HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 5, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
1 0`, October 5, 2006 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL: Present: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson
TED BLOCKLEY, Vice Chairman
RUSSELLJOHNSON
TOM McGINNIS
JOHN S. SPENCER
JEFFREY TKAC
JEFFREY TKAC
MURRAY TRAGISH
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Sharon Hoffman stated she would speak on agenda item 8.5, regarding tract 6866, during its regular
schedule on the calendar. Shirley Curran also stated she would speak on agenda item 8.5, regarding
tract 6866, during it's regular schedule on the calendar.
Commissioner Lomas noted that Commissioner Tkac joined the Commission.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting(s) of August 14, 2006, September
5, 2006 and September 7, 2006.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the
consent calendar, non-public hearing items.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6766 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
4.2b Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6578 (McIntosh &Associates)
Commissioner Lomas noted that Commissioner Tragish joined the Commission.
4.2c Approval of Continuance and Re-Advertisement of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6755
(Hendricks Engineering)
4.2d Approval of Continuance Until November 2, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6858
(SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
• Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 2
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6873 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6880 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6916 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
The public hearing is opened. No one from the public requested removal of a consent
item. The public hearing is closed, except for 4.2c and 4.2d. No one from the Commission
requested removal of a consent item.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the
consent calendar as read, with the removal of items 4.2c and 4.2d.
Motion carried by group vote.
5. PUBLIC HEARING — Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for West Ming Project - File # 03-1544 located west of Buena Vista
Road, north of Pacheco Road, south of Ming Avenue, and east of the proposed West
Beltway alignment. (Wards 4 and 5)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp with the Sierra Club raised the issues that
they would like dealt with in the final EIR. 1) Conversion of 2,182 acres of prime agricultural land to
urban uses. He stated they think this is a major concern and needs to be addressed. He further stated
that there are a number of mitigation measures that are feasible. He pointed out that if this goes through,
the City will be violating the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Mr. Nipp stated that
transient oriented development should be utilized. 2) The EIR should discuss the need for this project,
and referenced Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, Agricultural Conservation Policy Number 14,
which requires evaluation of, "demonstrated project need when converting agricultural lands to non-
agricultural use." He questioned how many projects have been approved, but not been built at this point,
and how many houses are in the pipeline, but haven't been built. He suggested that the EIR explore
these issues in detail. 3) He discussed the positive aspects of solar panels.
Christine Boyer, representing Crimson Resource Management, stated Crimson is the owner/operator of a
productive oil well, and of the mineral rights in a portion of the NW area of this project, which is between
Ming Avenue and the Kern River Canal. Ms. Boyer stated Crimson opposes the zone change in the area
surrounding Crimsons wells, and request that either the existing zone remain as is, or that Crimson be
provided a drill island district zone. Ms. Boyer pointed out that Appendix H of the draft EIR includes an
evaluation of Crimson's well, however the evaluation which was prepared in 2003 is inaccurate and
outdated. Mr. Greg Soukup, a petroleum engineering manager, presented the differences in the
economic evaluation of Crimson's mineral interests, and specifically an existing producing oil well number
52X-10, located in the West Ming Specific Plan area. Mr. Soukup pointed out the potential for further
drilling, and an additional 87,894 barrels in an estimated ultimate recovery of over 290,000 barrels, which
would represent about 22% of what they estimate the original oil in place to be. He further stated that
they believe an additional well could develop and allow production of an estimated additional 128,000
barrels of oil, giving an ultimate future recovery of approximately 420,000 barrels. Mr. Soukup stated that
this is a reasonable number in terms of an estimated recovery of about 31%. Mr. Soukup stated they
would like to work with the applicant to reserve their rights.
Ms. Boyer concluded by stating that the draft EIR does not provide for protection of Crimson's mineral
interests, and request that Crimson be allotted a drill island district zone to ensure the ability to drill will
right. Crimson also requested a 500 ft. setback of the building of any new structured within the location of
Crimson's oil production facilities.
Phillip Ryle, petroleum geologist, stated he is co-founder of the Smart-Growth Coalition. He pointed out
that he does not see where the County or the City is protecting the minerals in Bakersfield. He
suggested that the City make a plan on how to protect the City's oil and gas.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 3
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Soukup if he knows if Crimson is
the only mineral holder in this area. Mr. Soukup responded that to his knowledge Crimson is the only
producing mineral holder, and that there are others in the plan area. Staff responded they do not have
that information. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he believes Foothill Energy and Vintage are
producers in this area. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that whoever is doing the study should
contact all of the mineral interests before they come up with a conclusion that goes into the EIR. He
stated that if this is not being done, then it is not an accurate picture of what is there. Commissioner
McGinnis recommended to Staff that in the final EIR that all mineral interests be consulted.
Commissioner Tragish referenced the recharge ponds on the NW referencing the need for further
liquefaction studies, and inquired if there were any studies done. He further commented on the economic
impact as to other commercial/office projects in the area, and that he did not see it addressed in the draft
EIR. Commissioner Tragish stated he is somewhat confused about Crimson's comments in that they
don't seem to dovetail into the draft EIR. He stated that he is confused as to what Crimson wants the EIR
to address. Commissioner Tragish commented that he assumes Crimson wants the EIR to address the
fact that the oilfield may be more productive then how it is projected in the draft EIR, and he stated that
he thinks the oil drill site is amply handled in the draft EIR, as well as in the existing Bakersfield
ordinances. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like the EIR to address the alleged discrepancy
in the valuation or potential of the oil field. Commissioner Tragish further commented that he thinks it is a
valid question to analyze the need for all the housing and high density since there has been a slow down
in the market. Commission Tragish stated concerns regarding traffic impacts.
Commissioner Lomas asked Mike Houlihan, MBA Consulting, as to his testimony regarding a 10 year
phasing, when the document says a 20 year phasing. Mr. Houlihan responded that it is a 20 year
development.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to refer comments to Staff for
preparation of a Final EIR.
Motion carried by group vote.
6. PUBLIC HEARING — Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Southwest Bakersfield — Old River Ranch
(Smith/Tech USA)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Tom Fallgatter, representing Darcy Marshall and
Barbara Grimm Marshall requested that this matter be continued as neither his clients nor himself
received notice of the hearing, and did not want to waive their rights to receive notice. He stated they
have comments to make, but would like to reserve those to a continued hearing so they can have an
opportunity to meet with Staff to work out something that would be acceptable to everybody. Mr.
Fallgatter further pointed out that the trails plan was specifically removed from and not considered in the
EIR for this project a year ago, and therefore there is a probable violation to CEQA in making a decision
on this project without some finding of an exemption of negative declaration.
Brian Haupt, representing the Antongiovanni family who owns two parcels within this park and trail plan.
Mr. Haupt stated that they also were not notified, and did not know about this until seeing an article in the
newspaper. Mr. Haupt also requested a continuance.
Greg Petrini, with Petrini Bakersfield Ventures, stated they are in favor of Staff's recommendations, and
introduced his planner who walked the Planning Commission through the program.
Don Putnam, a landscape architect with RBF Consulting, shared some highlights of the Old River Ranch
Park and Trails Specific Plan.
Greg Petrini concluded that while it is sponsored by Old River Ranch, it goes beyond Old River Ranch,
and is a proposal that is much larger than their project, and feel that it is important to tie it into the Sports
Village.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 4
Arthur Unger from the Sierra Club stated that they have negotiated with this developer, and do not want
to see last minute changes in these trails, as currently they connect the sport facilities and have the
potential to connect trails to the Kern River, which is about four miles away.
Commissioner Lomas stated that it is her understanding that all of the interested parties are agreeable to
a two week continuance, and asked Mr. Petrini to confirm this for the record. Greg Petrini stated that
they would appreciate a continuance to clear up any misconceptions.
The public hearing remains open.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he spoke with Mr. Fallgatter prior to this meeting and have meet with
the Petrini brothers along with Mr. Dmohowski.
Commissioner McGinnis moved to continue this matter for two weeks, until the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
Commissioner Johnson stated that a year ago when this was taken off, the point was to get the two sides
together, and that it would be resolved and brought back. He inquired why it took so long, and stated that
he is somewhat annoyed that it did not get brought back sooner. He stated that he believes that Staff
should have taken a more active role in this process, and they need to within the next two weeks. He
further stated that he did meet with the applicant, as well as had discussions with a representative of a
property owner around the trails plan, and that he does not think they will come to a resolution tonight,
and stated that a two week continuance is more than sufficient.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if a representative from RBF would be present at the next meeting if this
is continued. Mr. Petrini stated that they will make RBF present at the next meeting. Commissioner
inquired of Mr. Putnam, from RBF, as to the full section of the streets, opposite the trails, if there will be
normal sidewalks, parkways, etc. Mr. Putnam responded that there will be normal sidewalks, curb,
gutters, etc.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he did speak with Mr. Petrini, as well as Mr. Fallgatter and Mr. Ye, and
further pointed out that he would like to come to a resolution within the next couple of weeks.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff would let them know of all other maps that have come in around
this area that have been approved. He further asked for an explanation in two weeks as to why the trail
on the north sides goes from 20 feet to 14 feet, and then to 20 feet, and further inquired if there is some
safety issues. Commissioner Lomas further stated that she would like to see how the inconsistency of
the trail would be phased together. She further stated that she did meet with the names mentioned.
Commissioner Tragish stated that in reading Mr. Fallgatter's letter, he would like Mr. Fallgatter to provide
something in writing as to the basis of his objections if they are not resolved before the next meeting so
that the Planning Commission can review those objections prior to the meeting. Commissioner Lomas
further commented that anything they can get before the meeting would be very helpful to the
Commission.
Commissioner Spencer seconded the motion to continue this item for two weeks.
Motion carried by group vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Approval of Amendment to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal Code,
specifically Section 16.16.060 (A) of the Subdivision Ordinance and 17.64.050 (B) of the Zoning
Ordinance. (Exempt from CEQA)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Cassie Daniel, Executive Vice President of the Building
Industry Association of Kern County. She stated that they believe that the ordinance is inconvenient and
cumbersome, and seems to be out of character with the City's sign ordinance. She stated that they
currently oppose this as it stands, and are willing to work on making it a little more user friendly.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 5
Lorraine Unger with the Sierra Club complimented the Staff on this change.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there is a two sign maximum per street,
to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired whose responsibility it is to
maintain the signs to which Staff responded it will be the applicant's responsibility to maintain the signs.
Commissioner McGinnis stated he has concerns about the signs being targets for graffiti. Staff
responded they have the same concerns, especially out in the rural areas, and pointed out that it will be
difficult for Staff to keep up on it, however, there are a lot of eyes out there and they will notify the
applicant to correct the problem as they arise.
Commissioner Tkac inquired what the sign ordinances say that the BIA might have a difference with.
Staff responded that they don't have an immediate response. Staff stated that the size of the sign is
consistent with signs that they allow subdividers to post on their property, and future use signs. Staff
stated that 32 ft. is common in Bakersfield's code. Staff further pointed out that the code provides for an
exemption area of a lot of signs, and public notice signs are exempt for needing permits. Given the size
of the Specific Trails Plan for Old River Ranch, Commissioner Tkac inquired how something like that
would typically be posted. Staff responded probably with something as large as the West Ming project
there are three or four major roads where two signs would be posted. Staff stated that when you think of
the area that West Ming covers, which is four-five miles, a couple of signs along Ming or a couple on
White Lane is not going to be that onerous. Staff pointed out that they probably have more of the
commercial real estate signs that border a lot of those properties, than they will have of the notice signs.
Commissioner Tkac pointed out that Staff is creating more work for themselves, and he hopes that as
much information as possible gets on the signs. He further inquired if this signage is going to take the
place of something that they don't know they are losing, or if it is in lieu of something else. Staff
responded that it is in addition, and that they are not lessening the requirements.
Commissioner Johnson stated that this posting is a great idea. He commented that all the other noticing,
including mailings, are funded by municipality, and inquired why they are shifting this posting issue onto
the applicant. Staff responded that Staff does the noticing mailing, and that the applicant does pay for a
portion of that with their application fees, and Staff generates the address listing and the mailing. Staff
stated that this is not true with tract maps, as far as identifying mineral right owners, and that the
applicant does this. Staff pointed out that there really isn't a shift because it is already being done under
one process under tract maps. Staff further pointed out that he knows the City discussed who should be
responsible for the posting, and Staff is understaffed. Staff further pointed out that they looked at nine
other cities regarding this issue, and in four of those cities, the applicant is posting, and in five cities the
city is posting. Staff further pointed that in those cities where the city did the posting, the signs were
either 8 'h X 11 size or 11 X17 in size. Staff further pointed out that when the applicant did the posting
they were generally the size and design that is being proposed now. Staff clarified that they do not feel
this is a fundamental shift from the way the City is doing business currently.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the applicant has been paying fees for this through their application
fees, why something like this was not initiated administratively and then the fees raised in accordance
with the cost of business going up. Staff responded that in an administrative situation the City has to be
sure everyone is treated fairly, whereas an ordinance specifically spells out the requirement, and makes it
clear for everybody who is doing a posting. Staff stated that initially Staff has estimated that it will still
cost an additional $70 per application just for Staff to administer the posting, by not having them post the
sign.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that the justification was that the City wanted an ordinance as opposed
to an administrative decision so it would be more effective and be equitable, to which Staff confirmed.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Code limits the type of material to be used for posting. Staff
responded they developed the Code to have specific sign limitations, and left the design and materials
type for administrative policy so that as the program gets going if they discover the design and/or
materials need to be changed, it can be done administratively. Commissioner Johnson stated that he
thinks it makes more sense to put the onerous upon the municipality to do the posting.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 6
Commissioner Blockley seconded the notation that he is glad the City is not charging a permit fee for the
posting. He pointed out that the few thousand dollars that each sign will cost seems like a small price
considering what is gained in the public input. (A quote of$1,200 was given for a sign.)
Commissioner Tragish stated that he likes the signage posting, but feels that it is more of a band aid
because the signs themselves are going to be posted on empty lots where there are no sidewalks, and
people are not going to be able to read the signs when they drive by. He stated that he does not think
300 ft noticing is enough, and commented that he does not know why there is so much resistance to
increasing the footage. He further stated his concerns for policing of the signs. Commissioner Tragish
inquired how large the lettering will be on the Notice of Public Hearing File Number. Staff responded that
it will be four inch letter height, and that the idea is to get your attention, and by no means is the sign
going to answer everybody's questions.
Commissioner Lomas gave a quick history of this signage issue. She further pointed out that the BIA was
informed of this sign process which has been going on for three years. She commented that this is a
huge step to informing the public, and expanding noticing may be in the future, and is currently a cost
effective way of informing the public.
Commissioner Tragish inquired Staff if this program can be re-visited in six months to see how it is
working, as he would like to be able to extend the notification area. Staff responded that they can keep
tabs on this time, and also people will probably mention that they've seen the sign, and that's why they
show up. Staff stated that they will be working with the development community to make it as easy as
possible. Commissioner Tragish requested that it be calendared for a six month review, and Staff
indicated that they will do so.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the proposed ordinance amendments 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
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS —TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS
8.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6766 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6578 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6755 (Hendricks Engineering)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6858 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
Heard on consent calendar.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 7
8.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6866 (Porter— Robertson Engineering &Surveying)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Memos September 18, October 3, October 4
Shirley Curran a homeowner in the Solara development stated they are not against the
development, but are concerned about two-story homes being built behind them. She requested
that no two-story homes/buildings be built along the north perimeter of tract 6866, and that this
condition become part of the approval process at its incept today, and maintained as a requirement
throughout the approval process.
Sharon Hoffman stated she is a resident of tract 6149, known as the Del Webb Solara, the Kern
Canyon, stated she is concerned with two-story homes, as even with setbacks, it would allow direct
view into the interior of the homes in tract 6149, including carrying light and noise into those
homes. She pointed out that these adverse effects will impact their community. She requested that
a row of houses be in conformity with the adjacent homes and the condition run concurrent with the
land for tract 6149. Ms. Hoffman stated that with respect to Ant Hill Avenue, she is concerned with
noise, safety and congestion. She stated that she does not see the need for Ant Hill to exist as
tract 6866 has two proposed entrances/exits to Miramonte.
Roland Van da Val, with Porter Robertson Engineering, representing the applicant stated that there
has been consistency in building single story without have a restriction placed on the tract. He
pointed out that unless it is in the CC&R's there is nothing in place to restrict these other homes
from pulling a permit and adding a second story to their homes. Mr. Van de Val stated that Ant Hill
Avenue was an idea of the developer early on in the planning process, and the City was elated that
this access would alleviate some of the traffic problems that the area has had and will continue to
have as development increases. He stated that Ant Hill was an offer and not a requirement as they
have access off of Miramonte, a collector, and pointed out that it would be beneficial to this
development, and would do a good job of eliminating some of the traffic congestion. He stated
that they have no problem with a stop sign and traffic control as the secondary access road comes
into Jade Hills Drive, and providing access over to Comanche. Mr. Van da Val stated that with
regard to block walls, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve the requested
modification with the added conditions that the developer be required to place a masonry wall or
view fence at the top to reduce the possibility of accidental falling.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley stated he is sympathetic to people's view
into other people's yards. He inquired if the request for single story dwellings have any bearing on
the grounds for denying a subdivision. Staff responded in the negative. Staff pointed out that the
property is zoned R-1, and by right a two-story home is allowed. Commissioner Blockley inquired if
the same thing applies to the street improvement and wall requirements, to which Staff responded
in the affirmative. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if the road extension (1,500 ft.) meets all
the subdivision ordinances in terms of block length. Staff responded that block length is a function
of intersection to intersection, and since there is no development proposed on the south side of the
street Staff cannot answer the question. However, Staff pointed out that it could very well have
intersecting streets that would shorten the block length.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if the standard for approving/not approving a tract map
involves whether or not it is orderly development and whether it is invasive of any public health,
safety or welfare issues. Staff responded there are public health and safety issues that are grounds
for denial, and one of those is that the design of the subdivision or types of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health concerns. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there are any policies
or General Plan specifics that address health, safety and welfare, and if they discuss the welfare of
adjoining neighborhoods so that they be designed in such a fashion that they are not invasive of
the residents. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish commented that he is not
sure there is an "absolute right"to build two-story homes, and pointed out that if there is this "right"
that it would seem to him that it would be invasive. Staff responded that the grounds for denial are
worded very generally when it comes to the General Plan, because it says that if the proposed map
is not consistent with any applicable general or specific plan it is grounds for denials. Staff stated
that the Planning Commission would have to find facts that they felt were specific to this
development that made it inconsistent with something in the General Plan.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 8
Commissioner Tragish inquired if there are any other approved or pending tracts currently between
Ant Hill, Comanche, and the applicant's property to the east. Staff responded in the negative. He
further commented that it seems bizarre that Ant Hill goes almost to Comanche and now it is to be
directed onto the road that leads to this other development, and yet it was put there as an escape
valve. He commented that it is a clumsy turn to get out to Comanche. He inquired why Staff did
not request that Ant Hill go all the way to Comanche. Staff responded that Comanche Drive is an
arterial and they restrict access to arterials, and the way Ant Hill was heading to Comanche would
have been too close to the Jade Hills intersection.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant Chris Erdman as to his response to the concerns
of the residents, and if he would be willing to restrict homes on the north side to single story
homes. Mr. Erdman stated that they are vesting the property and are not homebuilders, and has
no intention of building on the property. Mr. Erdman stated that he would like to keep this open to
whoever is going to be the home builder. Mr. Erdman stated that he would like to have a speed
limit of 15, 20 miles an hour on Ant Hill, but was advised by Staff that the speed limit is not set until
after the road is built and there is a traffic study done.
Commissioner Lomas pointed out that the zoning was obtained on May 24, 2006, and at this stage
the Planning Commission cannot respond to many of their requests because they are not able to at
this point. She pointed out that Mr. Erdman has 310 lots and with the tier of lots and park they
would only have to restrict 21 lots, which is less than 7%. She stated that she feels that anybody
who would buy this property could deal with a 7% single story.
Five minute break was taken.
Mr. Erdman stated that he is not in a position to make any commitment to the single story at this
time. Commissioner Lomas inquired if he would be open to a two week continuance. Mr. Erdman
stated that he would agree to this, but he will have another representative present.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he reviewed the subdivision and inquired of Mr. Van da Val if
there is any potential to increase the depth of the lots 1-12 in phase 2 and lots 25-36 in phase 1,
without a complete redesign. Mr. Van da Val responded that the varying depths of lots was the
result of foresight into a hilly property with slopes in between lots. Mr. Van da Val stated that some
things can be worked out as to changing the lot depth. He further pointed out that perhaps there
could be a modification as to some lessened depth lots in other situations.
Commissioner Blockley also inquired if hypothetically in phase 1, lots 14 and 15, which back up to
each, if they are subdivided they could conceivably build two-story houses on each on the steeper
part of the hill which would probably result in the same objections that are being voiced tonight.
Mr. Van da Val responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he is in agreement with a two-week continuance. He commented
that he'd like the applicant to refer to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan on page VI,
Chapter 2, Land Element, discussing the goals and policies of the General Plan, pointing to Goal
Number 3, which states, "..accommodate new development which is compatible with and
compliments existing land uses." He also pointed to Goal Number 7 which states, "... establish a
built environment which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual
buildings and sites. Commissioner Tragish went on to reference II-X, which discusses residential
development in the Chapter 2 Land Use Element, number 4, which states, "... to encourage
maintenance of the residential character, especially identified neighborhoods through such
mechanism as architectural design, landscape and property set backs." Commissioner Tragish
stated that he believes these policies and goals apply, and that they can act as an exception to the
by right rule that was enunciated by Staff. He supported this by: 1) even the applicant has talked
about there being rolling hills and that these homes will be looking into the adjoining neighborhood.
He pointed out that the neighborhood to the north would not be compatible nor would the
applicant's property compliment the neighborhood to the north if it chooses to build two-story
homes along Ant Hill Avenue. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not think that a 75 ft.
setback is sufficient to give privacy to the northern neighbors given the rolling nature of the land,
and therefore would interfere with the existing land use, as well as not be compatible with
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 9
achieving a comparable functional or visual relationship between these two projects. He stated
that based on the current proposed application he will not be able to support this project because
there are grounds for denial as the map is not consistent or applicable to general and specific plans
as specified in Section 65451 of the Government Code. Commissioner Tragish further stated that
under Section 66474 of subsection b, the design or improvement is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he did call Ms. Hoffman last night because he had some
questions.
Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the global circulation with respect to Miramonte, and
inquired as to the level of service. Staff will provide this information for the next meeting.
Commissioner Lomas reiterated that she is looking at lots 1-11 and 34-25, commenting that it
appears that 12, 36 and 35 do not back up to any homes.
Commissioner McGinnis commented that he spoke with several of the neighbors during the break,
and they had a complaint that they were not given notice of previous hearings on this matter. He
inquired how Staff acquires their noticing names. Staff responded they use the latest tax rolls from
the Kern County Assessor's Office, which they update as they update, and not to any specific time
frame.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Staff could start a list of names and numbers so the public can be
called should something be changed. Staff responded the next meeting will be October 19, 2006.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue this item to the
October 19, 2006 meeting.
Motion carried by group vote.
8.6 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6873 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
Heard on consent.
8.7 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6880 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
Heard on consent.
8.8 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6916 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.)
Heard on consent.
9. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff announced that with the two continuances to the October 19th meeting the agenda will be very, very
full for that meeting.
10. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
Planning Commission - October 5, 2006 Page 10
11. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
November 8, 2006