HomeMy WebLinkAboutJan 5, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
Absent: Commissioners McGinnis, Spencer
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Jennie Eng, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns
Staff: Jim Eggert, Louise Palmer, Dana Cornelius
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Mary Johnson stated that she wanted to speak on the Rio Bravo Fairways but will wait until it is heard on the
regular agenda. A"Kirk" indicated that he wanted to speak on an agenda item, but will wait until it is heard on the
regular agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of November 3, 2005.
Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to his vote on item 4.1c he wants to avoid the
appearance of any conflict, because of where his daughter works, and his vote will not include
any indication one way or the other for that particular item; he will be abstained from it.
He further stated with regard to non-public hearing item 4.1 a, approval of the Minutes, he had
some changes and will read the corrected version. Thursday, November 3, 2005, page 3, under
section 6.1, paragraph 5 should read as follows: "Commissioner Tragish stated his concern in
making sure the streets get done as soon as possible. He further indicated that this is a Vesting
Tentative Tract, and that it is subject to whatever improvements are in place at that time, and that
the developers should be put on notice now rather than later."
Commissioner Tragish further indicated that the last paragraph on the same page, under 6.1,
should read as follows: "Commissioner Tragish reiterated his comments that under the
circumstances because of the location and size of this project, and the fact that it only fronts
Birkshire, and that Birkshire is the only way to get into this property, that it would be prudent to
make this phasing of either one or two to require that all the subparagraphs of 3.1 through 3.2.3
apply, except for 3.1.2. He indicated that for safety, welfare and circulation it would be the
appropriate way to go."
In addition, on page four of the same Minutes, agenda item 6.2, sixth paragraph down,
beginning, "Commissioner Tragish inquired if the 70' setback from the end of the drill island to
the next adjoining home should be imposed."
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 2
Another correction from Commissioner Tragish was for November 3, 2005, page 5, agenda item
6.4, paragraph three should read as follows: "Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Sherfy if
when converting an apartment to a condominium apartment the Department of Real Estate
requires that there be a homeowner's association as part and parcel of the approval process.
Mr. Sherfy indicated that he is aware that the Department of Real Estate does review these, but
does not know off the top of his head whether or not they actually require a homeowner's
association. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Commissioner Lomas suggested a condition
provide for a requirement according to law, or that the applicant is requesting the condition.
4.1 b Accept and File Planning Director's Report Regarding Modification to PCD Final
Development Plan for a Washington Mutual Bank with Drive-thru (# 05-1635)
(Ward 3)
4.1c Accept and File Planning Director's Report Regarding Modification to PCD Final
Development Plan for Three Additional General Retail Stores (ZC #51761 (Ward 4)
Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-
public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 6132 (Phased (McIntosh &
Associates)
4.2b Approve continuance of Zone Change 05-1165 (Smith-Tech)
4.2c Approval of Amendment to the text of Title 17 amending the C-B (Central Business) and
C-C (Commercial Center) zone districts. (Exempt from CEQA
4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6546 (San Joaquin Engineering)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6607 — Phased (Porter-Robertson
Engineering)
4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6515 (Quad Knopf, Inc.)
4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6553 (Maurice Etchechury)
4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6575 (DeWalt Corporation)
4.2i Approval of Zone Change 05-0780 (DeWalt Corporation) located
4.2j Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6652 (Smith Tech)
4.2k Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6681 (McIntosh and Associates)
4.21 Approval of PUD Zone Change #05-1407 (McIntosh and Associates)
4.2m Approval of Zone Change 05-0725 (Porter-Robertson)
The public hearing is opened. Ken Hudson with Kern Resources, LLC, was asked to appear for the
majority of the mineral right owners of the Needham and Bloomer Oil Lease in the Needham, Bloomer
Oilfield, and stated that with regard to 4.2h, he would like to state that they oppose the waiver of
mineral right signatures on this lease. Mr. Hudson stated that the names and addresses of all mineral
rights owners have been delivered to the Planning Department, Louise Palmer. He pointed out that the
mineral owners will do whatever it takes to preserve their rights as mineral owners. He requested that
item 4.2h be removed from consent calendar.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 3
The public hearing is closed. Staff confirmed that the public hearing remains open on 4.2b and 4.2h.
Commissioner Tkac, moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve Consent Calendar
items, excluding 4.2h. Motion carried by group vote.
5. PUBLIC HEARING— ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
5.1 Amendment to the text of Title 17 amending the C-B (Central Business) and C-C
(Commercial Center) zone districts. (Exempt from CEQA) (Continued from November 3 and
November 17, 2005)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Tract Maps/Zone Changes
6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433 (Porter-Robertson Engineering)
Commissioner Johnson stated that he will conflict out of this item as his employer has a business
relationship with the Country Club.
Staff report given. Suzanne Icardo, who lives on San Benido Court, inquired if the information
from the fire department, as previously requested, has been obtained. She further inquired if the
planners have any idea about the future widening of Highway 178. She concluded by stating
that she is opposed to the development for the reasons that have been previously stated; safety,
traffic congestion and the value of the area.
Mary Johnson, representing her husband who wrote a letter, in response to comments made by
the applicant's attorney on 10-20-05. Said letter was read into the record.
Marian Locker, vice-president of the Fairways Homeowners Association, stated her main
concern is the widening of Casa Club Drive. She concluded by stating that she felt threatened
by the last report.
Bill Pruitt, who lives on Vista Grande, stated that the existing residents do not want this. He
stated that building houses on the golf course will ruin the entrance. He further stated that with
regard to the R-1 development, they have been held hostage to this for a year and-a-half and
somebody has got to have the power to stop these guys from running over them.
Randy Steinard, a resident on Vista Grande, stated the homes are under seize by development.
He pointed out that if you look at the original plan/maps there was no intended parking on Casa
Club. He indicated that they do not want to police their neighborhood for traffic and parking
violations.
Leo Hines, 15120 San Damingo Place, asked the Planning Commission to consider continuing
this matter again for the reason that the primary response provided by counsel, Mr. Monji, for the
developer is in direct response to an opposition which he filed before the prior hearing. He
pointed out that this response was provided on December 19th, and Mr. Monji's response to
those oppositions was provided on December 19th, and it appears that it was received by the
Planning Department on December 19th, which is right before the Christmas holidays. He stated
that until today he has not had a chance to read the package in its entirety. He pointed out that
he does not believe that the residents should be or can be required to provide professional
expert opinion in support of their opposition.
Kelly Lucas, a Rio Bravo resident, stated that he submitted a letter in October that contained
several points, and that many of his points were not addressed in Mr. Monji's reply back to the
Planning Department. He stated that he would like a continuance of this matter so they can
better understand the issues that were raised in the December 19th letter that was received on
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 4
December 23rd so that they can address the points. He further stated that with regard to the
October letter submitted, he does not know if the points that were made had merit and should be
addressed, or whether they were summarily dismissed. He stated that there is no discussion
about this in either Mr. Movius' letter back to the Planning Commission, or in Mr. Monji's letter to
the Planning Director. Mr. Lucas stated that there were two issues of concern in the Monji letter;
one related to the letter that Mr. Hines submitted, and secondly to the letter that he has
submitted. Mr. Lucas further stated that he believes that Porter Robertson has a conflict of
interest, and a third party should have been selected to perform a circulation study for this area.
He inquired about, "Where residences often have a reduced ADT due to people preferring to link
trips when they have to travel longer distances for goods and services." and where it came from
as there is no notation. "Other factors that might contribute to reduce trips generated by the Rio
Bravo Community are the high rates of residents who are retired, or that run their own in-home
businesses." He inquired what insight Porter Robertson is using to cite this information, but it
seems to point back to what was used to attack his arguments (i.e., no facts, discussion or
examples). Mr. Lucas went on to state that the letter does not cite the fact that two points of
access are required, and that on the current map there is no secondary access.
Pam Pruitt, a resident of Rio Bravo, stated that they feel that the area has been very poorly
planned, and they feel let down by the Planning Commission and supervisors.
Dennis Pecalose, a Rio Bravo resident, stated that his concern is with the entrance/access street
and safety. He commented that there needs to be a different approach to this project.
Bob Wertz stated his concern for the sewer and electrical construction, and how A&E will live up
to a covenant that states that Rio Bravo Golf Course will remain a private 18-hole golf course. He
further stated that the maintenance yard that has been there for 25 years handles pesticides and
herbicides, as well as gasoline tanks. He stated that he has just become aware of Mr. Monji's
letter, and has not had time to really digest it or look through it. He stated that he would like to
continue this so that everyone can get a better idea of what they are up against.
Fletch Wagoner, Rio Bravo resident, president of the Casa Club Fairways Homeowner's
Association, stated that with certainty there is not one individual that lives in the Rio Bravo area
that is in favor of this project. He asked that the PC consider the potential threat of converting
the R-1 zone golf course to residential development.
Judy Wertz advised that in the Rio Vista area developer Pulta has a disclosure indicating that it
may not remain a golf course.
Richard Monji, the attorney for the applicant, stated they oppose any continuance of this hearing,
as they have complied with all of the time limits. He addressed seven points: First, he
addresses the Rio Bravo Community and that allegation that Mr. Yee is the only one who
benefits. He responded by stating that the golf course does not make any money, and the
residents should be appreciative that the applicant didn't shut it down and let it go, but rather is
attempting to develop it into something to fit in with the community. Secondly, with the allegation
of threats by the applicant, Mr. Monji responded that no one has threatened to turn the golf
course into a residential development if this project is not approved. He pointed out that no one
has said that regardless of whether this project is approved A&E Union will agree to keep this
open space forever. He pointed out that no one can say that "forever" it will be best kept as a golf
course. Thirdly, he responded to the comment that A&E ran rough shot over people, by stating
that A&E had multiple meetings with the neighbors. He pointed out that A&E took what was
going to be parking areas, and widened the street, and further put golf cart pass on both sides,
as well as reduced the number of lots, which are all additional expenses. This was all done to be
a good neighbor and be part of the community. He reiterated that they did NOT run rough shot.
Fourthly, Mr. Monji responded to the traffic issues and bias in the report by stating that the level
of impacts off of 22 residences based upon the standards the traffic engineers use determine the
number of trips a resident will generate, indicates that this project has such little impact you know
there is no traffic study needed. However, the applicant complied with the request that a study be
done even though the impacts are so small. In response to who has and does not have
expertise as to traffic on Casa Club, Mr. Monji stated that a traffic engineer looked at it within the
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 5
standards provided. He pointed out that Casa Club will only have half of the traffic generated
then the maximum trips allowed on Casa Club. Mr. Monji pointed out that when construction
begins traffic will be slowed down temporarily while the work is being done, but in the end there
will be a wider street, two golf cart paths, a sidewalk, parking lanes, traffic control devices to slow
traffic down, and a golf cart crossing. He pointed out that the expenses remain the same no
matter what the number of lots are, and the lowest that they can go is 22 lots. Mr. Monji's fifth
point responded to the comments regarding an independent analysis, pointing out that it was
requested that Staff review the analysis, which Staff did, which is an independent view. He
pointed out that the margins are so huge, and that the applicant is so under any level of impacts,
that you could double it and they are still under the level of impacts. Sixthly, stated that almost
all of the area that they proposed for development is not part of the golf course. He stated that
there is a small area that currently is not developed that will be incorporated into the golf course,
and that there is a small portion of the golf course that will be incorporated into the development
due to the logical use of the ground. He pointed out that if the golf course is a championship golf
course now, it will be a championship golf course after these 22 lots are in. He pointed out that
one advantage to the 22 lots is that they are intended to be larger more luxurious lots,
presumably with affluent buyers, and hopefully those buyers will join the Country Club. He
pointed out that the residents should hope that the golf course is healthy financially, so that
somebody can maintain it as a golf course. Mr. Monji's seventh point was in reference to the
speaker, who is a successful developer, who stated, "I know they have the legal right, but do we
let them do it." He inquired if this quote strikes you as odd or unfair. Mr. Monji pointed out that
the property is purchased as R-1 property, and it has been R-1 for over 20+ years, and all the
applicant is asking is to do the minimal economic development along Casa Club, and put in
some nice improvements to try to make the golf course healthy.
The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not care if the golf
course is or is not making money, and that he does not believe that it is within the pervue of his
review to analyze the golf course's financial situation. Rather, he pointed out that he has to
consider whether this is orderly development and whether or not it lends itself to the support of
health, welfare and safety development on this tract. Commissioner Tragish responded to the
opposition comments regarding an independent analysis by stating that the applicant submits its
application to planning, which has a traffic study included, and the planning dept. looks at the
application and gives their recommendation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tragish
pointed out that he does not know if they can require the developer go out and pay for another
outside engineer, just as you wouldn't require the residents to do their own traffic analysis. He
stated that he does not know if Porter Robertson has a conflict of interest, however he knows
that they are the engineers for the applicant. Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to a
continuance, he feels like he needs to make a decision as this matter has been continued twice
before.
Commissioner Tragish responded to the comment that Mr. Monji did not provide any authority or
support for some of their positions, by stating that he believes Mr. Monji was indicating that they
did not provide anybody who has expertise in certain areas that they are making comments to
substantiate, other than to see it, feeling it and smelling it and saying that something is wrong.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if a third party or the city can make an application to change the
zoning to OS, or whether the applicant would entertain this as part of the conditions of approval,
if it is voted on this evening.
Commissioner Tragish responded to the comment made that the Rio Bravo area has been poorly
planned by the Planning Commission, by stating that Rio Bravo has been around for 30 years,
and that during his time on the Commission he has spent a lot of time reading the material,
meeting with the people, and has observed the Commissioners and the Planning Department to
be very thoughtful in how they vote on these projects.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff about the construction process of delivering water and
sewer to this area, to which Staff responded there is no other way to get sewer to the project
except by connecting to Casa Club, and indicated that they cannot speak to the other utilities.
Staff further confirmed that Casa Club Drive is a private street.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 6
Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the adequacy of Casa Club, and inquired if Mr. Walker had
a chance to review Mr. Monji and Porter Robertson's report regarding the improvements to Casa
Club. Mr. Walker responded that he has, and that streets if this type are very subjective in that it
all depends on what the neighborhood will withstand, and what they will tolerate. Mr. Walker
pointed out that from a technical standpoint, the level of service conditions are such that you
could have 8,000 to 9,000 cars a day and still be considered a level of service A or B, which is
well above the General Plan's requirement of level service C. However, that level of service C
only applies to arterials and collector streets, and applying it to this is a guess, but studies have
shown and traffic engineering journals have indicated that usually you start getting a
neighborhood intolerance to traffic when the volume of traffic starts coming around 4,000 to
5,000 cars a day, even though technically the road can handle much more. Mr. Walker pointed
out that based on the engineer's study, they have a conservative estimate of 4,500 to 4,520
vehicles per day coming through the Casa Club entrance, and as it gets further to the east on
Casa Club it's going to be less. Mr. Walker further pointed out that the applicant's engineer left
out the fact that in the future there's going to be a third connection and the study only provides
for two connections. In addition, he responded to the comment that a rural resident rate was
used, by stating that the applicant's engineer indicated that you could probably consider that
there may be less traffic than the standard conservative rate that was used for the report
because of the type of activities in the area. Mr. Walker responded to the applicant's comment
that 22 residents is an insignificant amount, by stating that technically this would be true in that
those 22 residents would generate a couple hundred trips a day compared to the total trips
generated for the entire area of 6,744 trips a day. However, any trips on the roadway which has
already been testified to as being an intolerance of volume of traffic existing today is going to be
significant to the residents, and subsequently the Planning Commission needs to acknowledge
that their concerns about traffic is real because there will be more vehicles on the road. Mr.
Walker concluded by stating that the report is adequate for the information given, but the
planners have to consider the overall effect to the community.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the configuration of the street will have an impact on
anticipated increased traffic. Staff responded that the operational design of the roadway and the
curvilinear roadway was designed by Mr. Nichols to act as a calming device. Commissioner
Tragish further inquired if the proposals made by the applicant to widen Casa Club were
significant to assist in providing a safe journey on this street, to which Staff responded that it
would operationally be an improvement, in that it will provide a much smoother easier operation
for the vehicles.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if they thought a third independent traffic study of this
area is necessary, to which Staff responded that an additional opinion is always helpful to try to
work out a situation like this, however, another study will probably be similar to what has already
been presented. Staff pointed out that this traffic study covered the distribution of the road and
how much traffic would actually be on the road and whether the road could handle it. Staff
pointed out the residents that spoke, appear to be concerned about the operational characteristic
of the entire development, and not just whether the road has adequate width and lanes to be
able to handle the 4,522 trips per day.
Commissioner Tragish stated that when he read the Porter-Robertson analysis he was looking
for a total analysis of the traffic situation rather than just focusing on a little section because they
are all related. Staff responded that the report includes all other known development that have
been approved, or are within the process of being approved, for this tract. Staff pointed out that
there are still R-1 properties that could potentially be developed, and therefore there may be
future impacts added. Staff pointed out that they would recommend that there be a traffic study
when those come in to see what additional impact might be brought about by additional
development. However, the report submitted does consider all of the known projects within the
area.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Monji if his client would be willing to make a condition that
they will make an application for an OS zoning and follow through in good faith to convert it from
R-1 to OS as to the remaining property that he owns. Mr. Monji responded, "And get foreclosed
on by the bank." Mr. Monji pointed out that the applicant was in discussions with the residents
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 7
without considering the lender covenants. He suggested that they could look out a few years
and indicate that they still have hopes for it as a golf course, and they could make a commitment
of some sort not to process anymore applications for R-1 for some period of years so the
applicant does not get in trouble with their lender. Commissioner Tragish inquired if any of these
ideas have been discussed with the lender, to which Mr. Monji responded the way that it would
have to be phrased/conditioned, so there isn't a problem with the lender, is to agree to not
pursue any further applications. Mr. Monji pointed out that assuming this project is approved,
does not mean that anything else is getting approved. Commissioner Tragish inquired about Mr.
Monji's comment that in a prior attempt to build that he had offered to the Rio Bravo community
not to build out the remainder of the golf course. Mr. Monji clarified that in one of the meetings
back in April, it was indicated that the applicant wouldn't take any portion of the golf course for
residential development. Mr. Monji pointed out that a lender and/or owner would not want to give
up its R-1 zoning forever.
Commissioner Tragish inquired who has standing to change standing, to which Staff responded
that the zoning ordinance authorizes the City Council, Planning Commissioner and the property
owner to initiate zone changes.
Commissioner Lomas asked Staff to expand on the Council's direction to change the zoning.
Staff responded that it has been the City Council's general policy not to rezone property without
the agreement of the property owner, and that only in cases of public health, welfare and safety
would the Council pursue a zone change against a property owner's wishes. Commissioner
Lomas inquired if converting the R-1 to OS be considered a taking, to which Staff responded that
people could infer that.
Commissioner Blockley stated that this is private property, and the zoning is proper. He pointed
out that the CC&R issues are not planning matters, but rather are civil matters. He further
pointed out that the developer has the right to keep secret their business dealings and situations.
He stated that he does not think this should be postponed any further. He stated that he has to
consider the seven conditions for denying a tentative tract, of which there is only one that even
remotely supports denying this project. He referenced Rule 66474c, which states that the site is
not physically suitable for the type of development. He stated that when Rio Bravo was created
it wanted a different housing type, and the current proposed project does not physically lend
itself, or make it suitable, for this kind of development.
Commissioner Lomas inquired as to Commissioner Blockley's comments about the "different
housing type," and why it is not suitable. Commissioner Blockley responded that the justification
for the private streets is that they want a different housing type, so they ask the city for a
deviation from the normal standards.
Commissioner Tragish stated that different housing means a lot of different things, and this
project is not housing that you would find just anywhere in the city.
Commissioner Lomas inquired of the applicant if these homes are going to be very similar to
what is already in Rio Bravo, to which the applicant responded that they will be the regular single
family house. He gave an example as those in Brighton Estates. He reiterated that they will be
the same type stick built house.
Commissioner Tkac asked for confirmation that the flow of traffic is above the level of service C,
to which Staff responded that, it is better than an A. He further inquired how many more
accesses there ultimately will be into this area in the next 10 years, or the build out of the remote
area that would effect the majority of the Casa Club area. Staff responded that there are two
planned in addition to this. Commissioner Tkac indicated that those two additional accesses will
relieve some of the pressure off of Casa Club.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Monji if the community at large in Rio Bravo is required to be
members of the golf course. Mr. Monji responded in the negative and that possibly 65 are
members. Commissioner Tkac further inquired who does the overall maintenance in and around
the area, including roads, trees to which Mr. Monji responded that A&E has been paying for
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 8
maintenance that it shouldn't have to pay for, however it is not involved and getting more
organized with the development that is growing. Mr. Monji indicated that the Master association
is suppose to be paying for the entry gate and maintenance of Casa Club, but it is now hopefully
going to change where the homeowners will start contributing. Mr. Monji pointed out that the
Master association was not set up to function properly so A&E has been acting as the Master
association.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if there will be one or two golf paths, to which Staff responded that
Casa Club will be widened enough to have a cart going in either direction. A "Mike" explained
the four proposals submitted, indicating that they have proposed three golf cart crossings with
calming and a stop sign.
Commissioner Blockley clarified the "different housing type," by stating that what is unique are
the different kinds of amenities such as homes on conventional lots and a private park with
security. He stated that the justification seems to be in every case for the private streets having
this "different housing type." It pointed out that it is designed to cover the kinds of things that are
talked about in communities that all they want is a small private park all the way through to the
kind of entrance you have at Rio Bravo, which is different then many other golf courses. He
stated that the other golf courses in town all have a different approach to the houses and to the
golf course, and therefore providing a different housing type on that basis is the kind of thing
encompassed by the words typically used "to provide a different housing type."
Commissioner Lomas stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory board and try to
interpret the rules and offer their opinions, and ultimately the Council makes the decision. She
stated that when they are looking at zoning or land use they have discretion to ask for things.
She commented that the residents all have property rights on their lots, as does the
developer/applicant, who owns the road and the ground in question. She pointed out that all she
can do is look at the health and safety aspect.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she does not completely understand the complete overview of
the area, as she has been told there will be a secondary access, and down the road a third
access, and requested an aerial of those accesses. Staff provided the access points. She
pointed out that it has not been demonstrated to her that the additional accesses are needed
now when the level of service on that road is A and will continue to be A. She stated that she is
concerned about the lack of options of getting out of the development, and her request for
information from the Fire Department has not been responded to. Staff responded that Mr.
Weirather is ill.
Commissioner Lomas commented that the developer is well within their right to develop the
property as R-1, but she did feel the way the developer described it, it did sound like a threat.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she is concerned with the speed that Casa Club will generate,
as well as non-straight sight line from driveways. She stated that she has not been assured that
fire issues have been addressed. Mr. Monji pointed out that the secondary access is under the
construction and will be in within three months. He further pointed out that there is no way you
are not going to have a road as it exists now when it is under construction, and that it will be
phased. He further pointed out that two tracts immediately turn off, and will not even get into
that portion of the development.
Commissioner Lomas further inquired of Mr. Monji about the sight lines, to which he stated that
they aren't changed much, but that they are widening the road and putting three traffic calming
devices in, which will be brick paves so the car vibrates. He reminded the Commission that the
residents that will actually have the impact from the traffic will be the 22 homes being proposed
and they will buy into it.
Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to the zoning, if the applicant were to come back
with another application to build more houses on the golf course they would need the approval
from the Planning Commission and they would have to make a good case for tearing up the golf
course, and therefore the residents would have another opportunity to voice their concerns.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 9
Commissioner Tragish stated that he cannot find in the conditions all of the things that the
applicant has said they are going to do, such as widening the road, the calming affects, the golf
course roads, and the parking. Staff responded that those items are shown on the map itself,
and within the traffic study received in the correspondence related to Mr. Monji's letter. Staff
indicated that it is part of the project description and is to be implemented. Staff pointed out that
State law requires that the final map be consistent with the tentative map.
Commissioner Lomas inquired when Casa Club improvements will be done, and how Casa Club
will be phased, and further stated that since fire has not be present to weigh in, stated that she
will not support a motion without a secondary access being fully functional before the lots are
developed. Staff responded that a time line for phasing has not been specified, as the tract only
has one phase, and therefore all of the conditions have to be completed before the map can be
recorded. Staff indicated that there can be an improvement agreement where there is bonding
for the improvements, and that they cannot get any certificates of occupancy on any houses until
all of the improvements have been completed.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about having the secondary access fully functional prior to
occupancy, to which Staff responded that it can be condition, but a reason has to be included.
Commissioner Blockley stated that if they are going to require two points of access to the project,
and if the one that currently exists is going to be torn up, he suggests including language that
requires the secondary access be built before the current access is torn up.
A five minute break was taken.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the Negative
Declaration, incorporating traffic analysis dated December 13, 2005, and the air quality analysis
dated December 2005, and approve vesting tentative tract 6433 with findings and conditions as
set forth in the attached Resolution, and is condition further on that prior to recordation of file
map, and prior to the start of construction on the project on Casa Club Drive, the second access
to Mira Monte Drive shall be constructed and operational for health, welfare and safety, and
recommend the same to City Council.
Motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: Commissioners, Blockley, Tkac
ABSENT: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer
Commissioner Blockley stated that he would be willing to make a motion to change the order of the
agenda to take an item which has no apparent controversy or debate (item 6.8, tentative tract 6612) and
put it next on the agenda.
Commissioner Blockley indicated that his no vote is because if he considers the nature of the existing
development and the conditions under which it was originally proposed and built, the proposed project
really is not physically suitable since it drastically alters without irreverently removing the conditions that
exists there. He pointed out that it is a big enough change that it warrants invoking that rule that says
"don't approve it."
Commissioner Tkac stated that his no vote is due to doubt, and is concerned about the fire access. He
stated that he thinks that it needs to be further discussed with the City Council.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 10
6.8 Tentative Tract Number 6612 (Sake Engineers)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's
recommendation. The public hearing is closed.
Staff indicated that on the recommended motion the word "vesting" should not be there.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration, and to approve Tentative Tract Map 6612 with findings and conditions set
forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit"A".
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners, McGinnis, Spencer
6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6546 (San Joaquin Engineering)
Heard on consent.
6.3 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6202 (San Joaquin Engineering)
The public hearing remains open from November 28, 2005. Staff report given. Arthur Unger,
Sierra Club, stated Mr. Love will cover some of the points made by Mr. Nipp in his letter in the
record. Mr. Unger advised that the air quality is not getting better all of the time. Harry Love,
representing the Sierra Club, highlight Mr. Nipp's letter. He requested an E.I.R.
Will Winn who lives on Meadow Court stated he is concerned with projects that have been
developed in the area which they consider to be a health, welfare and safety issue on the westerly
and southern sides of this proposed tract. He stated that they have not had an opportunity to go
over the responses from Staff because there are time constraints. Mr. Winn gave a presentation
regarding the results of compaction on these slopes.
Kay Smith stated that the proposed retention basin and sewer lifting station is right behind her
house, and she is concerned about this and the adequacy of how they are going to maintain the
retention basin. She stated that for health, welfare and safety if it can be relocated. She stated
that she is asking for a good drainage study.
Dirk Barren, a geologist, stated that he is a resident at the southeastern corner of the proposed
tract on Copperwood Lane, and stated that he is concerned about the proposed design, and would
request a denial as written. He stated that disturbing the slopes that have been there for a while
strike him as asking for trouble. He requested the Planning Commission make leaving the existing
slopes intact and not disturbing them a condition of approval on this project. Mr. Barren indicated
that this could be done either by increasing the lot sizes so the houses could be built without
disturbing the slopes, or it could be done with creating a buffer zone such as a trail that would run
along the base of the existing slopes in the south and west of the proposed tract. He stated that he
feels this would be a win-win as it would fit into the Parks and Trails Plan, and create open space,
as well as protect the slopes. Mr. Barren stated that he is concerned with the existing homes as
well as future homes given the nature of soils in this area. Mr. Barren further requested a new
E.I.R, as the report was based on the previous plan which called for less than 100 homes, and now
they are talking about 3 '/2 times that number of homes, and clearly there is a difference in impacts
of traffic and air quality. He further commented that there appears to be access concerns as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Barren asked for clarification with regard to the trail under the easement that has
five roads cutting across the trail. He indicated this is really an accident waiting to happen. He
requested a new E.I.R. and that the existing slopes are left intact and a requirement that any road
and sewer improvements be done before any construction begins. He also suggested that a
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 11
condition be placed on adjacent view lots that the new homes be limited to one-story. He
commented that the map was confusing, misleading and contradictory, and most of the text is
illegible.
Ann Gallan stated that she doesn't live in this area, but when she heard that it was changing from
100 homes to 311 homes without an E.I.R she did not like it. She further stated that the cumulative
effect of additional tracts affects the health and safety of the community.
Fred Gifford, 5916 Meadow Oaks Court, commented as to impact of traffic as to Auburn,
Panorama and Highway 178. He further stated traffic concerns with the schools in the area. He
stated they should shut down or slow down development until there is sufficient access.
Mickey Simms, 6208 Copperwood Lane, stated that they were in heaven with the last
development, but this development is not anything like the last one. Therefore, she requested an
E.I.R. She stated that when she asked the developer what he was going to do along her lot line,
and he turned and walked away from her. She suggested that the Planning Commission look very
closely at what is going to happen to the slopes.
Jim Chanflew, President of Royal Coachman Homeowner's Association, commented as to the
retention basin/sump. He stated they do not want the sump, and that it can be eliminated by
hooking onto the storm drain. He stated that they need more time to talk. He stated that with
regard to the retaining wall around the association, there is suppose to be a block wall that is
recorded when Mr. Bloomer owned the property. He pointed out that they want a retaining wall
around their section up to lot 18, up to approximately lot 220, as well as down below. He indicated
that they consider the wall a health and safety issue.
Carrie Vanwyke, who lives in the Royal Coachman Estates, immediately to the west of this new
development, stated that she would reiterate everything that's been said already, as well as what is
in the letter. She further requested a block wall fence for health and safety issue. She further
stated that sidewalks should be required in this development. She stated they have a lot of safety
and health issues.
Adam Ramos, 5921 Dice Way, stated that his house has suffered damages. He is concerned
about this development causing further damage to his home. He further stated that he would not
want a two-story home behind his home because he has a view.
Steve Bloomer, the previous manager of the Rio Bravo Land Company, the previous owner of this
property, as well as the owner of Bloomer Development, stated that he has no ties to this property,
and provided a history of the property. He stated back in the 1980's this property was mapped out
as a future phase of the surrounding homes. He stated that there were some faulty compaction
issues previously and the market was at a low. He indicated that he purchased the property in
2002 from the previous developers that had developed around this property, and proceeded to put
map 6202 on it. The market in 2002 was considerably different than it is today in that the price of
developing property and building homes was almost half what it is today. After his purchase he
came to realize that it wasn't going to be feasible for him. He indicated that he decided to sell, and
one of the agreements made was the block wall that runs around the community, as well as some
interconnecting sewer and storm drain being utilized as part of this tract. Mr. Bloomer stated that
he never got to the point of doing any storm drain studies. He stated that they did a sewer study
and determined that there were issues with existing pipe sizes that were on Panorama that could
not handle anymore affluent. He indicated that they knew that they would have to run sewer the
other direction for 6202, and never got to the point of looking at the storm drain. He indicated that
there is definitely a storm drain pipe there, and there is an agreement in place with the Royal
Coach Homeowner's Association to utilize it, but he never determined whether it was capable of
handling it through and on the other end into the collection system. Mr. Bloomer further stated that
he never got to the point of a grading plan. He indicated that he got the Tentative Map, and it was
going to be phased. He indicated that Signal Hill came along in early 2005 and proceeded to
purchase the property from him, and since then have brought forth this revised map of tentative
tract 6202 with the additional lots. Mr. Bloomer stated that as the average cost of a home rises, the
average lot size decreases typically in an effort to make the homes more affordable. He further
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 12
indicated that the City benefits with the increase in the traffic impact fees since his initial plan. He
stated that denser projects are also more efficient land use, resulting in less sprawl and conserving
more ag land. He stated that while he owned it the fire department was on him for weed control,
and he also had abandoned cars on his property. He thinks it would be nice to get this property
developed. Mr. Bloomer indicated that he did a soils report when it was initially vested, and he
never did discuss the shrinkage factor. He stated that his recollection is that the soil is expansive,
but nothing out of the norm that you would find in the northeast properties, and nothing that can't
be handled if it's done properly. He further pointed out that the map that was done in the 1980's
had every bit of 300 lots in there because it was a duplication of what Royal Coach was.
Craig Parto, President of Signal Hill Petroleum, stated they have developed about 500 homes and
several shopping centers, and are in the oil and gas business as well. He indicated that they
specialize in oilfield property. He stated they have had two meetings with the homeowners.
Brett Dawson with San Joaquin Engineering, representing Signal Hill Petroleum, inquired about a
modification to a condition, which Staff indicated would be to add the end of proposed condition
number 33 "the fences shall have metal posts imbedded in the top of the wall." Staff indicated that
this addition is included at page 9 of the January 5th memo from the Planning Department. Mr.
Dawson commented that as it is written it applies to lots 289 and 290 and they had agreed that it
would apply to lots 286 through 290.
Mr. Dawson clarified that with regard to secondary access, the conditions state requirements to
provide secondary access through future Tract 5639, and inquired if an alternate access was
provided to Paladino if those conditions would not apply. Mr. Dawson conferred with Staff on his
clarification issues.
Craig Parto stated that in their meetings with the homeowners they did make commitments
regarding the concerns raised. He indicated that they talked about the great all-existing and future
slopes to existing field technical engineering and safety standards to protect the adjacent
homeowners, landscape off the slopes with hydroce or some other type of slope protection, protect
or replace existing fencing with like kind, whether rod iron or wood fence, if they are disturbed
during the grading process, explore the ability to drain the project to the west through the 30" storm
drain that they have the ability to use, or eliminate or reduce the size of the retention/detention
basin. He indicated they talked about the retaining wall and limiting it to a pipe of no more than 4'
or 9' total with the wood fence on top. They also talked about the 20' pedestrian bike pathway
which is in the Staff report. Mr. Parto suggested including as a condition that along Dice Way and
Royal Oak that they increase the minimum size of the lots; the western boundary would be
increased to 7400 sq. ft. He stated that their PowerPoint has the exact tracts that they would be
making this commitment to.
Mr. Dawson stated in response to a comment that they were going to build a wood fence around
the sump; he indicated that they would build the fence in accordance with City standards which
require a 6' chain link fence on a concrete runner with redwood slats. He stated that the project as
shown depicts a drainage basin which they believe to be the absolute worse case with no drainage
waters utilizing the existing 30" storm drain pipe. He indicated that they would hope to cipher off
most of the water through this pipe, and would expect the drainage basin as shown to shrink
dramatically. He indicated that with respect to the sewer lift station; this project would utilize a
sewer lift station much like the homeowners to the west on Fairfax. He indicated that they will
utilize the existing 8" sewer as possible, but it may be some limitations as to capacity, which would
require a lift station to pump it up to Paladino. Mr. Dawson stated in response to the unstable
slopes he would argue that leaving the unstable slopes alone is more detrimental to existing
property than what the applicant is proposing, which is to reconstruct in a safe manner, and in
essence shore up their properties.
Steve Nelson, with Krazan &Assoc., the geotechnical engineers for the project, stated the soils in
this area are typical of those encountered in the NE Bakersfield area. He indicate that the soils in
the adjacent existing housing development are unusual in that they have been loosely placed, not
properly compacted, and placed over unprepared native ground, and therefore you would expect
the results the residents are experiencing. He indicated that the slopes that were constructed
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 13
encroached into the adjacent property. He indicated that 1 '/2 to 1 slopes are not typical, but a 2 to
1 slope is what a good contractor would do, unless there is some other mitigation measures that
are being added. He indicated that leaving the slopes is not going to do anything to help the
development, and currently the soils are active and soil movement is occurring. Mr. Nelson
indicated that they plan to do a geotechnical investigation that specifically addresses the areas
along those residences that are in those slope areas. He further indicated that there are various
methods and tests to be done, such as soil boring, test pits, and lab tests to determine the
characteristics of the existing soil versus the native soils and then will come up with mitigation
measures to effectively control any movement that it is in the vicinity of those residences. He
indicated that the majority of the slopes are going to be less than 20' which is not significant for
other counties where it is commonly done, and can be done without causing problems to
surrounding structures. Mr. Nelson further indicated that they would recommend that the structural
engineer go through each lot and residence that is a potential concern, and evaluate it for any
existing conditions, and can be evaluated after construction to see if anything has changed in that
period of time. Mr. Nelson indicated that during construction they will have a full time inspector
representing the engineering company during all construction activity so that if there is any
concern, or unforeseen circumstances, they will make recommendations on what needs to be done
immediately. He indicated that the basin will meet City standards requiring the basin to be dry
within seven days.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated he believes he should recuse himself,
as he has previously represented Mr. Bloomer with regard to this tract, although he doesn't think
under the provisions of state law he has a conflict. He indicated that he doesn't want any
perception of bias.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he needs a lot more education on this type of soil and why these
problems happen, although he doesn't want to hold the project up. He indicated that things can be
done but he needs to be convinced. Commissioner Tkac stated that he thinks the plantings will
help with the dust and dirty air comments made about dust. He inquired about Mr. Bloomers
statement that the initial plan was for 300 homes, to which Staff responded they do not have that
historical data. He further inquired if the 100 proposed home is significant, to which Staff
responded that it is not significant as this tract is well within the general plan land use density.
Staff indicated that it is 3.96 dwelling units per net acre which is very typical. Commissioner Tkac
inquired if Paladino will ever be punched through to the west and continue in a westerly direction,
to which Staff responded in the affirmative and that it will go at least to Fairfax. Commissioner
Tkac inquired how long it will be before Paladino goes through to Alfred Harrell Hwy, to which Staff
responded the portion between Masterson and Alfred Harrell will be done with the development of
Tract 6137 (S&S Homes). Commissioner Tkac commented that these road developments answer
some of the close proximity traffic problems and feels comfortable with this.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Bloomer if typically a builder offers a 20, 25 year warranty on
homes which would cover the structure. Mr. Bloomer responded that a builder's warranty is a one
year "bumper-to-bumper", with a 10 year structural, pointing out that the 10 year warranty is state
law.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Negative Declaration currently on file is adequate for the
CEQA process. Staff responded that Tract 6202 did have its own environmental document based
on the 311 lots. He inquired about Shandon Lane's adequacy for emergency access purposes, to
which Staff responded that Fire has indicated in previous meetings that the access is adequate for
secondary fire emergency services. Commissioner Johnson inquired about concerns raised
regarding the Parks and Trails Plan and if potential roads are going to interfere with the current
Parks & Trails Plan. Staff responded that the trails are designed to provide pedestrian access
across the street, and it is not an unusual item. Staff commented that the general internal
circulation between the neighborhoods is important, and it does accommodate the trails system.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Nelson about the drainage and ability of the soil to maintain
its integrity. With regard to the existing adjacent residents, Commissioner Johnson inquired which
direction the soil is moving. Mr. Nelson responded that the soil is moving on the slope. He further
indicated that there is a vertical movement of the building and the soil underneath. He indicated
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 14
you could have 1' of fill on one side of a building, and 10' on another and then you get differential
settlement and that's where your doorway starts cracking. With evenly settling material you have
fewer differentials so your door might not crack, but you still have movement underground.
Commissioner Johnson inquired that if the slopes are addressed and they are strengthened and
reinforced, with the changes Mr. Nelson mentioned previously, if it will hold up for a series of years
or indefinitely. Mr. Nelson responded that it will act as a retaining structure and will hold the
material in place that is trying to move. He stated that as the soil compresses it moves around a
little, indicating that the soil is going to naturally move down slope. He commented that right now
the soil is washing down as there is no control vegetation coverage to protect the slopes. He
indicated that if there are residences with slopes the homeowner is going to maintain the slopes
with vegetation so the slopes don't roll down, and therefore with development you will have
improved slope conditions. He stated that this development is not going to solve the problems with
the adjacent structures which are settling, but it will prevent some of the soil movement that is
heading towards the edge of the slope.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the procedure and period of time for a drainage and
geotechnical study to which Staff responded that a drainage, sewer and grading plan are the first
items that need to be completed upon approval of the project tonight.
Commissioner Lomas state that she does not have an understanding of these slope issues, and
inquired what the status is of the Hillside Ordinance. Staff responded that their consultant is
making another draft version for public review which should be out in the next four to six weeks.
She indicated that she does not know if all of the concerns of the homeowners have been
addressed. She stated she would like to address issues that she does not think the homeowners
are aware of. 1) Cumulative effects and air quality was explained. 2) Sumps were explained. 3)
She inquired if the agreement for a block wall referenced by Mr. Bloomer is a recorded agreement.
Mr. Bloomer stated there was and is an agreement attached to this property and was deeded when
recorded. He indicated that it is Tract 6256 with 33 lots in the northwest corner. He indicated that
the only agreement in place today is the western and southern side of the street. Staff concurred
that there are no agreements on this particular tract. 4) Views and requested limit to one-story
home was explained. 5) Commissioner Lomas indicated that she would like a short continuance
so further reading of the material could be accomplished. She further indicated that as Mr. Nelson
has offered many assurances, she would like to see it in writing. 6) She stated that with respect to
the 10-year warranty it is a state law that the builder provides this warranty. 7) She stated that she
does not know about the grading impacts, and what the construction equipment will do to the
property, and that she will look to the applicant to educate her that these issues raised will not be a
safety issue.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if staff could explain the issues of a lift station as it relates to
noise, odor, appearance, size, etc. that might accompany it. Staff responded that a lift station is a
kind of well where the sewage will collect and gets pumped to a higher level. Staff indicated that
the older lifts have had odor problems, but the newer ones have not been too bad. Staff indicated
that they don't expect it to be a very large lift station. Staff indicated that there are a lot of factors
that can effect the impacts.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about oversight on the grading, compaction and all of the
geotechnical things that will be done. Staff responded that all tracts require both a grading plan
and a preliminary and final soils report, indicating that when the preliminary soil report is submitted
for a project in the NE various mitigation measures are provided. These mitigation measures
include options to use post and slabs, moisture conditioning methods. Staff indicated that the
expansion index provides the range of mitigation required, and then the developer will have his
consultant provide oversight during the grading operations, and provide the City a report showing
which method is used and a certification that the grading contractor, the grading plan engineer and
soils engineer have certified that all of the work was done in accordance with the preliminary soils
report. Commissioner Blockley commented that there is a heavy burden on the engineers in terms
of their responsibility for the certification.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 15
Commissioner Blockley stated that he would support a motion to postpone this matter to see if
something can be worked out.
Commissioner Lomas commented that she would like to better understand what is different now in
City standards in comparison with the previous standards of the adjacent residents. Staff indicated
that the problem in the past was falsifying documentation. Staff indicated that they do not see
where the Hillside Ordinance is going to effect this tract. Staff indicated that any slope steeper
than 2 to 1 requires a slope stability analysis, and it would have to be mitigated. Commissioner
Lomas inquired if the portion of this project that is under the Hillside Ordinance would comply with
the old or new Hillside Ordinance if the project was approved tonight. Staff responded that this
tract was deemed complete after the proposed draft of the new Hillside Ordinance was advertised,
and would therefore be subject to the new Hillside Ordinance.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff what meeting this would be re-scheduled for if this matter
was continued. Staff responded that as a point of information, the next meeting on January 19th is
a very heavy meeting, and if it is continued to the next meeting the Planning Commission would
receive late memos because by the time the applicant and the homeowners meet and transmit
their information it will cause Staff to have to submit late memos.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant if they would agree to a continuance. Mr.
Dawson, for the applicant, stated that this project has been continued twice before and they have
met with the homeowners twice and made good faith diligent efforts to address their concerns, and
is not confident that a third meeting is going to put them at ease. Mr. Dawson indicated that they
would like to address all issues tonight, and requested a vote.
A five minute break was taken.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she is still more comfortable with a continuance.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about condition 33 in the memo dated January 5th, if it is
supposed to read: "Prior to occupancy of lots 286-290", to which staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tkac commented that this tract is no different than any other Tract in that the City
will follow through on all of the appropriate testings, and stated that he is comfortable enough to
make a motion. He pointed out the agreements are between the developer and the homeowner
and the issue is that from a City standpoint they are not enforceable other than the issue about the
increased lot sizes. Staff recommended the lot size requirement be read into the record.
Commissioner Tkac moved to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve revised Vesting
Tentative Tract 6202 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit "A",
and with the Planning Department memorandum dated January 5, 2006, and Public Works
memorandum dated January 5, 2006, and condition number 33 which reads that "Prior to
occupancy of 289" goes to "286" as 289 is a typo.
Motion failed with no second.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to continue this item to
February 2, 2006.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Lomas
NOES: Commissioner Tkac
ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Spencer
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 16
6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6607— Phased (Porter- Robertson Engineering)
Heard on consent.
6.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6515 (Quad Knopf, Inc.)
Heard on consent.
6.6 Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6553 (Maurice Etchechury)
Heard on consent.
6.7a Vesting Tentative Tract 6575 (DeWalt Corporation)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's
recommendation. Barry Frath, owner of Cascade Financial, who owns the property on this project,
stated that they are giving 10% to the drill island mineral owners, which is a significant amount. He
indicated that it has never been anyone's intention to abridge anyone's rights. He indicated that the
gentleman that removed this item from consent is no longer present. Mr. Frath stated that they
would grant any mineral right owner the ability to drill as Bakersfield allows for through the two-acre
drill site which is on the map, which abuts a major street, and therefore there is no access problem.
He indicated that the mineral owners can drill diagonally on the current property just adjacent to
this applicant, to which he already has mineral rights on. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a corresponding condition for the memo, to which Staff
responded that in Exhibit 1, Conditions 21, 22, and 23 addresses the reservation of the drill site
and disclosure to future residents.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Negative
Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6575 with findings and conditions set forth
in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A".
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Spencer
6.7b Zone Change 05-0780 (DeWalt Corporation)
Heard on consent.
6.8 Tentative Tract Number 6612 (Sake Engineers)
Heard out of order.
6.9 Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6652 (Smith Tech)
Heard on consent.
6.10a Vesting Tentative Tract Number 6681 (McIntosh and Associates)
Heard on consent.
Planning Commission — Thursday, January 5, 2006 Page 17
6.10b PUD Zone Change #05-1407 (McIntosh and Associates)
Heard on consent.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Zone Changes
7.1 Zone Change 05-0725 (Porter-Robertson)
Heard on consent.
7.2 Zone Change 05-1165 (Smith-Tech)
Heard on consent.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tragish inquired about putting together a workshop pertaining to traffic to specifically
discuss: 1) The impact of the projects and whether they are taking into consideration the totality of the
city and all the various improvements when they review the traffic analysis and the general plan, as well
as how they are handling the problems that the city is experiencing. 2) To what extent any plans are on
the drawing board are going to address it, and when they are going to address it, and what the city is
going to do during the interim period until it does address it. 3) How they should look at some of the Tract
Maps and General Plans that are coming through as far as evaluating their impact on traffic.
Commissioner Lomas commented about not having enough time to read the material. She indicated that
she will look to Staff to assist in educating her about the Hillside ordinance, grading and slopes.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15
p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
February 6, 2006