HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-07 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regular Meeting – June 21, 2007 – 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish
Absent:
Commissioners Johnson, Tkac
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Andrea Salvage and Carla Nelson indicated they will speak during the regular agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a
Approval of minutes for regular Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2007 &
Special Joint City County Meeting of April 9, 2007.
Commissioner Andrews moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the
Non-Public Consent Calendar items.
Commissioner Andrews indicated that he met with the developer on 5.1(d) to get their
perspective as he is a new commissioner.
Motion carried by group vote.
Commissioner Blockley disclosed that he met with Castle & Cooke to discuss the item
on the West Ming project.
It was noted that Commissioner Tkac arrived at 5:35pm. He stated that he listened to
the tape and that he met with Castle & Cooke.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Referral of General Plan Amendment 06-1662 Back to Staff (Mark Davis)
4.2b Referral of Zone Change 06-1662 Back to Staff (Mark Davis)
4.3a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering)
4.3b Approval of Zone Change 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering)
4.3c Approval of Planned Unit Development 07-0145 -- Preliminary Development Plans
(San Joaquin Engineering)
4.4a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2275 (Marino & Associates)
4.4b Approval of Zone Change 06-2275 (Marino & Associates)
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 2
The public hearing is opened. Staff indicated that in light of the speaker cards from the
audience it would be appropriate to pull 4.4a and 4.4b off the consent calendar. The
public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the
public hearing items on the consent calendar with the exception of 4.4a and 4.4b.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Kern River Plan Elements
Amendment /Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes
5.1a West Ming Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 03-1544 (Castle &
Cooke) (Ward 4 & 5)
5.1b General Plan Amendment 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke)
5.1c Adoption of the West Ming Specific Plan (Castle & Cooke)
5.1d Zone Change 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Craig Pope with the Kern County Road
Department stated Castle & Cooke puts together a very good development, but it is a very large
development where the transportation infrastructure is not in place yet. He stated they have been
working closely with City Staff to figure out the mitigation proposed by Castle & Cooke and up to
this point there is no plan to do this. He pointed out they are proposing to pay the impact fee or
mitigate and it is unknown what this means and there are concerns with the mitigation.
Earl Norcross with Kern Bicycle Club stated he works with CalTrans on their projects to
accommodate bicyclists and cyclists and this project is a very desirable project to accommodate
cyclists. He stated he can’t speak to Mr. Pope’s concerns, but it does tie in with the bicycle lane.
Bruce Freeman, President of Castle & Cooke, stated this project is extensively amenitized and
extensively master planned. He pointed out the EIR provides exhaustive responses to all
comments, including comments from the County, Buena Vista shrew, city water supplies, traffic
and every imaginable thing. He stated this is the most studied project in the history of
Bakersfield. He commented that the West Ming Plan is an expansion of the existing Seven Oaks
community which has proven demand for the last decade. He stated they only have two years
left to build out what was a 20 year plan. He also commented that the infrastructure has already
been brought to the edge of the project, including the construction of the arterials on the west
side. He stated that the area is really now an in-fill project and is perhaps the most walkable
community ever proposed in California, pointing out that there’s 14 miles of walking trails, as well
as sidewalks and there are close to 200 acres of parks planned in addition to the 56 acre public
parks, including a 25 acre private park open to the public and a six acre lake open to the public.
He also stated there is approximately 100 acres of pocket parks and lakes which provides for
about 10% being open space. Mr. Freeman stated that this project has mitigated all impacts to
less than significant with mitigation for traffic, including a special mitigation over and above the
traffic fees which will exceed $50 million dollars for this project, of an additional four to five million
costs added above the traffic impact fees for construction of two lanes of the west beltway, which
is unprecedented for any project in Bakersfield. Mr. Freeman went on to state that they have
mitigated the air quality for all of the pollution that will ever be generated from this project over
the life before they even start the project. He reiterated that this is a specific plan committing to
all of the amenities, infrastructure on a specific time table so there is never any doubt when a
park, trail or road will be built.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 3
Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh and Associates, representing Castle & Cooke, provided an e-mail
from Mark Lamberg from the City’s Water Resource Department clarifying that all of the run-off
water will go into retention basins on the project site which eventually will seep into the ground
water and act to recharge the ground water basin. Mr. McIntosh responded to Mr. Pope’s
th
allegation that there is no plan, by referencing a letter dated April 5 from Alan Tandy, outlining
the Staff’s recommendations on highway funding and planning issues. He pointed out that the
letter goes through a series of funding sources for the next 20 years, outlining the TRIP project
which provides for $727 million dollars available for a number of different projects. He stated this
letter also discusses the CTC augmenting the West Side Parkway funding of $322 million, as
well as having right-of-way for the West Beltway dedicated by certain developers that develop
within two miles of the West Beltway and this current project is the first project where this
developer has agreed to dedicate initial right-of-way, but also to construct two lanes of the
beltway. Mr. McIntosh also pointed out that Mr. Tandy’s letter discusses an increase in the TIF
that Kern COG and the City are currently working on that would raise about $450 to $550 million
over the next 20 years. He stated that STIF allocations for the next 20 years are estimated to be
$314 million and state bond issues through local and state partnerships could raise another $66
million. In addition ½ cent sales tax has the potential of raising $550 million, as well as inner
regional state funds for the South Beltway to connect 58 to I-5 and implement alternate number
15 there is $950 million available. Mr. McIntosh stated the total potential revenue for all of these
actions totals up to about 3.5 billion dollars. He pointed out that the SW is the only part of town
where there is infrastructure, pointing out that you can drive from Highway 99 all the way out to
this project. He submitted the e-mail and a letter for the record.
Phil Gaskill, with Gaskill Custom Homes, stated that Castle and Cooke have kept the standard
high which helps the city. He stated that the master plan concept is what organizations are
discussing to help with air quality. He further pointed out that the east side is struggling due to
lack of master planning. He commented that he really doesn’t know what “green builder” means,
but as far as he knows Castle & Cooke is the only “green builder,” pointing out that Castle &
Cooke is thinking of the future.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Stanley disclosed that he has met with Castle & Cooke for informational reasons.
He stated that after reviewing all of the documents he has a high comfort level with all that has
been presented.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he did not meet with Castle & Cooke and that he felt that the
information presented the first time was very much indepth and satisfied all of his questions. He
stated that he supports this project.
Commissioner Tragish referenced the Grand Jury’s position stating that it is difficult to see inside
these different administrative positions and that the people in these positions take their jobs very
seriously. He commented that while he respects what Mr. Pope does for the County, he
somewhat disagrees with Mr. Pope’s comments. Commissioner Tragish stated he realizes there
are two positions on the issue of development with one group stating there is not enough money
to complete the West Side Parkway or the West Beltway and therefore there should be no
development, which makes no sense because it is saying that you build nothing until you have all
your money and the all the roads and sewer is in. He pointed out that many times you can’t do
that in advance and that you have to do it simultaneously or concurrent with the development
with the developers paying as you go. He stated if it wasn’t done this way taxes would be double
or triple what they are right now. Commissioner Tragish also commented that the other side of
the issue doesn’t agree with Mr. Tandy’s plan because it’s no more than a wish list, however he
stated he thinks that Mr. Tandy’s plan puts forth a plan of possibilities and probabilities of how to
raise the money as we go. Commissioner Tragish stated they do have money for the West
Parkway alignment but there is not money to finish it. He stated that he is not sure if the West
Side Beltway alignment is fully funded, but this particular project does provide for it to be built
within the perimeters and confines of the project which is a wonderful attribute of this project and
will hopefully save the taxpayers some money, not to mention all of the other enormous traffic
mitigations and roads and streets that will be built out with this project.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 4
Commissioner Tragish stated the idea of a specific plan and a master plan, as well as a
development agreement, guarantees that the community will get what the developer says they
are asking for and it will be developed in the confines of what their plan provides. He pointed out
that it is important to have a master planned community so you don’t experience many of the
communities that are built in a hopscotch basis. He also stated that it is a tremendous plus that
there is a developer in this community who can do this type of master planning. He further
pointed out that he thinks the mitigation of air quality is incredible in that they are going to be
mitigating it down to zero before they even start the project, and the amenities are also a
tremendous attribute to this project.
Commissioner Tragish pointed out that he reviewed the documents and comments from
Shafter’s comments and that he agrees with Staff and others that it is a regurgitation of issues
that have already been addressed not only in the EIR, but in the additional comments. He
further stated the park availability has been addressed by the EIR.
Commissioner Tkac inquired what the ultimate triggers are that keep Castle & Cooke to follow
through and keep it on track. Staff responded that with a specific plan the document has its own
zoning ordinances, phasing plans, infrastructure plans within itself, and therefore they look at the
specific plan to make sure it is being followed, and cannot be changed unless it goes back
through the PC and City Council. Staff further pointed out that there is a development
agreement which specifically says that the development has to be consistent with the specific
plan which provides for a legal agreement between the developer and the city that it will be built
out as proposed.
Commissioner Tkac pointed out that he thinks the air quality mitigation was done to the extreme
with as much caution as could be done. He inquired if the air quality measures the applicant
wants to obtain, at that time, is based on today’s law or if it is projecting into the future. Staff
responded under current thresholds established by the air quality district and that it is the City’s
policy on all general plans with EIR that they be mitigated to zero, which means that when they
build the plan it will have zero impact on the environment. Staff pointed out that mitigation has
already been done before the project is even started, and this is going beyond what the City’s
policy is and what the thresholds from APCD are. Commissioner Tkac inquired when the first
start date will be to which Staff responded that they would expect with tentative tracts coming in
right after approval they are probably 18 months to two years from starting serious construction.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if there was a 1031 exchange and if it was a requirement as a farm
land preservation issue. Staff responded that this developer agreed to fund or acquire
themselves mitigation for the loss of agricultural land.
Commissioner Tkac inquired how parks get funded in a 50 acre or 100 acre project. Staff
responded that it is the determination of the Planning Commissioner whether a proposal provides
park land, or whether or not there is a park close they pay in lieu fees into a system which goes
to acquire parks lands or make other parks larger. Staff pointed out that the park land
requirement is 2 ½ acres per 1000 population generated by the project.
Commissioner Tkac stated that unplanned areas are problems and this is a master plan that
specifies everything they will do. He further stated that with regard to the traffic mitigation he
feels comfortable that the money is and will be there. He used McAllister Ranch as an example
of the infrastructure that gets developed. He concluded by stating that he will vote for this project.
Commissioner Blockley commented that he wished more projects had this kind of planning
before they came before the PC. He stated that he is in support of this project because of this
kind of good planning and because of Castle & Cooke’s positive history.
Commissioner McGinnis commented that not having any objection from the Sierra Club says
volumes for Castle & Cooke in this project.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Tragish stated that he was visited by Mr. Friedman and also spoke to Mr. Movius.
He also questioned the letter from Shafter dated June 21, 2007, with attached verbal comments
from himself and Commissioner Johnson regarding the 10 section project to support the
comments being made about this current project. He stated that he is not sure that the
referenced project, which is several miles away, is relevant or on point with the comments being
made in their letter. Staff responded that all comments were adequately responded to and they
will be preparing written comments in response to those comments before going to Council.
Staff further responded that they do not think it’s appropriate to attach it to this letter when they
are using comments from an unrelated project.
Commissioner Andrews commented that this is one of the better projects that he has seen in his
experience. He stated that he will support this project.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the impact fees that will support outside projects and asked
for an explanation. Staff responded that they are paying additional park fees which will go
towards either enhance or build facilities such as, but not limited to the Sports Complex that the
City is building SE of this project. Commissioner Tkac inquired if this will be named at some time
soon. Staff responded that the development names it as the Sports Complex that the city will be
building, but it can be used for other facilities that the Parks Dept. and City Manager decide.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making CEQA findings sections 15091 and 15093 with the State CEQA Guidelines, approving
mitigation measures, mitigation monitoring programs, see Exhibit “A”, and recommend
certification of the Final EIR for SP GPA ZC 031544 to City Council, and incorporating the
memorandum from Marian P. Shaw dated June 19, 2007.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the
designations in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use map, circulation map and
Kern River Plan Element to adopt the West Ming Specific Plan, See Exhibit “B”, with conditions
of approval, adopting a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program
and recommend the same to City Council, and incorporating the memorandum from Marian P.
Shaw dated June 19, 2007.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the West Ming Specific Plan, see Exhibit “C”, with conditions of
approval adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and mitigation monitoring program,
and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the memorandum from Marian P. Shaw
dated June 19, 2007.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 6
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making findings and approving the requested zone change to the zoning with designation as
shown in the West Ming Specific Plan, see Exhibit “D”, with conditions of approval adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, mitigating monitoring program and approving the
Development Agreement, and recommend the dame to City Council, incorporating the
memorandum from Marian P. Shaw dated June 19, 2007.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-1662 (Mark Davis)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.2b Zone Change 06-1662 (Mark Davis) located on the northeast corner of Paladino Drive and
Morning Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.3a Ten Section Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by
James Manley)
5.3b General Plan Amendment 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by James Manley)
5.3c Zone Change 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by James Manley)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. John Parker, General Manager of Kern Water
Bank Authority. He explained that the Kern water bank occupies about 20,000 acres of land SW
of Bakersfield, and some is directly adjacent to the Ten Section project, it stores water in times of
surplus as ground water for later recovery during shortages and they have 1.3 million acre feet of
water stored, which is two times the storage capacity of Lake Isabella. They operate under a
habitat conservation plan which allows them to conduct water conservation activities, while at the
same time allows for the development of exceptional wetland and upland habitat. They are
concerned for the potential of any significant adverse impacts that the project may have on their
operations. Some concerns are: 1) the impact the project will have on the surrounding habitat.
The Department of Fish and Game foresees the project degrading this adjacent habitat which is
part of a conservation bank and is available to third parties for mitigation purposes. Given the
comments from the Department of Fish and Game the water bank is very concerned that the
habitat value of the conservation land will be significantly diminished by the project. 2) Water
supply questions remain unanswered. Not enough information is provided in the DEIR to
determine if the City can capture and recharge short duration high volume flows from the Kern
River in sufficient quantity to off-set the lack of recharge expected in subsequent dry years. Thus,
the claims in the water supply assessment cannot be verified. Mr. Parker requested that a
decision on this project be delayed until the revised Urban Water Management Plan is
completed. 3) Concerns about the compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses as the
Kern water bank is home to abundant wildlife, including coyotes, bobcats, rabbits, squirrels,
snakes and when the recharge ponds are in operation during warm weather mosquitoes. Mr.
Parker stated that their HCP provides for grazing, burning and the application of pesticides to
control vegetation and mosquitoes however the control methods are not completely effective. He
further pointed out that the recharge facilities in the vicinity of the project will generate abundant
populations of mosquitoes, especially when compared to metropolitan Bakersfield. He stated
that this fact is substantiated in a letter submitted by Kern Mosquitoes Vector Control District in
the City Planning Dept. regarding the project, which stated that traps used to monitor the
population of adult mosquitoes collected nearly four times as many mosquitoes in ground water
recharge areas as opposed to other areas of the city of Bakersfield. Mr. Parker stated that the
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 7
water bank believes that there is ample evidence to justify mosquito notifications from the Ten
Section project.
Mr. Parker commented that if the project moves forward the project proponent or the City should
provide a mechanism where the future residents are apprised of the potential for higher than
normal densities of mosquitoes. He also stated that the DEIR should also adequately analyze
the potential for West Nile Virus to impact the residents of Ten Section. Mr. Parker pointed out
that other wildlife issues may also develop in that the development will not be fully fenced from
the surrounding lands and the DEIR asserts that a landscape buffer will reduce human impact on
adjacent lands, provide barriers to domestic pets entering the adjacent habitat and provide a
barrier between the species and the adjacent habitat and domestic pets. He stated that they do
not agree that a landscape buffer will accomplish these goals. He stated that a block wall around
the perimeter of the project where it abuts water bank lands should be installed as a barrier for
wildlife, domestic animals and humans.
Mr. Parker also pointed out that the City should be aware that fish populations in ponds can
become abundant and once recharge operations cease and ponds dry up these fish die and
create very strong odors. In summary, he stated that the Kern Water Bank feels that the DEIR
does not adequately address their concerns or CEQA requirements.
Annette Tenneboe, an environmental scientist with the Department of Fish and Game read a
letter from William Loudermilt, Regional Manager, about the Department’s concerns with the
repeated land use decisions, which are eroding key habitat protection measures inherent in the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. She requested that they remand the Ten
Section Project, GPA Zone Change 05-1580, Draft EIR back to the planning staff for further
conditioning to ensure proper protection of state listed species is incorporated into the project
draft EIR before approval. She continued to state that they are seriously concerned with the
City’s continued permitting of land development in the remaining large blocks of natural habitat
sustaining state listed species with the City’s geographic sphere of authority. Ms. Tenneboe
indicated that they have tried to resolve these issues with the City to no avail and that they will
proceed with steps necessary to rescind issuance of further state incidental take permits under
the Metropolitan HCP. She further commented that this would result in each subsequent project
would then revert to the requirement of individual project permitting under CESA and they do not
believe that would be in the best interest of the species habitat nor the public. However, she
stated that due to the absence of adequate protective measures under the Metropolitan HCP,
they must satisfy their statutory obligations under CESA.
Jim Manley, the applicant and owner of the project stated that he fully supports Staff’s
recommendation. He stated that he spoke with Mr. Parker and with regard to a wall separating
the project from the water bank he is amenable to providing this, as well as having a condition
placed on the tract map and future covenant conditions of the property notifying future home
owners in the project that there are conditions out there that are beneficial to mosquitoes, and
possibly fish smells.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that with respect to Mr. Parker and
Ms. Tenneboe, they are dealing with an issue that gives him reservations about proceeding with
this project with the information that has been provided and is uncomfortable with approving the
EIR at this time.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he wished there was more of a response to the issues raised
by Kern Water Bank, referencing McAllister Ranch to the NE of this project and to the SE and
some portion of the SW is all land bank. He commented that his concerns are the significant
amount of water surrounding this project, which is fertile ground for mosquitoes, which raises a
health factor in which walls and landscaping do not prevent mosquitoes from creating problems.
He clarified that McAllister Ranch was a little better addressed, and was not inundated with the
water bank area as much as this project, which is right in the heart of it. Another concern that
Commissioner Tragish expressed was that it is way out there, pointing out that Panama Lane
provides a boundary for McAllister Ranch, with the understanding that Nord Road will be
realigned through the project. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is not comfortable with an
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 8
approval of this project, and further pointed out that he is not sure that the EIR will address this
project with McAllister Ranch as it goes down Panama or Stockdale Highway with the projects
that have already been approved. He also stated that it is still quite rural out in this area that is
adjacent to the water bank area, which creates the various creatures that inhabit it.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the air quality is being mitigated down to zero. Staff responded
that there is a condition that they have to enter into an agreement to mitigate to zero.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he too is uncomfortable with the project and thinks that it would
be premature to push this forward.
Commissioner Andrews echoed some of the concerns raised and is concerned with the
mitigation process for the mosquito concerns.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he is uncomfortable as well. He inquired about the area north
of Stockdale Highway in the vicinity of Allen Road where he understands there are ponds that
the City operates. Staff responded that the City does not operate those ponds, but there are
homes next to homes in that area. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if it is possible to
postpone action on this item. Staff responded that this item can be continued two weeks to see if
the applicant can coordinate with their consultants to respond to these comments or it can be
continued to the next general plan cycle or deny the project.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the western boundary of this project would be Nord Road, to
which Staff responded that it is the Nord Road alignment. He further inquired if the Nord Road
alignment was to run down through this project on the southern portion if it would come to an end
because the water bank is not going to permit the paving over their property. Staff responded
that is what the water bank has indicated and that Nord Road, a collector, would dead end.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that it does not make a lot of sense to him and that there are
circumstances that may or may not be insurmountable and he is concerned with the health,
safety and welfare with the water bank itself, as well as the wild life, including mosquito issues
dealing with disease. He concluded stating that he is not comfortable with approving the project.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the Mosquito Abatement District and how a situation is
handled when there are excessive mosquitoes. Staff responded that they know very little about
mosquitoes and that they would have to investigate this. Commissioner Tragish inquired that if
this was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to address these issues if it would be
worthwhile. Staff responded that if the PC feels that they will get enough evidence to change
their minds that some of these issues can be addressed then a continuance would be
appropriate. However, if their minds are not going to be changed and the PC denies the project,
it will still go before the City Council and the applicant still has time to address these issues
before it goes to final decision on their project. Staff pointed out that if it is continued two weeks
they will probably be receiving the information on very short time before the next hearing. Staff
also pointed out that if the project is continued until the next cycle it puts the developer off to
respond to comments. Staff stated that this General Plan cycle is tentatively scheduled to go
th
before the City Council on August 15.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would withdraw the suggestion of a continuance because it
will give the applicant ample time to address it to the city council if he doesn’t agree with what we
vote tonight and if he does agree then fine.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to deny Resolution making
findings approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map
designations.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 9
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to deny adopting
Resolution Exhibit “C” and denying the requested zone change from A (Exclusive Agricultural) to
R-1(Single Family Dwelling) on 228 acres and recommends the same to City Council.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
5.4a General Plan Amendment 06-1689 (Marino & Associates)
5.4b Zone Change 06-1689 (Marino & Associates)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Richard Alec stated he owns the nursery on the
south boundary of this land. He inquired about the City leapfrogging, indicating that there is no
route to this property annexed down. He pointed out that there is no road on the northern
boundary of the property, indicating that Kern Isle Road dead ends into Wible Road and on the
southern end of the property Engle Road dead ends at his nursery. He stated there is a dirt road
that goes out into the field. He explained that his experience is that when an urban area gets
close to a rural area the rural area becomes a dumping site. He stated that this is being zoned for
low-medium dense housing, which means apartments in his mind and creates a crime problem as
well as a dump site. He commented that he does not see any thought or planning. He stated
that they would like to see nice size lots because historically when City’s build, they build their
problems. He also pointed out that the roads are not there to support more housing.
Tom Sandrini stated he farms the southern part of the proposed project. He also commented that
the planning does not seem to be complete and time for this project is not right at the present
based on the farming that is going on and the spraying, as well as mosquitoes.
Robert Sandrini stated that he lives a mile south of this project and inquired if the north will be
annexed into the City and if it is it will still be kind of an island, because everything around there is
agriculture currently. He said he does not see a development with a drainage system or the
infrastructure. He further inquired if the budget money that was approved includes the sewer. He
pointed out that the ground water is not very deep and the drainage is poor because the ground
does not take water and therefore they would need a sump to put the water somewhere.
Jim Boonie stated that this needs to be better planned out. He stated they don’t want apartments
there and want nice houses.
Jim Moreno, the applicant, stated that he did talk with many of the people who have spoken. He
stated that he has read the conditions of approval and agrees with them. He stated that this is
more of an advanced planning project and that it is not often that you get an application with a
start date of three years out. He commented that the key to development in this area is going to
be the sewer line and the problem with the sewer north of Taft Highway is capacity and that there
is not a problem with the sewer treatment plant. Mr. Moreno stated that the City has worked on a
plant for a plan and this property would be part of an interim plan. He stated that all of the
property south of Taft Highway will eventually go to a new sewer treatment plant south of Bear
Mountain Boulevard, but in the interim there is a line that is going to go down each of the
midsection lines all the way down to Bear Mountain Boulevard. He pointed out that on Phase One
was going to take the sewer line from the treatment plant down Kern Isle to Hughes Lane. He
said he has heard that Phase One will probably only go to Ashe Road.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 10
Mr. Moreno said that prior approvals are down by Ashe Road because that is where the sewer
line will go. He also commented on a project that had been approved in March. He pointed out
where there is agriculture land, as well as the property owned by Hughes Partners. He indicated
that when this project annexed there was a sewer line and it was about a 600’ run to get into the
city sewer, and subsequent to all of their processing, the new plan is that they are going to have to
go down into the Kern Isle line. He stated that currently there is one tract map approved in the
City that is kind of just hanging out there. He stated they are trying to create a little bit of critical
mass down there, and get people together that would start supporting getting the sewer line
extended down into this area. Mr. Moreno pointed out that it is incredibly difficult to get a group of
property owners ready to go all at the same time.
Mr. Moreno stated that this project is not designed to be apartment project, but is an LMR, and
considering they do not know where the market is going to be in three to five years, it will give
them the option to go from 4500 sq. ft. lots up to ¼ acre lots. He pointed out that as an
accommodation to the property owners he included a request to add a condition to the zone
change that reads, “Apartments will not be allowed at this project location without first submitting
an application for and getting approval of the subsequent zone change to remove this condition.”
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked for clarification on “Apartments will
not be allowed at this project location without first submitting an application for and getting
approval of the subsequent zone change to remove this condition.” and inquired what condition is
being removed. Staff responded that the applicant was proposing this and removing this
condition itself; the one that is within the quotes. Therefore, before you can build apartments on
the site you would have to go through a zone change to remove this condition so that it says they
can build apartments. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they are waiving the request to have it
zoned R-2 to which Staff responded in the negative clarifying that they want R-2 so that they can
get the small lots, single family subdivision with lots less than 6,000 sq. ft. because under the
provisions of the R-2 zone you can do that as long as you provide some amenity or tree lined
streets.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that to zone a parcel that is virtually landlocked currently apart
from sewer and apart from major streets doesn’t make any sense to him. He stated that he is not
against the project, but he does not see anything that exists on this particular application that
didn’t exist on the previous application which was denied.
Commissioner Tragish commented that this project, and Taft Highway, as it leads up to Highway
99 is extremely congested. He pointed out that Kern Isle is a farm road and the feeder into it on
the other side of 99 is an extremely dangerous road. He also pointed out that the annexation to
the north is going to stay as an agriculturally zoned property. Therefore, if this was approved and
the applicant was to improve the frontage on Eagle Road and Wible Road there is no where to go
and it is his understanding that Wible Road may have to be improved from Engle Road all the way
up to Taft Highway, which he thinks that cost would be prohibitive for this particular project.
Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to the sewer it is “blue sky” and if we get this in, and
get that in everyone is hanging out there, and there is no sewer connection. He indicated that he
thinks the biggest problem with this application is the access to this project, because he thinks
that the sewer issue can be disposed of by the conditions already promoted by the Staff to the
extent that sewer service must be provided to the GPA, ZC area which is 10c and that condition in
and of itself, if this project were to be approved, would effectively freeze this project until an
indefinite period of time whenever that sewer hook up came into being. He stated that even if the
project came into being you still having the problem of access to the property.
Commissioner Tragish also pointed out that Van Horn Street doesn’t come all the way down and
neither is Eagle Road. He further pointed out that you need these other properties to provide the
roads that are needed to get into this project and the project will still be landlocked.
Commissioner Tragish referenced the objection to apartments and that he does not think that is
grounds for denial standing alone, but in this context, not knowing what is going to be in this area
and trying to balance it out as to what is appropriate for the area is not known. He also
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 11
commented that another problem with this property is the storm drainage sump is too small to
support its own storm drainage. He pointed out that with one sump per 80 acres, it has to be
included into a drainage area of adjoining property and it is unknown if there is an adjoining
property at this point that has another sump or water drainage that you can plug into.
Commissioner Tragish stated that the comments regarding crime and being a dump site is
irrelevant at this point. He stated that this project has less basis for approval then the last one that
was denied. He stated that he will not support this project.
Commissioner Andrews stated that he did drive to this area and he agrees with the other
Commissioners are saying about the stretch between Taft Highway and Bear Mountain is not
much different than it was 50 years ago. He also stated that he does not see any short-term
movement toward really being in a position where they have a cohesive kind of presentation in
terms of what is being proposed to go in on the other parcels. He stated that he cannot support
the project at this point.
Commissioner Tkac concurred that the ground does not take water out there and inquired if there
are any significant findings that state that this area would be anymore problematic than any other
area they deal with. Staff responded that there was nothing unusual in the Negative Declaration
regarding this. Commissioner Tkac stated that when this project is approved a grading contractor
is going to come in and studies will be done, and they will probably attempt to change the soil
composition so that they can make flat lots. Staff concurred with this assessment and that the
City will not accept a sump unless they can prove that it drains in seven days, and would have to
do extensive soil tests throughout the area to find an area that would drain in seven days.
Commissioner Tkac reiterated that until there is true cooperation and everyone else is wanting to
come into the City he does not see how he can approve this based on the previous Commissioner
comments regarding the sewer issue and lack of infrastructure.
Commissioner Blockley stated that this project has been before the Planning Commission
previously and Staff did not support the project and now modifications have been made and they
do support it. Commissioner Blockley disclosed that he did speak with Mr. Moreno about this
project. He commented that he refers to this project as reversed leapfrog development, in that
the reverse of it has to do with the development of the sewer verses the intense of the
development on Taft Highway just west of the freeway. He further commented that the drainage
and percolation issue is already a condition on the sump and it would have to be part of a larger
package since this particular parcel is not large enough to have one just dedicated to that
property.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to deny the requested General
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to deny the requested Zone
Change.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 12
5.5a General Plan Amendment 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.5b Zone Change 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.5c Planned Unit Development 07-0145 -- Preliminary Development Plans (San Joaquin Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.6a General Plan Amendment 06-2275 (Marino & Associates)
5.6b Zone Change 06-2275 (Marino & Associates)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Andrea Salvage from the Law Offices of Young
Wooldridge is representing Ken and Carla Nelson, who live approximately ¼ mile east of this
development on Panama Lane. She stated that her clients request that the Planning Commission
look closely at the character of the neighborhood into which this project would be located and look
at what is located next door to this proposed project site, as well as the studies and evaluations
upon which the City’s Negative Declaration was based. She stated that this project area is still
rural in nature with cultivated agriculture property out there in the vicinity, some of which directly
surrounds the project site. She pointed out that continuing to take land out of agriculture to
convert it into subdivisions is changing the character of this neighborhood in a substantive way
and this is a source of concern for the people who live out there and what they perceive as
somewhat of a piecemeal development process. Ms. Salvage pointed out that this project would
place up to potentially 300 homes directly next door to the Farmer John poultry farm where
hundreds of thousands of chickens are. She pointed out that the City’s suggested odor mitigation
from the poultry farm was a block wall and trees and that the City relied on an odor impact
analysis done for a neighboring property to the north of this property. She commented that the
odor impact analysis itself in suggesting the block walls and trees notes that these measure
“might” help filtrate the odors, but not in any way that is quantifiable. She stated that there are
gaps in the odor analysis. Ms. Salvage also pointed out that there is a question of further setbacks
from that side of the property where the poultry farm is located and that there is a B-2 flight zone
for the Bakersfield Airpark that takes up about almost ¼ of this particular parcel, which leaves that
portion of the parcel inhabitable.
Ken Nelson, Jr. stated he lives at 1841 East Panama Lane and that he appreciates the
opportunity to speak because in the past he was excluded from speaking because he was not
notified. He stated that in 2000 when the General Plan came out, it stated that the property
around him in that general area would have one house for every five acres which is consistent
with the way of life out there. He stated there is still wildlife out there, including kit foxes, egrets,
possums, coyotes, and ducks by the canals. He stated that the crops grown where he lives which
helps support the Kern County economy could not be grown without the soil being tilled, which
causes dust. He states that not everyone is use to the way of life out there and that it financially
straps the city when complaints are filed with the City. Mr. Nelson further inquired how many
complaints will be generated by the lights being on 24/7 at Farmer Johns. He also stated that the
Sports Arena is there and they can hear the events going on. Mr. Nelson further commented that
building a block wall will only concentrate the odor and noise preventing it from be spread out. He
also stated that the drinking water will be affected. Mr. Nelson stated that they are also
concerned with the traffic in the area. He also questioned why they need to build this dense
housing development when there are so many homes on the market and foreclosures. He further
expressed that when they are not notified of rezoning and what’s going on, or have access to that
knowledge or addressing any of the concerns that they might have, then it becomes their
business. He stated that if the City had not posted on the property they would not have known
about the hearing tonight. He stated that he does not want to be annexed into the city, and that
this appears to be uncontrolled urban sprawl to him.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 13
Carla Nelson stated they like it out in the country and seeing other countryside around them. She
stated that the proposed project is going to pose hazards to their family.
Ruben Castro stated he resides at 3123 East Panama Lane, which is about ¾ of a mile from this
development. He stated that based on his experience from doing private security, all the housing
developments in newly developed homes had residents who were moving here from Los Angeles.
He stated that he has dealt with a lot of gang bangers that have moved down here from Los
Angeles and his concern is for his parents who cannot defend themselves. Mr. Castro stated that
he agrees with Mr. Nelson’s comments about this project. He stated that he would like the
Planning Commission to deny this project because it is not fair to them.
Maria Sanchez stated she lives at 3123 East Panama Lane and they moved there because they
love the country. She stated she wants the environment to stay the way it is for a long time.
Jim Moreno is representing the Garoni family who owns all of the property north of East Panama
Lane between Cottonwood and South Union Avenue. Mr. Moreno commented that the property
to north had an application and the odor study was done in April and so Staff indicated they would
apply that odor study to this project. He stated that one minor difference in an earlier presentation
is that the odor study was not done for an adjacent property and on page 4 of the study it states
that the purpose of the study was to assess the odor impact from the poultry operation and as
such, it addressed all of the areas that would be impacted by the odors. He pointed out that there
was sufficient analysis in the study to develop some mitigation measures and they have mitigation
measure three, or condition 3 a, b, c, as well as condition 4. He stated that there is a bit more to
this than just putting up a block wall and a little bit of landscaping, pointing out that there are 24”
box trees, heavy landscaping higher than normal and engineered block wall. He also pointed out
that there is a setback outlined in the odor study and they agree that they would put that setback
area at their southeast corner to come down into this property at the northeast corner which is
where the sump will be.
Mr. Moreno stated that with respect to traffic there will be traffic from this project but it is going to
mitigated. He pointed out that the RIF program will be in place and for this project their
proportionate share is outlined in the Staff report and will be paid prior to impact. He commented
that this will ultimately help to improve the entire north side of Panama Lane for a full mile from
South Union Avenue to Cottonwood.
Mr. Moreno stated with respect to the B-2 zone, it doesn’t really cover that much land; about 120’
because of the way the property lines are. He pointed out that Staff put a condition on this project
that exceeds the standards for the B-2 zone. He clarified that in a B-2 zone you are allowed one
unit per two acres and on this project they are allowed 0 units in the B-2 zone.
Mr. Moreno state that they agree with the conditions of approval and stated that this project is
more of an in-fill as it has development to the north, to the west and southwest. He also reiterated
that they will be improving the roads in the area. Mr. Moreno also pointed out that if you look at
that square mile the green blob doesn’t fit and they are only asking to convert the green blob to
yellow to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and ultimately help complete it.
Jack Spedrick, Vide President of WZI, referenced the air study stating it was a project impact air
study and the odor study that the City used was reviewed and as experts they would consider it
reasonable and reasonable for the City Staff to have relied on it for purposes of this particular
project. He stated that one of the reasons for this reliance is because if you look at the prevailing
winds, they are north, east and southwest and are diurnal in nature. He pointed out that you can
easily determine that the project from the north for which the odor modeling was done was less
effected than the prevailing winds which show that this project to the south would be even more
unaffected by anything happening with regard to the odors that may eminent from that poultry
facility. He indicated that you would expect those odors to affect the parties to the southeast more
so than anybody else. He also pointed out that the odor complaints are largely related to land
farming of sewage waste and sewage treatment facilities.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 14
Mr. Spedrick stated that as far as the agriculture conversion study is concerned, they received the
letter late, but explained that they did use a number of factors in their agriculture conversion
studies. Some of the factors that they look at are the Williamson Act, and section 21 directly to the
east is in Williamson Act and everything else to the north, south and west are not. Mr. Spedrick
stated there are some R-1, estate, some agriculture and the remaining public lands in the area.
He explained that the City is moving towards this line and then it will cease to be able to be
developed. Therefore, the agriculture land that has been excluded from the Williamson Act will be
facing more pressure to fill in the last pieces before they come into contact with the public lands.
Mr. Spedrick stated that in terms of adversely effecting the abilities to farm, you can already see
the existing prevailing winds in which there are going to be developments in place that are going
to cause concerns with regard to further application of ag chemicals in any of these areas that are
directly downwind either way, including that particular area that should be a consideration when
the prevailing winds are blowing through any farm land in that direction.
Mr. Spedrick stated that they stand by the study.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented that it is his recollection that the
project to the north had come before the Planning Commission and inquired if that application was
rejected by the Planning Commission. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish
inquired what specifically that applicant did to address the issues raised by the Planning
Commission at that time. Staff responded that the applicant arranged a sump down in the
southeast corner of that project, which across from the poultry operation. Commissioner Tragish
recalled that some of the previous discussions from the Planning Commission involved flesh-
eating flies, the odors being transmitted and the bugs and mosquitoes don’t stop on the barrier
street of Cottonwood. He further stated that apparently it was worked out by the applicant for the
property to the north with City Council to gain their approval and although City Council approved it
doesn’t mean that he has changed his impact of the Farmer John across the street. He stated he
has been in the area and it does smell, and if it can be mitigated he would consider it to see if it is
possible. Commissioner Tragish stated that with this project, the development is already going to
lose about ¼ of its buildable zone because it is a B-2 zone and the homes will be piled in 6,000
sq. ft. or less and they are all going to be emptying out into the corner which is a sort of busy farm
area and in addition there is the impact of Farmer John’s and the various odor problems.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he feels the applicant has met the burden on the traffic study
per se’, he feels that that corner is somewhat problematic not only with the developments before
the Planning Commission this evening but also with projects coming to that street and projects
that have been approved. He explained that as these improvements come along they are going
to improve/widen the street and the improvements that come along with it, including traffic lights.
Commissioner Tragish went on to state that the agriculture land conversion passes mustard on
the report that they’ve seen, pointing out that this whole area is moving toward urbanization and
most of the Williamson Act property is to the east. He stated that he doesn’t really have a
problem with this issue.
With regard to the air quality study, Commissioner Tragish, stated that other than the odor
comments previously mentioned, he does not have a problem with this issue as WZI has
addressed at least some of his concerns.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees that the odor impact is awful and that it is not a good
point of contact for high density development. He stated that he would have preferred to see a
zoning of E, maybe a house every 10,000 sq. ft. might have blended in with this area and taken
some pressure off of the corner. Commissioner Tragish further pointed out that there are a lot of
“appears” and “perhaps” in the odor report that somewhat vacillates on certain conclusions raised.
He also stated that the suggested mitigation of block walls and trees is not sufficient to keep flies,
insects and odors from drifting over. He pointed out that even if there is a covenant to advise
potential homeowners it does not help him if there is a health problem that is created by this.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not find the mitigation to be very impressive. He stated
that his position based on what he has heard so far is that the zoning is too dense given the
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 15
remaining portion of this property and he is not satisfied with the mitigations regarding the Farmer
John poultry and does not believe that the odor report addresses it. He stated that he might
approve something like this if they were 10,000 sq. ft. lots, but at this point will not be supporting
this project as it stands.
Commissioner McGinnis echoed Mr. Tragish’s comments as it just seems so problematic with
restricted air space on the west side and intersection that is only going to be more congested,
along with the egg farm and Mexican rodeo grounds. He stated that he does not see how a 7’
wall and trees every 25’ are going to keep the flies and odors away from this property.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is not particular impressed with the conditions that were
placed on the project to the north by Council to get it through and it has not convinced him that
would solve the current problems with this project.
Commissioner Blockley stated that if this property went to estate zoning then it would develop and
things would still change. He pointed out that this is a very difficult choice given the perspective of
both sides of this project.
Commissioner Andrews echoed the comments of the chair that it is a very difficult choice in many
ways. He commented that the City is moving out in that direction. He stated that with regard to
the City Council’s approval of the property to the north of this project, he is torn as there are
issues on both sides. He explained that the concerns about the flies and odors will impact the
potential homeowners is not really an issue that is directly impacting the current residents in the
are, but is a concern of protecting other people that are coming here from some harm and danger,
and he sees that as an indirect analysis and approach to saying this is why the project should not
go forward.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to deny the General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation.
Motion passed by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Andrews
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Andrews stated that his no vote is based on his previous comments in terms of
what he has seen happen before in the adjacent section, and the fact that the policymakers have
made some decision in that direction, so that he would leave it to their wisdom to make the final
call.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to deny the zone change.
Motion passed by roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Blockley, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
NAYS: Andrews
ABSENT: Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Andrews stated his comments are the same as the previous motion.
6. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reminded the commissioners that the next meeting on July 5 is a general plan cycle and
there will be a pre-meeting on July 2, 2007.
Planning Commission – June 21, 2007 Page 16
7. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was concluded at 9:38pm.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
July 9, 2007