HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-07 MINUTES
,
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
Absent: None
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Blendon Walker from Tehachapi spoke on the Cultural Resources Mitigation Policies in Kern County in
General and in local governments. Mr. Walker describes that Native American involvement with land that
was theirs has not been well supported in the past and today. It is common knowledge that the County of
Kern and local governments are far behind when it comes to addressing cultural resource issues and little
has been done to create policies in general and specific plans to address these. The local governments
hire inadequate agencies to do cultural resource management, CEQA related work who supply
inadequate reports which do little to actually address or mitigate cultural resources. Lead agencies need
to take greater charge in seeing that these types of resources are properly mitigated and managed, that
true mitigation measures which ensure that these types of resources are not destroyed during this type of
development projects are created and upheld.
Commission Lomas confirmed with Blendon Walker that staff has his contact information and will be
getting back with him at a later date.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2007.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the March 1,
2007 Minutes.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Continuance of General Plan Amendment 06-1681 to June 21, 2007
(Porter Robertson Engineering)
4.2b Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 06-1681 to June 21, 2007 (Porter
Robertson Engineering)
4.2cApproval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6816 to April 19, 2007 (PB4
Ventures LLC c/o G. Petrini, Premier Land)
?
Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 2
4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11691 (McIntosh & Asscoiates, Inc.)
4.2e Approval of Continuance of General Plan Amendment 06-1662 to June 21, 2007
(Mark Davis)
4.2f Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 06-1662 to June 21, 2007 (Mark Davis)
4.2g Approval of Continuance of General Plan Amendment 06-1689 to June 21, 2007
(Marino Associates)
4.2h Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 06-1689 to June 21, 2007 (Marino
Associates)
4.2i Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-1698 (Adavco, Inc,)
4.2j Referral of Zone Change 06-1698 back to Staff (Adavco, Inc.)
4.2k Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2290 (City of Bakersfield)
4.2l Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-0246 (City of Bakersfield)
The public hearing is open. David Dominguez, Cultural Resource Manager for the
Chumash Council of Bakersfield asked to remove 4.2e, GPA #06-1662, 4.2g GPA# 06-
1689, 4.2i GPA #06-1698, and 4.2k GPA #06-2290. Staff interjected that items 4.2e and
4.2g are being continued and do not need to be removed but agenda items 4.2i and 4.2k
will be pulled.
Commissioner Blockley asked if by pulling agenda item 4.2i would it affect the outcome of
4.2j. Staff replied that one is a referral back to staff so it will be re-advertised and is similar
to a continuance only not to a date certain and will be heard again at which time
comments can be made. Commissioner Tragish stated he did watch the CD of the pre-
meeting, staff then asked Commissioner Tkac if he had an opportunity to watch the CD of
the pre-meeting in which he responded in the affirmative. The public hearing is closed
except for items 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c, 4.2e, 4.2f, 4.2g, 4.2h, 4.2i and 4.2k.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve consent
items 4.2a through 4.2l with omission of items 4.2i and 4.2k. Staff stated that this would
need to be a role call vote rather than a group vote.
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None
Motion carried by roll call vote.
5. PUBLIC HEARING – Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps
5.1Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6816 (PB4 Ventures LLC c/o G. Petrini, Premier Land)
Heard on Consent.
5.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11691 (McIntosh & Asscoiates, Inc.)
Heard on Consent.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 3
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/Land Use Element Amendments/
Safety Element/Circulation Element Amendments/Zone Changes/PCD Preliminary
Development Plans
6.1a General Plan Amendment 06-0494 (McIntosh & Associates)
6.1b Zone Change 06-0494 (McIntosh & Associates)
Public hearing is open, staff report given. Terrie Stoller with Stoller Family Farms spoke in
opposition of the project. Ms. Stoller asked the commission to deny this GPA/ZC on the grounds
that it is premature, it is not contiguous to the proposed Riverview Development, it will be
contiguous to the Watermark project but its approval is a long way off and this 60 acres is
isolated with no infrastructure and until these 2 larger projects get going she feels this size
development can’t afford the required infrastructure and if you approved this project would it
inflate the value of this property prematurely. She would like to encourage the city to encourage
the land owners to wait until there is a tangible plan in hand and infrastructure in place.
Louise Stevenson spoke in opposition. Ms. Stevenson stated that this project is not consistent
with parcel sizes and section 28, currently the smallest parcel is 2-1/2 acres and is not consistent
with the City’s general land use. The property to the west, and the south, are under the City’s
zone 17.19.020 which is rural residential/estate residential/suburban residential and does allow
the keeping of large animals and limited agriculture therefore keeping the area rural. There is no
infrastructure for roads, utilities and telephones and the County recently rejected 13 home plans
due to the lack of infrastructure.
Terry Boner spoke in opposition. Mr. Boner stated that this area is full of clay and the roads
become very hazardous and slippery when wet.
Jim Lamberson spoke in opposition. Mr. Lamberson owns a horse ranch located next to this
project and remarks about the infrastructure and designated flood plane within this project and a
need to mitigate flood damage.
David Dominquez spoke in opposition and submitted copies of mitigation measures he would like
to be included in this project.
Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates, representing Doug & Sandy Diberti, spoke in favor
of the project. Mr. McIntosh stated that along Hwy 178 there are a number of developments
going in and there is a 1 mile separation between the edge of the urban growth area and City in
the Hills because of the trunk line put in to the east, to the south there is a lot of agriculture but
from Pioneer Drive north there is little agriculture production, mostly oil fields. The trunk line is
approximately 400 to 600 miles from this site and the closest paved roads are Breckenridge
Road to the south and Pioneer Drive 1 mile to the west. The surrounding area is rural but the
agricultural uses are separated by ¼ mile to the south, there are enough buffers around this
property, if it were to be zoned R-1, that it would meet all the city requirements for separation
from animals and agricultural uses and we are proposing to notify any residents within the project
that there may be agricultural uses surrounding the property. Pertaining to the road there is a
condition from Public Works that states that the developer would have to construct a paved road
back to the closest existing paved road, which would be Edison Road, with a secondary access if
there are more than 200 homes. Watermark is immediately adjacent to this project to the west
covering 1 square mile and ½ mile south from the recently approved Riverview project. Mr.
McIntosh states his intentions to annex this land into the City explaining the need for this
GPA/ZC so that the CEQA documents can be sent to LAFCO, the property annexed and the
services needed for the property can be provided. Also recently LAFCO changed the Sphere of
Influence out in this area, before the line was changed this was not within the City’s Sphere of
Influence and now the line is further east and this falls within the City’s Sphere. The underlying
general plan is to change the Suburban Residential Zoning, which allows up to 10,000 sq. ft. lots,
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 4
to Low Density Residential and would be no smaller than 6,000 sq. ft. lots depending of
topography. In response to Mr. Lamberson’s concern of flood plane issues, Mr. McIntosh stated
that there are no flood channels and no designated flood zones within the property, there are
some drainage channels that will be dealt with according to the city code and they will contain
the runoff by not adding to the drainage. McIntosh & Associates is in agreement with staff’s
recommendation and ask that this project be approved.
Eric Powers, being a partner with the Diberti family, spoke in favor. They have owned this
property for about 3 years, the Diberti’s own 100% of the mineral rights and have rehabilitated
the land. They want the roads to be built as described, infrastructure in place and the project to
be done correctly. Mr. Powers stated that he and his partners would like to see the zone change
go through tonight. Public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Movius if the zoning were to be approved and pushed onto City
Council at this meeting would it get the infrastructure and services needed to this project any
faster. Mr. Movius responded in the negative stating that it would not pull infrastructure out to it
without the other projects going in first. Commissioner Tkac confirmed, with Mr. Movius, that this
project is about 1 mile away from any current development and wanted to know if in the
southwest this is something that has been done before, Mr. Movius replied in the affirmative.
That being said what would be the soonest possible time that building can commence once this
project is approved, and staff responded at least 2 and 5 years. Is this common modus operandi
of a developer that wants to get property bought into with residential zoning, staff responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Spencer stated that the Sphere of Influence does not indicate that you can
develop prematurely and it only offers up a protection barrier, it is not a statute to where it
influences development but protects the urban structure of development. This proposal is
isolated form other urban developments, inaccessible, lacks infrastructure and is premature
based on other developments in the area and does not justify the zoning proposed. Many studies
done on drainage and open space, mainly called the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan and
Drainage Areas are not addressed in the staff report or submitted by the developers, engineers
or anyone else.
Commissioner Blockley confirmed, through staff, that the annexation process would require
these zone changes, if not necessary then highly desirable, prior to annexation, staff responded
in the affirmative and explained that when annexations are taken to LAFCO the City provides
them with Pre-Zoning and EIR documents and it is then considered for annexation. Staff further
explained that there is a 2 year period after annexation that you cannot change the zone so it is
preferable to get that in place before taking it to LAFCO. Commissioner Blockey stated his
understanding that the motivation for taking this action now is to take 2 years off the time it would
take to develop a property, meaning paying 2 years less in property taxes on property that is
basically fallow, staff agreed. He asked staff if the conditions in the staff report deal with actions
and payments that will be required after the annexation takes place, to which staff replied
affirmative. Public Works condition 12b, on page 3, requires a comprehensive drainage study
and references the Breckenridge Master study, is this different than what the other
Commissioners mentioned earlier, staff responded they are the same. Is there a way to ensure
that we don’t end up with drainage issues on this project, staff replied that the drainage study will
have to reflect pre and post development conditions that include the interim facilities to prevent
any downstream or upstream flooding over and above what exists there today and this is taken
care of. Are the cultural mitigation measures referenced in the staff report adequate to meet
David Dominquez’s request, staffs response was that from the City’s prospect those are
adequate mitigations for the project. The City required training, basically tailgate sessions to
inform people what is out there which goes above and beyond what we have done in the past.
The City relies on Archeological Inventory, as the professional locally, to give us information as
well as the Native American Groups through Senate Bill 18 which requires us to consult the
applicant but other than a consultation there is not a requirement that we have a monitor on site
and the current training is adequate.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 5
Commissioner McGinnis stated that the biggest minus for this project is that it can’t stand on it’s
own and we are making suppositions that once we get a couple more subdivisions in we can put
paved streets in and it is so far removed from a paved road that there is nothing the applicant
could do right now even if the zoning was approved.
Commissioner Tragish stated that his biggest concerns are the traffic, the infrastructure and the
roads to no where, this is an opportunity to maintain the rural nature of the area. For example if
you take the homes to be built in the Riverview project and figure a husband and wife each have
a car that’s 5,000 cars, then if they have children that is a potential for 7,000 to 7,500 cars and
the same will be true for the Watermark project, plus a huge amount of congestion. Another
concern is an enormous amount of buildup in the project area and once a project is approved like
this then the rest of the area tends to succumb to similar approvals. Commissioner Tragish
explained that in regards to the zoning to the south of this project it is not comparable to the
zoning potentianaly beneath it, Mr. McIntosh said the zoning was suburban, rural and residential
and those lots are substantially bigger than the one’s proposed in this 60 acres, 300 lots.
Tragish expressed his agreement that this area should remain zoned agricultural/rural for the
time being and possibly this project be moved somewhere where it would be more appreciated.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the SR requirements and if it allows for the use of animals
on that property, staff responded that the general plan does not have a restriction on animals, the
SR allows zoning down to a 10,000 sq. ft. lot so you could have zoning in that designation that
does not allow animals. Commissioner Johnson explains that changing this to R-1 is very
different to what is around this project currently and asks in relationship to secondary access was
that addressed to which Commissioner Lomas explained it was addressed in a last minute
memo. Regarding the agricultural issues Commissioner Johnson didn’t see a lot of required
setbacks or a covenant regarding the rural nature of the surrounding areas, is there an ordinance
that requires certain setbacks because of so many different zonings surrounding this. Staff
explained that zoning regulations and lot size restriction require setbacks and lot depths but on
the south side is an arterial so you won’t have to abide by the condition, but on the east and
northern side you would have to abide by this, staff referenced a condition in the staff report that
deals with notification about agriculture around the project. Commissioner Johnson suggested
that by putting a PUD on this project we can require the applicant to come back in the future and
maybe by then growth would have reached this project and at that time we would have a clearer
view of the Watermark project.
Commissioner Lomas asked if this project was approved today could the applicant build 300
homes, staff responded yes. Mr. McIntosh described the “P” parcels as parks in tonight’s
presentation, at Monday’s pre-meeting they were described as drainage basins which is it, staff
responded that in the Breckenridge master study they are shown as drainage basins but that
doesn’t preclude their use as park areas because there are other basins that can be used but
currently these “P” designations are basins. Commissioner Lomas addressed Commissioner
Johnson’s idea of a PUD, she has a problem with the idea because the commission has never
sees the Watermark project and a square mile looks like it could greatly affect what this project
looks like and to determine a residential usage is premature, in this case she does not agree.
This project would make sense if Watermark were already developed but it’s not and directing
her question to staff she asks just because a project is started does it always complete which
staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Lomas states her greatest concerns are police
and fire protection, where is the closest fire station or police department and where is the closest
Transportation Impact Fee project in that area, to which staff responded Comanche which is
many miles away. The closest paved road is Breckenridge ½ mile away then to go north, west
or east is over a mile away and Breckenridge has no mechanism to be funded for expansion to
handle more traffic and until this is on the project list I can’t see any reason for us to approve
more intensive zoning.
Commissioner Blockley points out that there is one huge difference with this project than other
projects and that is it has no intensive agriculture where a lot in the projects in the southwest do
and this is a textbook case that this is a better place to develop than prime farmland.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 6
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to deny the General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change #06-0494.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: Blockley
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to deny the clients
Negative Declaration to change the zone from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Single Family Residence)
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: Blockley
6.2a General Plan Amendment 06-1662 (Mark Davis)
Heard on consent.
6.2b Zone Change 06-1662 (Mark Davis)
Heard on consent.
6.3a General Plan Amendment 06-1689 (Marino Associates)
Heard on consent.
6.3b Zone Change 06-1689 (Marino Associates)
Heard on consent.
6.4a General Plan Amendment 06-1698 (Adavco Inc.)
Public hearing open, staff report given. David Dominguez spoke in favor and explains that his
concern is not for the project, he does not pick sides either way, it is for protection of sites that
haven’t been previously identified.
Louise Palmer with Adavco, Inc. spoke in favor and is in agreement with staff’s recommendation
and will be available for questions and states a traffic study was not done because there is a
reduction in traffic for the project.
Ian Parks with Rutgers & Schuler Civil Engineers spoke in favor. He explained that he prepared
the traffic study for the zone change project but explains that the GPA is decreasing 15 acres
from commercial to residential designation. Parcel A is the parcel to the west that is downgrading
15 acres and the other site is 15 acres going from General Commercial to Low Density
Residential. The parcel to the east is a total of 39 acres, some is already general plan
commercial, some is low density residential which would be asking for a GPA to go to all
commercial and be one contiguous site, the breakdown is 39 acres, 15.3 acres existing
commercial, 23.4 acres that will be going from residential to commercial. The net increase is
approximately 8 acres going from residential to commercial meaning 67% less traffic than the
original studies shows. With putting the two sites together the TRIPS that could happen from
one side to the other could be reduced, be hard to quantify it, but could reduce them on Seventh
Standard Road. The scope of the study was determined with the use of Kern COG model
information for the site, the intersection and roadway mitigations that this project will pay into
through both the local and regional mitigation program.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 7
Commissioner Lomas interjected that this isn’t really what she felt they would be looking at, this
is considered a down zone and she understood these to be linked and this is not what Mr. Parks
is saying. Mr. Parks is geared to deal with increase in traffic and that is what he is showing us.
The connection between the two is that they have the same applicant and one parcel is
downgrading and one is upgrading, the upgrade is approximately 8 acres net. There on TRIPS
generated from both sites and the two parcels together reduce local TRIPS. Staff commented
that in fairness to Mr. Parks, the tradeoff was not based on a traffic issue it was based on a
planning issue, when the applicant first approached the City they wanted to enlarge the
commercial site on the corner and from a planning standpoint there is a lot of commercial on
different parts of Seventh Standard Road and we could not support an enlargement without a
very good reason. Upon further discussion with the applicant they discovered that they own
about 15 acres on the corner of Old Farm Road and Seventh Standard Road so we asked if they
would give up that commercial in order to provide this project, they agreed to do that. So
Commissioner Lomas confirmed that they are not linked together and is possible that the other
one could be denied, staff responded yes and Mr. Parks continued on with his presentation on
roadway mitigation improvements of particular concern along Seventh Standard Road has
funding from the TRIP program is in place and will start construction in a year. Public Hearing is
closed.
Commissioner Blockley stated that the TRIP funded portions of Seventh Standard stops short of
Hwy 99, how is Hwy 99 and the Seventh Standard interchange going to be upgraded. Staff
responded they have has a slide presentation that will further explain this question as well as
funding issues. Commissioner Blockley with respect to the downgrade and with what Chair
Lomas brought up what is the possibility of this application being approved and the latter being
denied, would an appeal to City Council would that have the effect of mitigation on our decision,
staff responded that the City Council has a separate hearing so they are not bound by the
Planning Commissions vote, the applicant could end up withdrawing the project and then you
would have 2 commercial corners.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he spoke to Annette & Art Davis at the break and confirmed
with staff that we are actually hearing items 6.4a, 6.4b, 6.5a & 6.5b is that correct, staff confirmed
rd
that only 6.4a is being heard currently. Commissioner Tragish referred to an April 3 memo and
asked if the slide show mentioned would be presented tonight, staff confirmed yes. I would like
the Seventh Standard road issue to be resolved, he stated that he has read the memos and they
state there is money for it and it is going to be funded, then they say there isn’t funding for it, how
far is it going to go, what is going to happen with Shafter. Commissioner Lomas interjected and
said this is getting confusing and confirmed that what is currently before the commission is 6.4
and it is a downgrade meaning the traffic is going lower than its current usage and the concern is
the next item which is where the traffic will increase. As a question to Commissioner Tragish,
Commissioner Lomas stated that the applicant should do their presentation on the next item and
staff is more prepared for the next item because it justifies the traffic items that their trying to get
for that item, does that make sense. Commissioner Tragish answered in the negative, in his
opinion this project is going to build out residential homes and the downgrade or upgrade is not
what he is concerned with. He is concerned with the impact it will have on Seventh Standard
Road and wants to know what their going to build, and what the City is going build out on
Seventh Standard, which is his question for the next item so let’s hear it right now and he called
Ethan Parks to the podium. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Parks what his understanding is of
Seventh Standard road being made into a freeway, does he know that they are putting that in for
a fact in a year or two and what is the premise that he is basing his analysis on. He replied that
his basis is on a presentation that staff is going to present, Ms. Shaw stated that the City is going
to put in Seventh Standard in the next two years and that Seventh Standard road is almost fully
funded and has 3 projects, one is under construction now, one starts in August of this year and
the last phase will start in 2008 and the funding comes from Separation of Grade Funds, STIP
funds and Thomas Roads money, it will extend from Wings Way to Santa Fe Way.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he listened to the pre-meeting and there is some confusion on
conditions that the applicant is approving their frontage on Seventh Standard road to arterial
standards, then it says freeway standards and the impression he gets is that the city is going to
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 8
come in and put in 3 lanes and then will put in 1 lane, what is the applicant responsible for doing
in conjunction with the freeway. Ms. Shaw responded that Seventh Standard Road is not
designated as a freeway it is a designated as an expressway, they are required to do whatever
they have to do prior to construction. If they begin construction prior to the joint project putting
the additional lanes on Seventh Standard road they would have to do the entire half of the
roadway, which would include the median, 3 lanes, a shoulder, curb, gutter, sidewalk and
landscaping. If they come in and do their project after the joint project is complete then they
would only be responsible for 1 lane, the shoulder, curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
Commissioner Tragish asked how many projects we have fronting on Seventh Standard road
currently. Commissioner Lomas interjected that Ms. Shaw has a presentation that will answer all
of Commissioner Tragish’s questions and asked that Ms. Shaw do her presentation now. Ms.
Shaw stated that this presentation is an updated version of a joint City/County meeting and is an
outline of the Seventh Standard road project. The project includes a railroad over crossing at
Santa Fe Way and a widening of the whole stretch, another railroad crossing and an interchange
at Fwy 99. The funding sources are through a joint agencies agreement with the City of
Bakersfield, the City of Shafter, the County of Kern and Separation of Grade District, there are
State section 190 grade separation funds, the railroads are expected to make contributions to
each of those grade separations, there’s also funding from the State Traffic Congestion Relief
Program as well as the State Transportation Improvement program, Cal Trans, SHOP, funds,
and Thomas Improvement monies or TRIP program. Phase 1(already under construction)
estimated cost is 4.6 million, Phase 2 (begins in August) and the estimated cost is 24 million,
Phase 3 (beings in the fall 2008) and the estimated cost is 50 million and all phases now have
environmental clearance.
Commissioner Tragish asked staff if the City of Shafter is following our provisions on their side of
the roadway and how many projects the City of Bakersfield currently has fronting Seventh
Standard Road, staff replied that the City of Shafter is currently following our provision and the
frontage is rapidly filling with projects.
Commissioner McGinnis confirmed that Phase 1 ties into Wings Way and should be through this
month, to which staff responded they were unsure. If this applicant chose to start this project
soon then he would be required to build out up to expressway standards along the full frontage of
the project. Commissioner McGinnis confirmed that funding was almost 99% assured and staff
replied in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis asked the applicant to respond to a question,
Louise Palmer representing Adavco approached the podium, and was asked if there is a reason
her client would want to speed things up on this project, she replied that they want to be annexed
into the City and that LAFCO will not allow projects into an urban city unless it has urban
designation.
Commissioner Johnson addressed the issue of giving the public an idea of what an expressway
is and compare it to how it is not Rosedale Hwy. Staff replied that an expressway has 6 lanes
and a median and differs from an arterial in that access onto the street is severely restricted.
There is a condition on all Seventh Standard Road projects that says full access is allowed at ½
mile intervals only and no driveways or local streets onto Seventh Standard Road from
residential areas. The only way driveways will be allowed is in a commercial area if they add an
auxiliary lane, so instead of 3 lanes you have 4 and the extra lane functions as a right turn lane.
Is Seventh Standard Road still going to be named as an alternate State route for 58 and does
the expressway standards meet the requirements for Cal Trans so that traffic can be diverted to
this expressway. Staff replied in the affirmative and referred Commissioner Johnson to an April
rd
3 memo that explains his question further, however once these 3 phases are complete is when
Cal Trans will look at designating Seventh Standard road as Hwy 58.
Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Movius if the process of getting the annexation and preparing
a tract map generally exceed the fall 2008 schedule of the improvement to Seventh Standard
road, Mr. Movius replied in the affirmative. Steve Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer
responded to Commissioner Blockley’s question of an example of an express like roadway and
stated that Truxtun Extension is a super collector, Taft Hwy and Panama Road are expressway
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 9
standard also there is Alfred Harrell Hwy which is similar to an expressway because of the
extremely limited access as required on Seventh Standard Road. Commissioner Johnson
nd
confirmed that the April 2 memo ensures that the city is complying and the applicant will be
complying with all necessary laws.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt the resolution to
make findings, approving negative declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium
Residential) on approximately 15 acres shown on exhibit A-2 and incorporate an April 2, 2007
thrdrd
Planning memo, a March 29 Planning memo, an April 3 Planning memo and an April 3 Public
Works memo and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley , Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: None
6.4b Zone Change 06-1698 (Adavco Inc.)
Heard on consent
6.5a General Plan Amendment 06-1699 (Adavco, Inc.)
6.5b Zone Change 06-1699 (Adavco, Inc.)
Public hearing open, staff report given. Sheila Lake spoke in opposition. Ms. Lake lives on
Mustang and she stated that this project is premature and feels that Seventh Standard Road
should be widened first. Her other concern is that Seventh Standard will never be expanded and
we need the roads widened.
Susan Castro spoke in opposition. Ms. Castro lives on Stallion Way on the north side of the
street and stated her concern is the zoning from C-1 to C-2 and feels the current zoning she stay
in place.
Guy Fortwright spoke in opposition. Mr. Fortwright lives on the corner of Seventh Standard and
Stallion Way and stated his concern is this plan is premature and understands that Seventh
Standard Road is only supposed to be 4 lanes in a hopscotch manner. He spoke to the County
roads director earlier in the day and he was told that this project is not scheduled to bid until late
summer so there is no way we can have this going in August. So he feels that when the phases
are done then come back and get the zoning that they want.
Kenneth Wells spoke in opposition. Mr. Wells lives off of Seventh Standard Road and Mustang
Way and requests that this area not be impacted any more than it already is, there are already 2
new projects going in which will be bringing in a lot more traffic.
Greg Honiger spoke in opposition. Mr. Honiger lives at 10475 Canagaugh and there have been
several meetings held with the City of Shafter and his neighborhood in which they were told that
there is a project that is going to switch from the north side of Seventh Standard Road up to
Calloway and then switch to the south side and the reason for that is there are power lines
currently on the south side of Seventh Standard. So there will be an arterial that will go on the
south side and the reason the median is 22 foot wide is there are 6 underground gas pipelines.
Mr. Honiger’s main concern is the zoning and C-2 is not appropriate for commercial residential
area.
Holly Sinonovich spoke in opposition. Ms. Sinonovich lives on Marcier east of Calloway. Ms.
Sinonovich is concerned about the local school having access to C-2 type businesses and feels
it is unacceptable.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 10
David Dominguez spoke in opposition. He wanted clarification on Cultural Resource issues and
re-submitted the same concerns he had before.
Louise Palmer with Adavco, Inc. spoke in favor. Adavco is in agreement with staff’s
recommendation. Ms. Palmer states that the overall impact of this project is to combine the two
smaller parcels into one single large commercial project. The size of the original parcel was 15
acres, 700 feet in depth and did not give enough of a setback from the adjacent residential. This
project will allow for access from the residential uses and allow for a good commercial project. A
study, prepared by Charles Letzer & Company, analyzed competitive, similar commercial within
a 10 miles radius of the site and analyzed if the market was consistent with the this project. The
study determined that the anticipated growth would provide approximately 3,143 new households
in its vicinity and that there is a current and future demand for commercial growth in this area.
Adavco feels with the construction of the Seventh Standard expressway some of these concerns
will be alleviated. For the property to be developed this project has to be annexed into the city
which takes about 9 months and after that they would have to go through a PCD Planning
review. Public hearing closed.
Commission McGinnis asked staff if Seventh Standard is going to expressway standards and
would the same conditions apply to 6.5 as to 6.4 as well as the funding, staff responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired at to what happens at Santa Fe Way, Steve
Walker stated that there will be an interchange there, a railroad crossing, and this is funded by
the City not the State.
Commissioner Blockley asked Ms. Shaw if we got confirmation that the widening of Seventh
Standard in the Phase 3 portion is to be initially 4 lanes because of the median, staff responded
no. This question is for Mr. Movius based on the cost of developing and putting in the required
improvements for general commercial use would it not be economically feasible to develop that
project as a PCD for any low intensity use which can be associated with a C-2 zone, Mr. Movius
responded in the affirmative. Is an expressway somewhere between a 6 lane arterial and a 4
lane freeway in terms of capacity, staff responded that it is equal to what a 4 lane freeway would
be, a level service C, which allows up to 60,000 vehicles. Commissioner Blockley confirmed that
this is for a fully built out expressway to which staff responded yes that this would be a 6 lane
expressway as opposed to a 6 lane arterial.
Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Palmer to step to the podium. His question is that in her
presentation she went through examples of possible tenants they will allow and the uses seem to
be consistent with a C-1 zoning, so why can’t you operate under a C-1 zoning. Ms. Palmer
responded more regional commercial, larger grocery stores and we wanted the flexibility to have
that type of tenant as opposed to the limitation of a C-1. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if
Seventh Standard out past Santa Fe Way will be tying into the West Beltway, staff responded in
the affirmative. Is there any objection to what will happen past Santa Fe Way as far as
development goes, staff responded that the County has urban designations west of that and the
owner of Rosedale Ranch, Mr. Gardener, will most likely try to annex into the City to develop
west of there. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there would be a change in that if Seventh
Standard became Hwy 58, would Cal Trans develop that, staff responded that an answer cannot
be given at this time.
Commissioner Johnson wanted to clarify that there are ordinances that require certain C-2
businesses not to be so close to the neighboring schools, in this case Norris School, staff
responded in the affirmative and that the residential setbacks would be a problem for them
because they do not meet the criteria for that type of business. Commissioner Johnson asked
about a jog in the road on Seventh Standard and asked where that was, staff responded that the
specific plan line for Seventh Standard road does not go straight but it does follow all standards
with regards to design of roadways at that speed, Commissioner Johnson confirmed that the
speed limit will be 55 on this road and if there is a curvature in the road that this will not present a
problem with Cal Trans when or if Seventh Standard Road does become an expressway, staff
responded in the affirmative. In regards to Kenneth Wells question regarding Seventh Standard
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 11
Commissioner Johnson asked staff how driveways that are currently fronting this road are going
to be dealt with if Seventh Standard is converted to a road way that does not allow this, Steve
Walker, Public Works Engineer, stated that these driveways would be grandfathered in and
accommodations made to existing locations but should they ever sell or upgrade they would then
be required to adhere to the new standards. Mr. Movius interjected to explain that the County of
Kern used to allow residences to front arterial alignments and a lot of the property that the City
annex’s has this type of situation that need to be dealt with and that it is not unusual. Are their
ways when new development within the City of Bakersfield or the City of Shafter to condition for
deceleration lanes with regards to access to the driveways either on this property or the property
next to it that is zoned R-R which is the general plan designation, staff responded that currently
this property is in the County and the County engineers are not present to answer that question
and the City can not make assumptions in this matter. Commissioner Johnson referenced a
memo written by City Manager Alan Tandy on April 5, 2007 in which he talks about the joint City
of Bakersfield/County of Kern meeting recently held and in solution No. 3 he references when
developments come into the City we need to be sure that they pay an extra fair share and as an
example he used the West Ming project requiring the West Beltway in which he wrote “the
requirement needs to be an adopted policy of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and the City
of Shafter for the north side of Seventh Standard Road” so how can we not be aware of what the
City of Shafter required or what their standards are how can the City of Bakersfield take a holistic
look at this project and tell the public this is what is planned. Staff confirmed that the City of
Shafter is using the same conditioning that we are for their side of Seventh Standard Road in
regards to full access at ½ mile intervals however we are not sure what they are planning on
auxiliary lanes or deceleration lanes. Commissioner Johnson commended the condition that
puts the road way on all sides of the general commercial C-2 because it allows more access to
the property and relieves the traffic congestion on Calloway and Seventh Standard Road.
Commissioner Johnson asked about Norris school and traffic in this area, Ethan Parks came to
podium and responded that the SE corner of Snow and Calloway was addressed in the traffic
report but Mr. Parks requested additional time to research it. Commissioner Johnson confirmed
with staff when looking at Seventh Standard, in regards to Phase 3, there is no designation to get
existing right of way to alleviate some of the driveways north of Seventh Standard, staff
responded she wasn’t sure because she isn’t involved directly with the project but as a general
rule the existing driveways will remain unless someone goes by and purchases the access
rights.
Commissioner Tkac commented that the concerns with the C-2 zoning is that questionable
businesses could be brought in when the residents around this project want to prevent this type
of business, because there is PCD is it within our jurisdiction to say what applications would be
allowed, staff responded that we can control the design but not the tenants to fill the buildings
because we have ordinances that control this. Commissioner Tkac asked staff to give examples
of expressways within the city that have residential frontages, staff responded that the northwest
is where you find stretches of streets where you have arterial roadway with high speeds and
houses fronting on it like Brimhall.
Commissioner Lomas stressed to the public that development of commercial comes after
rooftops it’s got to support the neighborhood, she stated that her concern is what the uses for
this commercial development is and she recalled a letter from one of the residents, Susie Castro,
who listed the types of businesses the residents do not want. Susie Castro stated she feels the
reason the applicant wants a C-2 zoning is because they need to fill the 38 acres and a C-2
zoning gives them more options than the current zoning of C-1. Commissioner Lomas stated to
the applicant that she is looking for ways to condition uses that are objectionable to
neighborhoods, Annette Davis with Adavco approached the podium and asked to be conditioned
in order to prevent adult bookstores, funeral homes etc. Commissioner Lomas explained that a
C-2 zoning is not necessarily what the applicant wants but it allows them latitude in financing
because C-2 is worth more than C-1.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 12
Commissioner Blockley asked about traffic generated from driveways into the project in regards
to the median proposed to the expressway and would it interrupt the ability of the residents to
make left turns in and out of driveways, staff responded affirmatively meaning they would not be
able to make left hand turns however they would be able to make u-turns at the ½ mile mark.
Could it be arranged with the county for a frontage road similar to what’s on Manor north of
China Grade Loop, staff responded they were not sure. Commissioner Blockley stated that what
he liked about this proposal is the mention of local streets which would bound the west and south
corners and he asks staff if that requires a block wall on those boundaries because of the
commercial, staff replied that it depends on how they are laid out but yes they would be required.
Would the big box ordinance apply to this project to which staff responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Lomas stated that Mr. Movius confirmed the GPA cycle could be dealt with tonight
and the zone change continued to a later date in which she wants to encourage that to the other
Commissioners which enables the residents to go through and make a list of what they consider
objectionable and submit them to staff to bring back at a later date.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he feels that we should proceed as staff has recommended
and regarding the C-2 zoning in limiting the uses in advance is a dangerous road to travel on and
he feels we shouldn’t get involved in the economics of the project and the applicant is
compromising away their rights and feels that there are ordinances that play into what the
residences want to limit.
nd
Commissioner Johnson asked about the April 2 memo regarding the cultural, archaeological
and mitigation measures do they it address the concerns and meet by law the legal requirements
required by the city, staff responded affirmatively. Commissioner Johnson asked Ethan Parks to
return back to the podium regarding the streets in front of Norris school and they all currently
operate at level C or above which is appropriate, as they are today in the future they could
deteriate to a level F but we can mitigate to get them to level service C or better, there is regional
transportation fee program covers all the roadway signal costs intersections at the location
around the school. Mr. Walker responded to Commissioner Johnson question of safety concerns
in front of school, the city addresses incidents with the school district which is an ongoing
process and is not specific to each school. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that the health
and safety concerns have been adequately covered in this project and Mr. Walker replied in the
affirmative. Commissioner Johnson explained that according to the traffic study that by 2026 or
2030 there is going to be a commercial deficiency in the area so this project is a benefit and
secondly the funding that is secured for Seventh Standard road is only for 2 lanes at this time for
Phase 3, staff responded yes, so this project, when it goes in, provides the benefit of providing a
third lane to improve traffic flow on Seventh Standard Road.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt the resolution to
make findings, approving negative declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Residential) to General Commercial on
10.6 and SR (Suburban Residential) to General Commercial on 12.85 acres shown on exhibit A-
2 and incorporate an April 2, 2007 Planning memo to add cultural and archaeological mitigation,
a April 2, 2007 Planning memo to remove NOR conditions, an March 30, 2007 Public Works
regarding drainage and April 3, 2007 Public Works regarding additional traffic mitigation adding
to the GPA a condition having a PCD overlay that the city shall have the ability to limit uses
through conditions of approval and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley , Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: None
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to continue to April 19,
zone change 06-1699.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 13
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley , Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer,
NAYS: Commissioners: Tragish, Tkac
Commissioner Lomas asks Commissioner Tragish if he would like to speak about his vote to
which Commissioner Tragish responded that he feels the commission is micromanaging this item
and there was adequate information to approve it tonight, he stated that he doesn’t recall this
being done for any other major retail development. Commissioner Tkac concurred with
Commissioner Tragish.
6.6a General Plan Amendment 06-2198 (Danco Development)
6.6b Zone Change 06-2198 (Danco Development)
Public hearing open, staff report given. Sherri Minetti spoke in opposition and submitted a copy
of a letter dated March 30, 2007 to which she read into the record. She expressed concerns
about drainage on the north side of Niles where water runs into the basin and overflows into the
orchards and traffic during school hours.
Mike Nelson, Project Manager for Danco Development, spoke in favor. Mr. Nelson stated that
they are proposing a much less intensive development than what it currently is and in reference
to the drainage there is a planned sump to the south of the property and it is a City owned sump
located along the alignment to Brentwood Drive and the fees we pay into would be supporting
that planned drainage area. Traffic is specifically laid out to allow pedestrian access to the school
that’s to the east. Public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he spoke to Sherri & Dick Minetti and stated that the culvert
runs from the north side of Niles directly under Niles to the south and as a result brings drainage
from the north down to the south, Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the drainage requirement
that happens on this GPA/Zone Change will create a wall that will address that drainage
problem. Staff responded that this particular project is in the Pioneer Planned Drainage area
which extends from Niles street north to Highland Knolls and the terminal basin is the sump to
the south and all storm water will end up in the sump and yes it could be considered a wall to
storm water and nothing north of Niles Street will end up in the culvert. In regards to the
agricultural use to the south of Niles could there be a covenant for the existing life of the Minetti’s
Anxious Acers to enable disclosure of the agricultural use. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr.
Walker to approach the podium and inquired with this development, if approved, are there
enough existing ordinances to ensure the health and safety of the schools that surround this
project. Sherri Minetti approached the podium and spoke in regards to not only the school
children but the 2 way stop at Park and Niles Street and traffic accidents. Commissioner
Johnson asked staff about this intersection and what the future holds for it, Mr. Walker stated
that this intersection is in the County, not the City, and we have no information other than rumors
of consideration of a traffic signal. Mr. Movius added that this tract will help with the health and
safety of pedestrians trying to get to the school by giving them a route that is not involving Niles
street.
Mr. Nelson with Danco Development asked for clarification on the letter from Public Works, first
being acquiring an easement across So Cal and 60 feet what is suggested about connecting
over to Franklin, one of his concern’s is the alignment with Willis and feels that an alignment with
Azalea might be a better choice, staff responded that Azalea is a straight shot from Fairfax over
to Morning and may encourage speeding. Another concern is with acquiring the easement with
So Cal he stated he is not having much cooperation and he doesn’t want to accept the current
condition and not being able to acquire the easement, staff stated that she could get Mr. Nelson
in touch with the engineer in Public Works that was able to acquire an easement but Mr. Nelson
expressed again his concern for a condition that will help in obtaining this easement, staff stated
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 14
that there is a standard condition that allows for the use of eminent domain in circumstances
similar to this and this condition can be placed on this project stating that if the developer cannot
obtain the right of way then he enters into an agreement with the City of Bakersfield to obtain
eminent domain. Mr. Nelson asked about entering into an agreement with the City to construct
Brentwood Drive and wanted clarification on the actual design and engineering for that extension
of Brentwood Drive and he wanted to clarify would the City be doing the engineering and would
we be constructing it or is the obligation for the engineering on our part as well, staff responded
they are not sure because they don’t’ know what their intent is.
Commissioner Johnson wanted to confirm the request to put a covenant on this property in
notifying the future buyers that they are near agriculture uses and wants to know if this is
compatible with the City’s currents policies, staff responded that because of the buffer already in
existence there is no need for a covenant.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution to
make findings, approving negative declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to LMR on 11.18 and as
shown on Exhibit A-2 and incorporate the memo’s referenced in Planning Director’s. Jim Movius’
opening statements to the Planning Commission and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley , Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: None
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution to
make findings, approving negative declaration and approving the zone change from Planned Unit
Development to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 11.18 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2
incorporating the memo’s referenced in Planning Director’s, Jim Movius’ opening statements to
the Planning Commissioner and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley , Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: None
6.7 General Plan Amendment 06-2290 (City of Bakersfield)
Public hearing is open, staff report given.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt the resolution to
make findings, approving notice of exemption and approving the General Plan Amendment to
incorporate the land use and circulation changes approved by the County of Kern and the City of
Shafter as shown on Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Commissioners: None
6.8 General Plan Amendment 07-0246 (City of Bakersfield)
Heard on consent.
Planning Commission-
Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 – 12:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting – April 5, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Page 15
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
Reminder ofJoint City/County meeting Monday night at 5:30pm in the Board of Supervisors Chambers.
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
9. ADJOURNMENT:10:58pm
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
May 7, 2007