joaquin Engineering) generally located on
the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Barbara Camps stated that she is opposing this project. She stated that
she lives northeast of this area and that there are three streets involved, and 8 families that have to use only 3 fire
hydrants on Morning Side directly across from this project to haul water for their homes. She stated that right now
because of the construction, on the east side of Morning Side we are parking in the roadway and blocking it, and
if construction is started there, they have no way to get water. She stated that they have asked for help and they
don't get any. She stated that with regard to the referenced deviation from the street design, they've asked for a
deviation on three streets so that they can put a water line in, and they were told no. She further stated that they
all have livestock, and the proposed lots are being made smaller and smaller and nothing appears to be blamed
for any kind of recreational trails for horses, etc. She stated that she feels that it should be smoothed out a little
bit so everybody can get along.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 8
Gordon Nipp, for the Sierra Club, reincorporated their letter of August 21, 2003 of the earlier version of this project
into the record. He indicated that there are not a lot of issues that have changed since then.
Deidre Hall, 7911 stated that this project has changed over time. She stated that there are flocks of sheep, kit
foxes, coyotes, and that she saw a roadrunner. She stated that she would like to make sure that as the NE is
developed that it is done in a rational manner that takes into consideration the quality of life that will be enjoyed by
the citizens. She stated that she agrees with the previous comments about the cumulative effects. She
requested that the lot sizes be no less than the adjacent properties, including hers across the street, and
requested that there not be two-stories home built in this area which will affect their view. She further indicated
that the neighbors that live on the SW corner paid premiums for view lots and now the homes that would be built
in that corner there will not be a street separating those homes so that their elevated view lots will be looking
straight into the second story of the proposed homes. She also requested that the developer be required to work
with the neighboring community to make sure that the process of construction includes safeguards, including dust
reduction, noise abatement and things of that nature, and it goes without saying that the infrastructure will be
impacted greatly as there is an elementary school, and the traffic should be taken into consideration. She further
requested that the Commission refer this back to Staff for further review before it is approved.
Richard Niece with Griffith Industries and their representatives were present for any questions. Mr. Niece stated
they are in agreement with Staff's report and recommendations and will accept the conditions as proposed. He
indicated that they are proposing 163 lots, which average 7,300 sq. ft, and 118 lots, which will average 10,100 sq
ft. for a total of 281 residential lots, which is well below the allowable 400 lots under the R-1 zoning. Mr. Niece
indicated that they have friendly pedestrian trails, and that this project is not high density.
Mr. Niece stated that in response to Mr. Nipp's comments, that they have a current settlement agreement that
was reached on the last project that is still applicable, which requires them to prior to obtaining a final building
permit to pay a cumulative air quality impact fee in the amount of $1,200 per building permit, and which also
requires them to pay $8,000 towards the blunt nose lizard, and to pay $1,300 for the legals for the Sierra Club,
and to incorporate a 2,500 watt solar photovoitiac panel for the first model home in the subdivision, and to offer
photovoitiac systems as an option to the homebuyers in the subdivision.
Mr. Niece further stated that they are consistent within the allowable land uses of the city's general plan, and
consistent with the circulation element of the general plan. He indicated that they have been conditioned to
construct, as part of the project, two city arterial roadway improvements; Paladino Drive on the north and Morning
Drive on the east. He indicated that the project contains 281 lots, but this is 119 lots less traffic then that which
was considered when the general plan was adopted.
Mr. Niece also commented that they are conditioned to make sure their intersections remain at a level of service
of C, and has conditioned all regional impacts caused by this development will be mitigated by payment of the
regional impact fee when building permits are issues.
Mr. Niece stated that their environmental review has determined that the requirements of the conditions will
reduce their impacts to less than significant.
Mr. Niece stated that with respect to views of existing homeowners, (Bald Eagle Street) He inquired if anyone on
Bald Eagle has requested for a remodel permit to build a second story to their home. He indicated that their 13
lots will lack privacy in their own backyards. He stated that to live with that condition, and help with some
landscaping, and set their pads at or near existing grade instead of raising them up artificially like the neighbors
are he believes is a concession. He stated that they have proposed one of four plans to be one-story, and they
are willing to accept a condition of one-third of the homes to be one story along Bald Eagle Street, opening up
view areas and view sheds to the neighbors, so that if not every other one, but every third one they could have
two-story.
Mr. Niece stated that the 9 homes on Eagle Ridge are going to face each other.
Mr. Niece further indicated that as they develop Paladino Drive and Morning Drive there will be more than 'h
street improvements, which will include fire hydrants.
Applicant's consultants gave comments.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 9
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the 18-ft. grade separation between his project and the one adjacent to it,
if it is consistent with the project as it abuts to the neighborhood. Mr. Niece stated that it varies, but that at that
location he would guess that it's a little less than 18-ft. He indicated that at some of the lower ends it is probably
coming down to maybe a 6-ft. wall, and maybe a 6-ft. slope, and that 18-ft would be on the end referred to by the
call from Jeff Martin. He indicated that it would be looking north-west. (That wall is a northwesterly wall.)
Commissioner McGinnis further inquired about a lot break down, and that the size of the lots were rather small.
Mr. Niece responded that their minimum lot is 60X100, but the group of homes that they are proposing to fit into
that minimum lot and other lots similar like it are going to average 7300 sq. ft. So there will be some that are
probably be 8,000, some probably 8500, but the minimum would be 6,000. Mr. Niece stated in a two-story design
there will be homes above 3,000 sq. ft. on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. He indicated that there could be a 1,400 sq. ft. one-
story and a 2,000 sq. ft. two-story. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that it appears on almost all of the homes
on the west boundary are 6,000 sq. ft. lots, and it appears as though many of the two-story homes are proposed
on those 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Niece responded that they have not actually prepared their homes yet, nor plotted
them. He indicated that they have prepared the lots to accept two minimum product types, stating that that the
larger lots are in the north, and generally the averaging 7300 sq. ft. lots are in the south.
Commissioner McGinnis commented that it seems that most of the concerns of the neighbors have to do with the
building of two-story homes that will obstruct their view, and stated that it the applicant would build one story
along the boundary that abuts the neighbors everyone would be happy. Mr. Niece indicated that both products
will have both one and two-story.
Commissioner Blockley commented about water during the course of construction, and the hydrants the current
residents are using. Ms. Shaw that she cannot comment on whether the widening of Morning Drive would
ameliorate the availability of water at a fire hydrant.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about the build out of this project projected in air study to be six years. Fred
Woody of WZI responded by stating that they posed an inquiry to the applicant of the proposed build out time, and
if no answer is received they typically use a factor of 50 houses a year.
Commissioner Blockley further stated his concern of future morphing and his desire to have that potential limited,
since he believes the residents have been led to believe that the paseos proposed for the easement along the
pipeline, and the additional paseo north-south, would have some sort of public access easement or some sort of
provision that would keep them sort of as a constant factor, rather than perhaps some day in the future after
everyone gets accustomed to using the appearing one day with gates and fences and restricting access to only
the residents.
Richard Niece responded that the green areas shown need to be owned by somebody, unless the City
would like to take them. He stated that it was his understanding that it was not the City's intention to take these
types of paseos and parks. He indicated that subsequently they have to form an association, and the
homeowners will pay a monthly fee to take care of maintenance, repair, water, electrical lighting and replacement
of facilities. He stated these areas will be owned by the association and technically is a private ownership. He
pointed out that an association generally cannot find insurance, like a city can, to handle the public use of their
facilities. He stated that they are not going to be gated, and does not see the public necessarily really accessing
them as it is more of an internal access. He further pointed out that he does not believe it will be exclusive nor
preclude a public person from access. He further stated that if it is conditioned to be made available to the public,
it will make it very difficult to obtain insurance.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about the grading and final pad elevations relative to the existing
homeowners adjacent to the south and the west. Staff responded that the grades could change. Commissioner
Blockley commented that he is not comfortable with the mixing up of vesting rights, and what may or may not
happen down the road.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the correlation between the coming Rio Bravo project and this
current project in that these paseos will be owned by the HOA. Staff responded that they will be owned by the
HOA and that if there are any changes to the green space it would have to be at the vote of the homeowners, to
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 10
which Staff confirmed indicating that it would somewhat depend on how the Bylaws were written for the
association.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the current residents water issues. Staff responded that this is an area of
town at Paladino and Casmo which was originally developed in the County and subsequently annexed to the City.
They initially had individual wells, which have failed, and a number of the homeowners are utilizing water out of
the fire hydrant from that intersection. Staff indicated that these residents are working with Cal Water to get water
extended from the main line that has been put in Paladino to their homes, but it's not easy for individual property
owners to put together that is usually done by an experienced developer, and is not easy for the City either as
Public Works is not a water purveyor.
Commissioner Tkac further inquired about a $1200 fee and if it goes to the City. Staff responded that this is part
of private agreements that some developers are entering into with the Sierra Club to respond to Sierra Club's
concerns, and goes into some type of trust fund. Staff commented that there are some 287 homes being
proposed for this project. Staff pointed out that the City does not collect this $1200 fee.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the applicant's two product types referenced. Mr. Niece stated they will have
three or four models of one product and three and four models of a second product, for a total of six to eight
different models. Product one will be one one-story, three two-stories ranging from 1700, 1800 sq. ft. to 2200 sq.
ft. Product two with four plans will include one one-story, three two-stories ranging from 2000 to 3200 sq. ft.
Commissioner Tkac commented that there can be no building under the transmission lines, which Staff confirmed.
He commented that the photovoitiac panels are a good idea and hopes that people will be able to afford them.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about mitigating the air quality down to zero. Staff responded that developers have
been entering into agreements between the developers and the Air Pollution Control District, and providing money
to the APCD to implement a menu of different things to do in order to bring that down to zero, which would include
car crushing to replacing ag diesel pumps. Staff indicated that there is a program set up for air quality districts to
spend that money that theoretically would mitigate down to zero. Commissioner Tkac commented that unless
there are pumps or things that they can actually make cleaner it would be a moot point. Staff confirmed.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about his concern with the absence of a traffic study, and if the response from
the applicant is sufficient to address these concerns. Staff responded they believe it is sufficient because they do
not require traffic studies when the projects are consistent with general plan use.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Niece about the different one and two story styles to be offered, and if it is
possible that one story could be placed along any boundary that abuts or is near existing residential property. Mr.
Niece stated that out of each product, and the project to the south there will be four different house types (plans 1-
4), and each would have a different elevation, different colors, different orientations, reverses, and if plan 1 is one-
story it would all be very monotonous streetscape on the south boundary.
Commissioner Johnson further inquired about the height and the applicant accepting every third house to go
down to one-story. Mr. Niece indicated that would be willing to do this to open up view corridors. Commissioner
Johnson inquired if they would do this by lot number or cluster it. Mr. Niece responded that he would like to say at
least every other one closer to Thorner, with an overall average of one-third. Mr. Niece indicated in this case it
would be lots 1-11 and 41, 40, and lots 6-14. He indicated that they could agree to 3 homes on the east side of
Thorner, and 4 homes on the west side of Thorner.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff what would be an appropriate way to deal with this. It was agreed to
come back to this question as Commissioner Lomas indicated she had questions as well.
Commissioner Tragish stated he is concerned about the trails and paseos, and inquired if the trails are designed
so that they can hook up to the current trail system. Staff responded these trails could hook up to the trail system,
however, to the west there is an intervening property owner between this and a trail on the trail plans that runs in
the western most tower line in this area. Staff indicated that while there could be a connection it would take the
cooperation from the adjacent property owner. Staff further indicated that on the east side it is proposed to
continue the trail to the east, and the intersection there will not be signalized and it would be difficult to get across
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 11
the street. Staff indicated that they cannot make the applicant connect this to the trail system. Commissioner
Tragish commented that it is inconsistent to say the trail would be available to the homeowners and the general
public, and therefore he will consider it to be for the homeowners in this area.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the commencement of the first phase that Morning Drive frontage will be
improved from Morning Sun Drive to the southern boundary of this project, and stated that he would like to see
that at the commencement of phase 1 that they build out the frontage on Morning side from the southern
boundary of the project to Paladino Drive. Mr. Niece responded that they designed the project in many phases
because it allows them to build slowly if the market was to become very slow. He indicated that they are
conditioned to build out Morning Drive from Morning Sun south to Eagle Ridge with the first phase. Mr. Niece
pointed out on the map that they build phase one to create the entry, and then go to phase two to get some of the
other 7300 ft. average lots, so they are expecting to build model complexes and two product types at once. He
further pointed out that they would then go to phase three which might be able to be built before phase 4, but the
idea was that in a good market they might build 1 and 4 together and 2 and 3 together. He indicated that if the
Commissioner would like to condition them to do it this way, it could be a burden but they will do it if it makes the
community work and traffic flow.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the comments submitted in a letter from Roy Malahowski claiming that over
2/3 of the project exiting through Courtney Street, and if Staff is satisfied that these comments have been
addressed. Staff responded that the Traffic Engineer is not present to respond directly, however the capacity is
there and the local streets are there to handle the traffic that would be generated from this tract. Staff indicated
that the capacity for a local street is a lot higher than the residents would like to see on the street. Staff indicated
that there may be other ways to rearrange other streets within the subdivision, but the technical levels of service
for the streets have been addressed. Commissioner Tragish commented that he believes there are three or four
different points to exit this tract.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired of Mr. Niece about there being a single family, two-story, with the single
family having several floor plans, and the two-story has several floor plans and the southern boundary of the
project from Thorner Street going west along Bald Eagle has a certain dimension to its neighbors (some are as
high as 18' maybe more, maybe less). Mr. Niece responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish commented that this is an R-1 and the applicant can build anything allowed for under that
R-1, unless there is some type of safety, health or welfare, or general plan issue involved. He inquired if Mr.
Niece would consider keeping all of those homes to single family residences along the Bald Eagle area because
there is more than one single-story floor plan and they will not all be monotonous, and then along the other side of
the southern boundary along Eagle Crest Street, that every other third house be a single-story residence. Mr.
Niece responded that they would propose a condition that the circled lots (8, 11, 13) along Eagle Ridge Street
across from their neighbors be single story, as these lots are all about the same elevation as the neighbors. Mr.
Niece stated that along Bald Eagle where the homes will back up to existing neighbors, they would accept a
condition that lot 41, and 1, 5, 8 and 10 have single story homes.
Commissioner Tragish stated that if there are going to be single-family homes on Bald Eagle Street he would put
it where it starts to drop below a certain level (maybe six houses in from that street). He stated that he does not
have a problem with Eagle Ridge Street. Mr. Niece stated that their concern is that they'd all be the same house.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he wants to keep the single family on Eagle Ridge as proposed. (8 houses
single-story on Bald Eagle Street starting from that access point all the way to the west.)
Commissioner Lomas inquired about page 3 of the Staff report which states, "The original developer agreed to
construct only single-story residences along lots which abut the adjacent developed lots west of Thorner." Staff
indicated that this paragraph would effect the west of this pan which is to the left. Commissioner Lomas inquired if
this was a condition of the tract map. Staff responded that the developer placed the condition on the map himself,
now the Commission is looking at a clean slate. She inquired what this applicant has to do. Staff responded that
since it is a tentative tract, and it already has general plan and zoning on it, the PC is extremely limited in what
conditions can be placed on the tract, and have to make sure the tract complies with all ordinances and policies in
effect once it is completed, unless it is for environmental mitigation or health and safety and welfare issue. Staff
indicated that the PC would not be able to require the developer to build single-family homes as a condition along
these lots, as there is no private right to a view. Staff further indicated that the minimum lot size is 6000 and as
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 12
long as the developer is within the minimum lot size the PC cannot make the developer do larger lots, however,
developers often agree to larger lots to get along on projects.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if this project will diminish the ability for the other homeowners to get their water, to
which Staff responded that in the long run no, but in the short run there may be access difficulties to the hydrant.
Staff responded that the residents may need to use another hydrant. Staff indicated that the big water line is
already there in Paladino, and this tract will not effect the other residents who are not receiving water.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if there are adequate setbacks to deal with livestock from adjacent property
owners. Staff responded that they are across the arterial from any adjacent properties and their at least a mile
and a quarter to the east of this project along Paladino.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the air quality study being paid for by the developer. Staff responded that
the City's consultants and the other consultants in town use the same program to prepare these air studies, and
Staff does not feel that it is valid to say that because the developer had the study prepared it is invalid and
prejudicial. Commissioner Lomas indicated that the current air study is not dated.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the build out time, and Staff commented that there is a map of cumulative
projects that is updated monthly where the information is retrieved from, and Staff believes that it is an accurate
map to use as a baseline for this.
Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the new air quality study and the compliance with the General Plan,
and it not raising any new red flags. Staff confirmed this, and indicated that a new initial study was done because
it was a larger project, and all the environmental information has been updated. Commissioner Lomas
commented that while some of the adjacent residents paid premiums for their view, the current project has been
zoned for a long time and was planned to be developed for many years, and further pointed out that it was not the
city that said they could collect for a view lot. No one knew how long the zoning has been in place.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she looks to have Morning Drive built out as part of the motion.
Commissioner Blockley commented that the street names will have to be looked at for duplication with other
existing street names in town. He inquired if the density as proposed now could come back again and be
changed. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner McGinnis suggested that if the separation on Bald Eagle Street is less than 10 ft there be a single-
story home built, and if it's more than 10 ft a two-story can be built. Mr. Niece stated they could agree to this.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve revised vesting tentative tract 6191 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached
Resolution Exhibit A, and include the conditions that upon the commencement of phase 1 by the applicant that
Morning Drive frontage will be improved from Paladino to the edge of the southern boundary of the property, and
a second condition stipulated to by the applicant that the construction of any homes along the southwest
boundary of the project adjacent to Bald Eagle Street that where the grade separation is less than 10 ft that the
applicant and/or successor will put in single story family residences, and the applicant shall record covenants on
said lots to restrict development to one-story. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6359 (Robert Lusich)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Robert Lusich,
representing the applicant, requested this item be removed from Consent because they have been working with
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 13
the Sierra Club and have provided a memo working out some mitigating measures the applicant feels is
appropriate for the project in the area. Mr. Lusich read through the four conditions.
Gordon Nipp, with the Sierra Club, stated their appreciation of the applicant accepting the four conditions.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish stated that if the developer wants to privately agree to these conditions with the Sierra
Club it is their prerogative, however, he stated that he cannot approve this project with these conditions as he
does not necessarily support these conditions.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she feels it is within the right of the applicant to negotiate, and she will vote in
favor of this project.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if it is appropriate for the PC to weigh in on any of the conditions as part of any
motion. Mr. Sherfy stated that he does not believe that legally it poses a problem for the PC to approve these
conditions as proposed by the developer. Staff further pointed out that when the conditions are listed on the
conditions of approval it will indicate that the applicant proposed these conditions, and the City shall not enforce
these conditions upon the developer.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative
Declaration and to approve vesting tentative tract map 6359 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached
Resolution Exhibit A, and incorporating the memoranda from Public Works, Marian Shaw dated October 17, 2005
and the October 18, 2005 memo from Ken Trone, Dept. of Parks and Rec., and the 4 conditions added in
consultation with the Sierra Club dated October 20, 2005, with the note that the applicant proposed these
conditions, and the City shall not enforce these conditions upon the developer. Motion carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas.
NOES: Commissioner Tragish
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tkac.
Commissioner Tragish commented that his no vote is because he does not want these conditions to be in any
way, shape or form be inferred that he agrees with them, approve of them, or think that they are appropriate. He
stated since this is a private agreement between the developer and the Sierra Club he would like to keep it that
way.
Commissioner Tkac commented that understands Commissioner Tragish's logic, and had he understood it a little
bit better, he probably would have voted no. He stated that he agrees with the premise that Commissioner
Tragish is making, and does not think that they should be involved in these conditions because they are not
enforceable.
10.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) located on the
north and south sides of Casa Club Drive within the Rio Bravo Country Club area.
(Negative Declaration on file)
Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Suzane Icardo, lives on San Benito Court, within the original Rio
Bravo Golf Course Homeowner's Association, stated that it is lamentable what has happened to the Rio Bravo
area as far as the development is proceeding. She referred to her April 2005 letter and summarized the key
points of her letter.
Scott Johnson, lives on Muirfield, adjacent to the Casa Club proposed development, referred to the conclusions
made in the report concerning aesthetics, recreation and the traffic. He stated that the environmental report
indicates four different sections. He referenced Section A and "whether the project will have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista. C — substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings." He stated that he takes exception to the fact that there is no impact on these particular areas as a
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 14
designation seems to have been made between what is a natural and a man-made vista. He indicated that
natural topography changes from time-to-time sometimes due to man sometimes due to how people create the
situation. (He referred to Lake Isabella.) He stated that the proposed development will involve the removal of
numerous mature trees, some exceeding 40' tall, and will partially block mountain views for some homes. He
pointed out section 1 of the environmental analysis acknowledges that some views will be impacted, and for some
home instead of viewing lake banks, mature trees and grass will be looking into people's backyards. He stated
that traffic into and out of the golf course will be negatively impacted as lake views will be obstructed and tree
views and grass land will be removed. He stated that the staff report seems to minimize the importance of
artificially created vistas. He pointed out that in Section 1C the report indicates that the obstruction of views is
typical of golf course developments, and the impact is not significant. He also stated that he takes exception to
the comment that the elimination of the scenic items are not significant.
Mr. Johnson further referred to Section 14 which deals with recreational issues involved in this project. He
indicated that Casa Club is the main artery into the Rio Bravo complex and the proposal wants to eliminate
sidewalks for one side of the street. He pointed out that Casa Club is not a cul-de-sac and is a wider main artery
for the entire Rio Bravo complex, and you have to use Casa Club to go anywhere in the Rio Bravo complex. Mr.
Johnson pointed out that numerous residents use Casa Club for walks and other recreational purposes. He
indicated that there is very green belt area in the Rio Bravo area that is not part of the golf course, and the
proposed development would negatively impact what little area is still there.
Mr. Johnson stated that with regard to traffic, it does not appear that the traffic analysis has taken into
consideration the huge amount of construction traffic, as well as the increased traffic from outside events at the
Club House, which will greatly increase traffic on Casa Club Drive. Mr. Johnson further stated that as a director
of the homeowner's association, he receives numerous complaints from residents regarding traffic impediments
and near accidents from construction traffic. He indicated that the proposed changes to Casa Club to mitigate the
traffic impacts are inadequate.
Kelly Lucas submitted a report. He stated that they have had meetings and have a good understanding of this
project and the bottom line is they just don't like where it's located. He stated last year they were unsuccessful in
pulling the traffic to the outside of the course, and as a result all of the traffic is centralized down Casa Club
starting from the east end of the course through the west end of the course.
Mr. Lucas pointed out that at no time during the ad hoc meetings was there any discussion by any union of any
development on Casa Club Drive. He pointed out the volume of traffic that will use Casa Club, and stated that
this project will introduce unparallel safety risks to the areas' residents and recreational enthusiasts unlike any
risks found in any residential area in Bakersfield, and for this reason alone the PC should reject this project as
staff has no means to compare traffic findings other than to use raw statistics that show little or no relevance to
the areas' unique characteristics.
Mr. Lucas pointed out that the average daily traffic using the statistics drawn from the City's report is around 8500
based on the numbers in the report, and based on the current lots in the planned development. He indicated that
the development 6433 of 22 lots represents 2.8% of the traffic that will flow through the area. 97% of the traffic in
that area will flow down Casa Club, and the resident oversight (the two dashes) located to Fairway and Emeralds
Green. He further pointed out that Emerald Greens has an entrance that will serve those 37 lots and Fairways is
left of the proposed development, and these have been backed out to show the significance that 97% of the traffic
generated in the Rio Bravo Golf Course community is going to be traveling right through the heart of a proposed
22 home development. He stated that he thinks this is simply wrong.
Mr. Lucas stated they met with the applicant back in April and talked about zero and 28, and appreciate the
applicant reducing the number of homes from 28 to 24, and eventually to 22. However, he stated the safety
issues still have not been addressed.
Mr. Lucas commented that should the PC allow the project to proceed, it should require the subdivider to scale
the project down to no more than 9 lots to better harmonize the location of the project with the community's traffic
using Casa Club Drive, and enhance the safety of the areas' residents. He pointed out that scaling of the project
has shown not only harmonizes with the course's lay out, but also allows for street widening that minimally
impacts the golf course, while allowing for on-street parking for guests and home service providers. Additionally,
he pointed out that with the removal of 6 units, number 15-20, proposed to be placed on the ninth fairway, the
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 15
issue of houses being developed in the landing zone of golf balls hit from the ninth tee will be fully avoided. Mr.
Lucas stated that the PC could require the applicant to meet with the residents so that the conditions of approval
outlined in the City's report could be better defined.
He referenced page 3 of the report which indicates a recommendation to approve the modification to allow the
deletion of sidewalks. He said this recommendation is made on the flawed comparison that other tracts in the
area have sidewalks along just one side of the street. He stated this is true, however, there are no other tracts
out there that carry 97% of the traffic, and if this project proceeds, this modification should be denied and
sidewalks should be required to be constructed on both sides of the street in front of all houses fronting Casa
Club Drive. He pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect visiting pedestrian traffic to only use one side of the
street to walk on.
Mr. Lucas also pointed out that Staff's recommendation includes approval of the use of 40' wide streets, which is
8'wider than the present street width, on the flawed assumption that the projects home associated traffic increase
is minimal and not considered significant, and because the proposal will not degrade the existing level of service.
Mr. Lucas stated that the issue is not whether the current street system can accommodate the traffic, but rather
does the project's location require wider streets to make the area safe for its expected use. Mr. Lucas stated that
last year intended use was discussed and when they look at these streets they are talking about a campus-like
community, and there is no mention in the Staff report whether any consideration was given to the golfers and the
course maintenance workers that use slow moving golf carts to travel Casa Club on a daily basis. He pointed out
that wider streets will improve the line of site for vehicles traveling on Casa Club.
Mr. Lucas also referenced previous discussion at the ad hoc meetings concerning limited police enforcement in a
gated community. He further pointed out that traffic and parking enforcement is left to the areas homeowner's
association, and during holiday season or special occasions there are not too many people from the homeowner's
association out enforcing traffic.
Mr. Lucas stated that neither Staff nor the subdivider has provided evidence or fact that the "No-Parking" rule will
work, or is enforceable by the association governing this project, and as such any recommendation made by Staff
that a 40' wide street is sufficient based on the fact that "No Parking" signs will keep the street clear of parked
vehicles is flawed logic and should be denied. Mr. Lucas referred to Commissioner Tragish's no vote on a
previous project because it had conditions of approval that he felt were not needed and were unenforceable. He
stated that the association does not want to be in the business of enforcement, and furthermore, there is no
evidence that you can put a condition of approval that calls for self-enforcement and rely on the fact that it will be
followed. He concluded that if the project is going to be approved, it should be required that the subdivider widen
Casa Club to 54', which is 22' wider than its present width, and in addition to the other conditions, posting "No
Parking" signs adding the guest parking area of 16 parking stalls, stop signs and cobblestone calming devices
offered by the subdivider.
Mr. Lucas stated that if a condition of approval is not put upon the subdivider to widen the width, they will be
blocking, at times, 97% of the individual's right to go in and out of their residential area. He further stated that the
Staff report fails to mention any requirement imposed on the subdivider that protects and assures residents their
right to freely travel to their residence. He pointed out that while Section 21 of the report does place the condition
on the subdivider to develop the subdivision in one phase, it is completely silent on requirements calling for the
prevention of disruptions that restrict resident's rights of ingress to and egress from the area.
Mr. Lucas further requested a single point of command, and does not believe it is punitive as previously
suggested by Commissioner Tragish last year. He stated that for the safety of the residents and the workers, the
PC must require that a conditional of approval calling for the subdivider to ensure that the construction activity will
not block or interfere with the homeowners, the firemen, the policemen, home service provider, golfer, visitors,
etc. ability to access or leave the area. He further stated that the subdivider should also be required as a condition
of approval to provide a traffic flow enforcement observing during all periods of Casa Club Drive use impacted
from construction activities.
Mr. Lucas referenced the street lights and his lack of knowledge on this issue, and requested clarity. He indicated
that street lights should be required at the intersection of Casa Club Drive and Vista Grande Drive, Casa Club
Drive and Denaldo Street, and along Casa Club Drive such that there are no unlighted areas along homes in tract
6433 that will front Casa Club Drive.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 16
Mr. Lucas moved on to the issue of the aggregation of a project and the reference in the report at Section 3 of the
air quality that developments of less than 152 units are considered less than significant. He commented that the
way these developments have been developed is that if they are just aggregated to small enough parcels within
the same sq. mile area, which this is, they are looked at independently. He commented that the project should be
re-evaluated for its impact on the environment on the basis that it is part of an overall development plan in the
area consisting of 435 units that are being developed in phases.
Mr. Lucas also pointed out that in April 2005, a letter was sent by Amy Union to Mike Maggard, and referenced
item H, that "Amy Union, Inc. would agree to a deed restriction on the remaining golf course property to ensure
that the 18-hole golf course will remain an 18-hole golf course in perpetuity." He stated that one of the features of
living in the area is the golf course, and no where in the conditions of approval is it found that they would agree to
a deed restriction. He stated that the City and PC should hold Amy Union to its word and require as a condition of
approval that the golf course be rezoned from R-1 to open space. He pointed out that there is no better way for
Amy Union to show that it is a good neighbor by initiating the re-zoning process immediately since they stated in
April 2005 that this is the last tract to be developed. Mr. Lucas urged the PC to place this condition on the project.
Bob Work, president of Fairways Homeowner's Association, and stated that Mr. Lucas has covered everything
that he was going to. He added that Casa Club is also used for kids to catch the bus to go to school. Mr. Work
stated this should also be taken into consideration.
Delores Steinard stated her big concern is the traffic. She indicated that at one of the meetings the homeowners
were asked how many were in support of the project, and not one stood up in support of the project. She stated
there is a great safety concern, and also indicated that she has watched many kids walk down Casa Club to catch
the bus as it is the only way to get out to Miramonte to catch the bus. She pointed out that there is nothing in
place to take care of the speeding cars.
Randy Steinard referenced the background section, and is still perplexed at how a golf course gets zoned R-1,
and is not aware of any R-1 zoning in Bakersfield is used for a business where alcohol is served. He concluded
that all this happened due to the conditional use permit that was underneath. He pointed out that the conditional
use permit pointed out that the golf course was going to be a benefit to the area, and the homeowners were in
favor of the golf course going in. He stated that the two key things in the plan was that there was going to be no
parking along Casa Club, and secondly everybody knew that it was going to be a golf course. He stated that this
current project will violate the original intent along Casa Club, and pointed out that there are two options for the
PC which include eliminating the entire project, or conditioning the widening of Casa Club so that it can handle the
proposed traffic. He state that it is his belief that 65' would be adequate, with the sidewalks, and would allow
parking on both sides of the street, allow a center turn lane which will be important on Casa Club. He
recommended that this project not be approved, and that it be sent back to Staff so that the developer can work to
get the street to 65' wide which would make more sense. Mr. Steinard also pointed out that a conditional use
permit gives you leeway to do something on the property, and was based on the residents of the area wanting the
development to proceed.
John Thomas stated that he talked with Mr. Roberts about the exit for residents and he disagrees with Mr.
Roberts conclusions.
Fletch Wagner, a real estate broker, and President of the Casa Club Fairways Homeowner's Association,
addressed another point of view relating to real estate and the value of real estate and what helps create and
retain value of real estate. He pointed out that it was stated that the aesthetics was less than significant, but this
is not the case. He pointed out that the value of property will be influenced because the demand will be down for
the property if this project proceeds.
Helen Bergley, lives on Arrowhead Canyon, stated that this project will take away the aesthetics of a golf course.
She also pointed out that the water pressure is a problem. She further indicated that it is hilly and there are
reservoirs that catches the water and the more houses that are put in the more water sheds, the more mud you're
going to have as it rains. She stated that it is clay and rock and nothing absorbs and the housing and asphalt is
going to be worse and run into the reservoirs at the bottom, which will put more strain on the reservoirs.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 17
Andy Fuller, representing the Fuller property, stated they are proposing a development on their piece, and respect
the rights of other property owners as long as those rights don't unreasonably infringe on the rights of other
property owners. He stated that in looking at the Master Plan for the Rio Bravo community you see a plan that
has a bunch of clustered developments that feed onto grapevines which have limited points of access, especially
onto the main thorough fair of Casa Club. He stated that this proposal is quite inconsistent to the general scheme
or that which was originally envisioned or planned for as part of this master plan. He stated that from a safety
issue, the cars backing onto Casa Club unreasonably infringes on the rights of other property owners. He stated
that he disagrees with the widening proposal for the road because he thinks the road is good the way it is and for
the intimate aspect that it adds to the country club. He asked that this development be made consistent with that
which is throughout the rest of the community and have a road that would feed its own little community and would
have limited points of access to Casa Club Drive, which would eliminate a lot of the concerns about activity on
Casa Club Drive. Mr. Fuller also encouraged the PC to require that specific language be incorporated into the
conditions of approval which would memorialize the applicant's covenant to either rezone the currently zoned golf
course from R-1 to open space, or to execute some type of document that would legally bind the applicant from
any further development of the existing fairways or landscape open spaces of the country club.
Richard Monji, attorney for the applicant, in support of the project, stated that the golf course is R-1 zoned and is
not deed restricted, and that the applicant is not obligated to continue to operate a golf course, however the
applicants wants to and intends to. He indicated that the portion of the property that is in question is not part of
the "golf course" or "playing area." Mr. Monji stated that if this project were approved, there would be a small
adjustment to the golf course, and there currently is an area that is not in grass and is not a pretty visual area and
now would be because it would become part of the golf course and T would be moved. He indicated that most of
the space that the homeowners like is not open space and the applicant is not obligated to keep it as open space
or maintain it, or incur all of the expense for the benefit of these homeowners. However, he pointed out that the
applicant has done this for years, and is not proposing to change that. He stated that the applicant is proposing to
recognize some benefit out of the property that the applicant owns, and not be subject to the owners that would
like to have it at no expense to them maintained as open space for them, even though they have no legal right.
Mr. Monji stated that the applicant is trying to do this in the most sensitive and cooperative and compromising way
that the applicant can do in light of the topography and the expenses.
Mr. Monji pointed out that they have essentially given up 6 golf course lots, which is a substantial amount of
money, and was done so that lots could be pulled off and away of existing homeowners as much as possible, and
still make an economically feasible project.
Mr. Monji pointed out that the applicant will not be tearing out any palm trees, but is rather going to relocate all of
the trees as the road is widened, because one or more of the homeowners said those were something they found
attractive and thought it should be improved.
He further commented on the traffic safety issues and stated that he sees no consistency from the opponents. He
stated that there will be at least two more entry points into the golf course project, and one will be coming on line
in a couple of months. He pointed out that as those accesses or entry points into the golf course become real the
traffic will spread out and will come in from different areas. Mr. Monji said the applicant will be widening the road,
adding two cart paths, and putting some aesthetic control points to slow down traffic, and putting a divider in the
middle of the road for cars to pass across the street, as well as create parking area.
Mr. Monji stated that the homes will either have circular driveways or side load garage where people can back out
and come in forward onto the street. He stated that these types of conditions of homeowners associations,
including parking on the street, are very common and are enforced by the homeowner's association, and the
management company. He stated that it is not a problem from the private enforcement standpoint.
Mr. Monji addressed the issue of the 9 lots. He stated that the costs of adding paths on both sides, relocating
trees and all the other improvements that would go along with putting these 22 homes is approximately a million
dollars. He stated that this project has been trimmed down as far as it can go. He stated that 28 lots is the
appropriate way to do it, and 24 was okay, and now they are down to 22 and that is as far as they can go due to
the economics involved. Mr. Monji stated that this project's owner has property rights as well. He further pointed
out that it is R-1 property, they have rights to develop the property, the staff report is correct as condition, it is in
compliance with the ordinance and policies of the City, and the applicant has met with the homeowner's
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 18
associations, individual owners, has modified the property, has absorbed expenses, has made changes all as a
burden on the owner, and the owner should be entitled to at least 22 lots.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish responded to Mr. Lucas' comments, stating that the conditions agreed to by the developer
is not really within the purview of this commission and the other matter was a private agreement, and therefore
should not be acknowledged. He also commented that he does not recall any "punitive" language previously
used.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if it would be appropriate to continue this matter to allow sufficient time for
the applicant to respond in writing to Mr. Lucas' concerns, as well as the traffic issues raised. Staff agreed with
this suggestion, and stated that they do not feel that the traffic issue has been thoroughly addressed and should
be done, indicating that there is no way that Staff can get a reply back to the Commission within two weeks, and
recommend continuing to the November 17, 2005 meeting.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she supports the continuance. She stated that for the November 17th meeting
she will be looking for the traffic issues to be discussed, as well as the fire department's view on adequate access
to this area, and would like a better understanding of the PC committee that dealt with the previous tracts.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the date of the zoning change, and any conditions placed on the zoning.
Lastly, she requested information on the two additional entry points referenced by the applicant.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to continue this application for vesting
tentative tract map 6433 to November 17, 2005.
Motion carried by group vote.
10.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6536 (SmithTech USA, Inc)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Trisha
Harbinson, with SmithTech, USA, representing the owner and applicant, stated they agree with Staff's report and
conditions of approval.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about Phase 1 and Panama Lane being constructed on it's frontage to it's full 'h
width, however, Old River Road would only be built out 'h width from Panama Lane to Highly(???) Park Drive
which is about 2/3 down from the project, leaving the last 1/3 until they begin the second phase. He stated that he
has a problem with this from a safety point of view, and that from a matter of continuity he would ask that they
complete the last 1/3 at the same time. Trisha Harvest stated the developer would have no problem with this
condition change.
Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the condition will be noted in the motion to being stipulated to by the
applicant.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration,
and to approve vesting tentative tract map 6536 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution
with a modification of condition 6(a) and 6(b) to the extent that it should be modified to read that the following shall
occur with Phase 1. 1) Construct Panama Lane full 'h width for the frontage. 2) Construct Old River Road full 'h
width from Panama Lane to the southern boundary of the applicant's property. As to B, B1 would be deleted,
however B2 would remain in effect.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 19
10.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6537 (RABE Engineering, Inc.)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Dirk
Cushell, on behalf of the applicant stated that he was available for any questions.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he is satisfied with the application at this point.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve vesting tentative tract map 6537
with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10.6 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6538 (RABE Engineering, Inc.)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
9. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change No. 05-0531 (David Pitchard) located on the northwest corner
of Valley Lane and Bella Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Barbara Camp stated the pig farm has been grandfathered in,
and she does not think that they want to put 6000 sq. ft. lot homes right next to a pig farm. She also stated that
some of the people have paid for conditional use permits to the city to run their livestock operations, and would
like anything that is coming up against them be transitioned by use of bigger lots, etc. so that everybody can get
along. She indicated that the roads presented are not correct. She stated that there are four houses that can be
landlocked, and that now would be a good time to look at access issues. Ms. Camp further indicated that there are
dust problems, and indicated that Shark's Tooth is located further north of their site, however there is another area
where there is a canyon where spores can be found. Ms. Camp also stated that they have no water in this whole
area, and any new construction with a fire hydrant and meter still means that they have to go a mile away to get
water. Ms. Camp stated that they are looking for some consideration and cooperation.
Cindy Apletein spoke with regard to the view, and that with all the development they have no views, so it is hard to
feel sympathy for everyone else when everyone else is taking their views. She stated that those who have been
living out there for the peace and quiet are giving all of it up for the new development, and would like the
Commission to consider the existing homeowners. She indicated that noise from the new development will be an
inconvenience, along with the noise from the water plant that will be servicing all of these homes.
David Pitchard, the applicant, stated that the roads have been aligned to go through on the map that will be
coming up in a couple of months, so those homes that would have been landlocked will actually have pavement,
and the southwest corner is a holding pond/retention basin. Mr. Pitchard stated that with regard to the water they
were doing the race track, and in talking with California Water Services to get sufficient water just to the race track
they have to run a 30" water line from the water treatment plan all the way down to Valley through the City In The
Hills project all the way down to the subdivisions there as they are trying to loop their whole system, and therefore
water shouldn't be too far away.
Mr. Pitchard indicated they have aligned the bike path and roads and have done pretty much everything the City
has asked.
The public hearing is closed.
Planning Commission - October 20, 2005 Page 20
Commissioner Tragish inquired it they are looking at the community welfare on this zone change, which Staff
confirmed. He inquired if it would be appropriate to make a condition of approval regarding connecting Morning
Side through, or if there are any circulation concerns that will be affected by this particular tract. Staff responded
that it would not be appropriate to ask this applicant to push those streets through those properties to Morning
Drive. He further inquired about the water issues, to which Staff responded that this development is not
impacting the ability of the adjacent neighbors that do not have water now to get water, and therefore beyond this
project's responsibility. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about Mr. Pritchard's comments about the water to
the race track. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they need a will serve condition for water to approve this zoning,
to which Staff responded in the negative.
Commissioner Tragish stated he is sympathetic to the opposition, but he cannot agree with it only because there
is a very limited scope in approving or disapproving a zone change, and the applicant appears to have met all the
tests. He stated that he will support the application.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she appreciates the comments made to make the Commission aware. She
further indicated that she is not aware of any policy or standards used regarding Valley Fever spores. Staff
responded that there are no policies. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that the land lock issues, the pig farm, etc.
is addressed at the map stage.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the Negative
Declaration, and to approve the zone change 05-0531 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: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
13. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the Rio Bravo application in November could be put closer to the beginning of
the agenda. Staff responded in the affirmative.
14. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:09 a.m.
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
JAMES D, MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
December 7, 2005