HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-07 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regular Meeting – September 20, 2007 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
Absent:
None
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
Two speaker cards indicated that Carolyn Mitchell & Richard A Villi want to speak on regular agenda
items, both individuals indicated they would wait to speak under the regularly scheduled agenda item.
4. CLOSED SESSION:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation; Closed Session pursuant to subdivision
(b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code Section 54956.9. (Two issues)
Heard at Monday’s pre-meeting.
5. CLOSED SESSION ACTION:
Heard at Monday’s pre-meeting.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
6.1a
Approval of minutes for regular Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2007.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the
Consent Calendar, Non-Public Hearing Items.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
6.2 Public Hearing Items
6.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1535 (City of Bakersfield)
6.2b Approval of Zone Change 07-1535 (City of Bakersfield)
6.3 Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1469 (City of Bakersfield, Public Works)
6.4a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2053 (East West Developers)
6.4b Approval of Zone Change 06-2053 (East West Developers)
6.4c Approval of PCD Preliminary Development Plan (East West Developers)
6.5 Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-0619 (McIntosh & Associates)
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 2
6.6a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates)
6.6b Approval of Zone Change 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates)
6.7a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1218 (Aaron Hashim)
6.7b Approval of Zone Change 07-1218 (Aaron Hashim)
6.8a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1365 (Carl R. Moreland)
6.8b Approval of Zone Change 07-1365 (Carl R. Moreland)
7.3a Bakersfield-Taft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for GPA/ZC 05-1420
(Marino & Associates)
The recommendation is to continue this item to October 4, 2007.
7.3b General Plan Amendment 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC)
The recommendation is to continue this item to October 4, 2007.
7.3c Zone Change 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC)
The recommendation is to continue this item to October 4, 2007.
The public hearing is opened. Robert Campbell stated that it is time to begin to consider
the fact that the City wants to swallow up the farm land. He referenced 6.5, 6.6(b). Chair
Blockley stated that these items will be heard in their regular order.
Chad Luey stated that he would like to have item 6.4(a), (b) and (c) removed from the
consent calendar.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he did listen to the tape from Monday’s pre-meeting, and
will be participating in tonight’s meeting.
Commissioner Tragish confirmed that 6.4(a), 6.4(b), 6.4(c), 6.5 and 6.6 in its two parts
have been removed from the consent calendar.
The public hearing is closed, with the exception of regular agenda items 7.3(a), (b) and
(c).
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exclusion of the items previously read into the record.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS – EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS /Land Use Element
Amendments / Circulation Element / Zone Changes/Preliminary Development Plan
Approval
7.1a Gosford Village Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 02-0030
(Castle & Cooke Commercial)
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 3
7.1b General Plan Amendment 02-0030 (Castle & Cooke Commercial)
7.1c Zone Change 02-0030 (Castle & Cooke Commercial)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Mike Houlihan with Michael Brandman
Associates, stated that their firm prepared the EIR. Mr. Houlihan gave his presentation. Michael
Hendricks from the Chamber’s group, the Air Quality Consultant on the project. He stated that
the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement was entered into voluntarily and once signed became a
binding contract. He also pointed out that it was a mandatory condition of approval by the City of
Bakersfield. Mr. Hendricks gave a presentation on the Mitigation Agreement, pointing out that it
goes above and beyond what is normally required of a project of this size. He explained that this
is accomplished by retiring existing diesel engines in the Bakersfield area that are currently
operating so that the off-set emissions are done generally in the area.
Renee Nelson stated that she requested to be notified with regard to participating in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District public review of any the negotiations involving Castle
& Cooke regarding the Gosford Village project. She indicated that she never received a phone
call or a letter regarding notification. She inquired if there is anything other than the diesel
engines and trees that will help eliminate pollutants. She pointed out that without public
participation she was left in the dark as to how the dollar amounts were figured for mitigation.
She also stated that she would like to see the reductions now. She commented that mitigation
cannot be deferred. With regard to urban decay, Ms. Nelson pointed out that the appeal’s court
did not provide any sort of baseline for the review. She inquired about the stats on population
when using a comparison with Hanford and Gilroy. She pointed out how Wal-Mart has already
impacted this community.
Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates representing Castle & Cooke, gave a brief overview
of the project and went over the environmental studies. He pointed out that the project will create
about 1,600 new jobs.
Carolyn Mitchell, who lives in the 93313 zip code, stated that she supports the Wal-Mart
Supercenter at Gosford Village.
Rich Ville stated he lives in Greenfield and believes that Wal-Mart does a lot of good things. He
pointed out the competition is good. He stated that he has not talked to one person who has
said they do not want the Wal-Mart.
Randy Treece representing the California Department of Transportation stated they were heavily
involved with the Gosford Village project and they concur with the traffic study and the mitigation
established.
Michael Jennings stated that he works for Albertson’s and the wages compared to Wal-Mart are
not even comparable. He further commented that Wal-Mart does not offer a lot of their
employees healthcare. He stated that working for Wal-Mart takes people off the street and off of
Welfare, but there is no big difference from being on the street and working for Wal-Mart.
Robert Campbell stated that he traveled 7,000 miles around the U.S. this past summer and went
to many Wal-Marts because they honor oil changes and tires at any Wal-Mart in the country. He
stated that he also shops at Wal-Mart for their low prices. He pointed out that some of the
grocery stores that have closed have not been closed because of Wal-Mart, but because of their
own competition. He stated that the public is more than just retail clerk unions and deserves an
opportunity where to shop. He stated that he supports this project and will patronize Wal-Mart.
Aaron Rios, Senior Manager of Public Affairs for Wal-Mart Stores, stated that they will continue
to be a positive member of the Bakersfield community. He provided statistics on benefits of what
Wal-Mart provides.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 4
Mary Jane Wilson, president of WZI, stated they have been overseeing the voluntary emission
reduction agreements for Gosford Village, as well as the Panama project and pointed out that the
air mitigation agreements were approved in a public process at the Air District and were publicly
noticed. She further pointed out that the emission reduction agreement reduces Rogs, NOx,
PM10 and PM2.5 to zero for the project.
Linda Melton, an associate with Wal-Mart, stated that with regard to the insurance issue, that
she, within the last three years, had two hips replaced and with the exception of a small amount
of co-pay (less than $2,000 total), her insurance through Wal-Mart covered every single dime.
Debbie Kent stated that she lives in the NW part of Bakersfield and shops at Wal-Mart and
Sam’s Club. She stated that competition is good.
Ryan White stated that he is a student and does not have a lot of money to shop anywhere but
Wal-Mart. He suggested that perhaps those that don’t like Wal-Mart could help out to pay the
additional costs from other stores that he cannot afford. He also pointed out that the Wal-Mart
would help to balance out from all the previous growth in the community.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Andrews disclosed that he met with the developer who provided him with some
additional background information since he was not part of the Commission at the time that it
was initially brought forward.
Commissioner Tragish commented that he reviewed the EIR and it is probably the most thorough
EIR he has seen in the seven years that he has sat on the Commission. He commented that
Renee Nelson did appear when there was a public hearing on the EIR and submitted comments
as well as a letter. Commissioner Tragish stated that Ms. Nelson did submit a five page letter
and that there was a 31-page response to her letter by Staff, which answered the same things
that Ms. Nelson reiterated this evening. Commissioner Tragish stated that he was satisfied with
Staff’s response to Ms. Nelson. Commissioner Tragish asked Staff to respond to the notion that
the EIR, General Plan and zoning are not tied together for approval. Staff responded that the
EIR could be approved and the project still be denied as they are not tied together as one.
Commissioner Tragish asked Staff to identify how many of the volumes on the cart pertain to this
EIR, to which Staff responded that the top tier of the blue cart is the Gosford Village which
includes 15 volumes and appendices of the environmental document. Commissioner Tragish
stressed the thoroughness of the EIR. He stated that he will support the EIR.
Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to the General Plan and the Zoning, he believes
that the project has been there for quite awhile and he thinks that it is a good fit for the
community. He further stated that he is satisfied that it will bring jobs into the community. Lastly,
Commissioner Tragish stated that we do live in a free society and you either compete or you
adjust.
Commissioner Stanley disclosed that he met with the applicant on this project for informational
reasons.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he met with the applicant since he was not on the
Commission the first time this project came before the Commissioner. He inquired how the public
notice was done. Staff responded that they do not know how the District advertises their
proceedings. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Ms. Wilson would be able to clarify this question.
Mary Jane Wilson stated the air quality mitigation agreements are public noticed in the normal
procedure of the Air District for noticing their meetings. She pointed out that the Air District’s web
site has the agenda and that if they are done after EIR approval then they are publicly noticed for
30 days rather than the normal agenda item and they public notice them and put them out for
review and then notice them again. She stated that if they are noticed before the EIR they are
noticed with the normal agenda. Commissioner Johnson inquired if their noticing procedures
comply with CEQA requirements and the Brown Act, to which Ms. Wilson responded they are
part of the normal procedure of all the public meetings held.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Johnson asked the EIR consultant to talk about the issues brought up in
relationship to crime and urban decay issues. Amy Herman with CBRE Consulting who authored
the urban decay component of the EIR, stated the primary focus is to look at the retail dynamics
of the community and compare those dynamics with the anticipated sales of the new center to
see if there is the ability for that market to absorb those sales and if they cannot be absorbed
would the sales be diverted from other stores in the area, if that occurs would there be enough
demand coming down the line to reabsorb those sales and if not would vacancies then result in
the market. She commented that if vacancies do result, given the dynamics of the market, would
they be retenanted within a reasonable market period of time. She further pointed out that there
were many analytical steps used relying upon numerous governmental and other data sources
used in the analysis, as well as the use of a very detailed examination of the condition of the
market overall, the condition of the market within the primary market area, with a look at the
competitive stores in the area.
Commissioner Johnson stated that after reading the voluminous amount of documents, he feels
the EIR was very thorough.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he concurs with Commissioner Tragish as far as the
completeness of the EIR. He inquired of Renee Nelson as to her comments about the crime
issues. Ms. Nelson stated that she did not want to say it on the record, however she did say she
was concerned with drug use as she does know that at some sites there has been evidence left
on the site from people utilizing drugs. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if this would be specific
to just Wal-Mart or any other commercial center, to which Ms. Nelson responded that she could
not answer that question as she does not know. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he has
reviewed all of the documentation and he supports the project.
Commissioner Andrews stated he has worked in public agencies for over 20 years and has
reviewed a number of environmental review documents and this is the most comprehensive that
he has ever encountered and that he has been involved in projects larger than this specific
project. He commended the Staff and the consultants. Commissioner Andrews inquired as to
the mitigation with the diesel engines and how long those mitigations will be in effect. Mary Jane
Wilson responded that the emissions reductions are certified by the Air Pollution Control District
as permanent because the engines don’t have to be replaced, except as they are in the project.
She explained that in this particular project there are a lot of agricultural diesel engines and
oilfield engines that were utilized in the emission reductions, but they don’t have to be replaced
by regulation at this time. However, the next time, when the engine wears out it will be replaced
with a new engine because that is how the California regulations are constructed so that it is an
early emission reduction that is being made today even before the project has been fully
constructed.
Commissioner Andrews inquired that if there were advanced technology that would reduce
further emissions of those types of engines if there would be any provisions in the guidelines to
say you should use the most efficient engine in terms of replacing it. Ms. Wilson responded that
when people offer projects to them, their job is to high grade where they get the biggest emission
bang for the buck and so they high grade all of the projects that people bring to them and they
have people bringing shoulder paving projects and other kinds of projects that can reduce
emissions.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if the diesel engines that are being replaced are being replaced
in kind with other diesel engines or with the electric motors. Ms. Wilson responded that they
have not done as many electric motors because the people who bring the projects in as business
to business get to choose what they wish to bring. She pointed out that you can do electric
replacements and that the voluntary emission reductions pay for 100% of the equipment, but
they don’t pay the private businesses operating costs afterward and therefore the private party
on the other side that gets the benefit has to bear his own operating costs. She pointed out the
market is working to provide different kinds of projects at different times.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 6
Commissioner Tkac mentioned the Carl Moyer Program replaces the old engine with a much
more efficient engine and the old engine cannot be used anywhere, except perhaps in third world
countries. He stated that it is a really good program and well used in California and cuts down
on a huge amount of the emissions in the state of California and the standards are incredibly
high. Commissioner Tkac further stated when looking back at some of the previous projects
approved that were concerned with blight, etc., is almost quite the opposite and actually new
business is brought in, which often times increases employment. He stated that he thinks this is
a good project.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he likes that the urban decay study convincingly shows that
this project won’t cause urban decay. He stated that he will support the project.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
CEQA findings and approving Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and recommending
certification of the Final EIR for GPA Zone Change 02-0030 to the City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map
designations from Service Industrial to General Commercial designation on 73.53 acres,
incorporating the Planning Director’s memo dated September 17, 2007 and recommending the
same to City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution
approving the requested zone change from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to PCD (Planned
Commercial Development) on 73.53 acres, incorporating the Planning Director’s memo dated
September 17, 2007 and recommending the same to the City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
RECESS TAKEN
7.2a Panama Lane Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 02-0193
(Panama 99 Properties, LLC)
7.2b General Plan Amendment 02-0193 (Panama 99/Properties, LLC)
7.2c Zone Change 02-0193 (Panama 99/Properties, LLC)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Mike Houlihan gave his presentation on the EIR
study. John Schuler gave a presentation on circulation issues. He pointed out that trucks can
access the site from either the Colony Street accessor the easterly access and go around the
perimeter of the site to the loading docks. He stated that there are approximately nine trucks a
day that use the site and so in terms of relative volume it is very light. He stated that they
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 7
anticipate that those trucks will be coming throughout the day, with a restriction on truck usage
after 10 o’clock. Mr. Schuler stated that the purpose of the two entrance lanes is to get people
off of Panama Lane. He stated that with regards to exits you do not want exits turning out onto
Panama Lane without a signal and therefore there is just one lane turning out. Mr. Schuler
stated that with respect to internal circulation, because of the limited number of access points,
has significant numbers of lanes at the primary access on Colony Street, with the dual rights that
are westbound to northbound, dual lefts that are eastbound to northbound and exiting the site
there are dual lefts with one being a through movement, as well as dual rights going onto the
site. Mr. Schuler pointed out that there are significant lanes at that intersection to provide
circulation for the primary entrance. Secondarily, there is an easterly access and there is
another way just west of the easterly access that provides a drive aisle out of the site. Mr.
Schuler pointed out their analysis shows that the intersection has the capacity to handle the
volume that is going to occur there all the way through 2030 and the worst case scenario is
Saturday traffic.
Jared Foster explained what he has observed with the poor traffic circulation currently in the
area.
Richard Crane, President of the Greenfield Water District, stated he does not use the shopping
center because of the problems outlined by Mr. Foster. He stated that when this was initially
brought to the Commission he thought there was going to be offices, not retail and therefore the
traffic wouldn’t be as much of an issue. He stated that there hasn’t been good planning and that
the corners of Stine and Panama had to all be rezoned which is creating a problem on the
Panama corridor. He stated there wasn’t a proposal for a shopping center on Panama and Ashe
which it was his understanding is was suppose to be a Win Co market and several other things.
He stated that the possibility that the Commissioners would approve two super centers coming
down the Panama corridor is going to create a nightmare. He stated that he thinks the White
Lane Wal-Mart site is a better site for this type of project than the project they are discussing
right now. He pointed out that the White Lane location has more ingress and egress and there is
only one way to get into this project and one way to get out. He stated that you have to be
coming from the east to get into the access road. He went on to state that he is concerned with
the project coming in on Hosking and H Street. He stated that it is tough to get around. He
reiterated that this project is avoidable because it does not have to be approved.
Renee Nelson requested copies of the memos that were sent to the Commission. She stated
that not only is she speaking for the people, but she is speaking for the foxes. She read her
questions from her June 21 submittal for the Panama Center. “The foxes have now returned. Are
the foxes present any of the relocated species? Is there a breeding pair? Where are they living?
How many are currently living on site? What is the success rate of relocation? How many have
been tracked? How many have returned to their original dens?” She stated that there are foxes
back at the location and she has not heard back from the proper authorities as to what should be
done. She read Staff’s response stating, “The statement contained in the comment that foxes
have returned is not supported by any evidence.” “Although the San Joaquin Kit Fox was
determined to occupy the project site, …..” Ms. Nelson stated that she got her information from
the draft EIR. Ms. Nelson continued to read, “ESPR stated that the radio telemetry on the
collared Kit Foxes was no longer operational and therefore ESPR does not have the current data
to the location of the Kit Foxes.” She stated she is finding that no one really follows up on the
relocation of the species and the survival rates are unknown. Ms. Nelson went on to state that
the MBHCP offers four alternatives as mitigation and does not say that you can only use, or have
to use relocation, but rather there can be on-site mitigation. She also stated that this site is still
zoned as open space park and was suppose to be a small park for the neighborhood. She
stated that the park space could be utilized as a corridor and open space for people and foxes.
She further pointed out that the people in the area were promised a park. She stated that she
did not find where there is mitigation for the open space loss. Ms. Nelson said the voluntary
reduction agreement allows for payment of $905,000+ for 37 acres, whereas Castle & Cooke is
paying $589,625 for 73 acres. She stated that she would like to know how these numbers are
calculated. She reiterated that diesel emissions and the Carl Moyer is a good start but it is not
the be all end all and that paving is better and she inquired about the use of lawn blowers and
other procedures that should be used. She stated that using the voluntary emission agreement
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 8
as part, or in whole, as a mitigation measure violates what she considers to be the heart of
CEQA in that how can anyone comment and review the mitigation measures when they have not
been detailed during the approval process of the project. She stated that CEQA is very clear in
stating that one may not defer mitigation to a later date. Ms. Nelson stated that the traffic is not
feasible and that there is a big problem with cars turning left into In-N-Out Burgers. She stated
that there should be limitations on when trucks are coming in and out in light of children going to
and from school.
Lee Jamieson with Jaco Real Estate Group, the developer of this project, stated that every single
issue addressed by Ms. Nelson is covered in the EIR document and mitigation is in place for
each and every one of those items. Mr. Jamieson stated that with regard to open space that a
fee has already been paid to replace the open space into a larger park, which the City doesn’t
build this size of parks anymore. He also stated that with regard to the Kit Fox, they have been
on this site in the past and they continue to roam in each and every neighborhood in Bakersfield.
He pointed out that there is adequate mitigation listed in the EIR and commented that he does
not feel that on-site mitigation for Kit Foxes near a parking lot next to Highway 99 where they will
get killed is a good idea for mitigating the Kit Fox issue. Mr. Jamieson state that with regard to
urban decay, their analysis provides that Bakersfield has a thriving retail market and the lawsuits
have had a chilling effect on the retail market and pointed out that the vacancy rate has come
down to unprecedented low levels in Bakersfield. He stated that competition is good and the
consumer is the one who will benefit from lower prices, good paying jobs with health care. Mr.
Jamieson stated that with regard to traffic six different consultants have looked at it and pointed
out that CalTrans supported the traffic study and the project with the mitigation. He reiterated
that the design of the center has taken into account the trucks coming in, the queuing, the
stacking and it does a great job of making sure that the stacking does not back up onto Panama
Lane.
Michael Hendricks, the air quality consultant, stated the air quality mitigation agreement is only
one facet of 15 mitigation measures that occurred to reduce air quality. He stated that they
looked at reducing emissions on site and at the source as preferable to off-setting emissions with
an agreement. Mr. Hendricks pointed out that they focused on mobile source emissions from the
site by integrating pedestrian infrastructure between the buildings and the parking structures.
Another mitigation included Lowes, Wal-Mart, Office Depot and in-line tenants shall display up to
date documents regarding transit routes, bicycle routes in a visible and convenient location for
employees and customers. Mitigation further includes that Lowes, Wal-Mart, Office Depot and in-
line tenants shall coordinate together to appoint an employee transportation coordinator to work
with the San Joaquin Valley APCD and the two stores to develop and implement an appropriate
commuting program and at a minimum the program shall provide bus passes discounted at least
50% for employees. He also stated that mitigation included encouragement of employees to bike
or walk to work and that employers are to provide at a minimum three employee storage lockers
for every 25 employees. Mr. Hendricks further stated that under the mitigation measures, the
project applicant shall incorporate, in the Wal-Mart building plans, reduction of electricity usage.
He also stated that the landscaping shall be maintained by contractors who operate with
equipment that complies with the most recent CARB standards. He also pointed out landscaping
standards required under the mitigation, as well as, a requirement for light-colored roofing to
reflect light and reduce the need for cooling the building. In addition, it is required that the
developer shall come to an agreement with the Kern Regional Transit and Golden Empire Transit
to the extent the transportation agency agrees regarding scheduled transit stops at the project
site. He indicated that preferred parking is to be provided for van pools and car pools. He
concluded by stating that the point of these mitigation measures is to try and reduce to the extent
feasible the emissions that are occurring on site.
Randy Treece, representing Cal Trans, stated their traffic engineering group looked at this
project thoroughly and evaluated the ingress and egress to State Route 99 and they concur with
the traffic results of the study.
Aaron Rios, Senior Manager of Public Affairs with Wal-Mart, requested that his prior testimony
on the Gosford Project be added as testimony on this project and requested approval of this
project.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 9
Ryan White stated that Kit Foxes are migratory creatures and he does not see how a “dog
house” at Wal-Mart is going to help in their preservation. He further commented that he doesn’t
think it is a design issue, but perhaps a driving issue.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis stated he agrees with Mr. White with regard to Bakersfield drivers and
that it seems it is all they can do to stay in their lane. He stated that they are within the guidelines
of what the study is suppose to do, however, in his mind he cannot see it working as far as the
congestion goes.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the landscaped area and what the point of it is. Mr.
Jamieson responded that when they designed the site, working with the traffic engineers and the
city, there were several options and the least attractive option based on the entrance was to
bring all the traffic to a halt on a straight line. He indicated they wanted to disperse the traffic and
there was this “dead planning area.” He stated that putting more parking or a building in this
area created more problems and so they decided to put a more picnic-type area in.
Commissioner Tragish stated that the EIR is fabulously detailed. He stated that he did read the
EIR and the responses to Renee Nelson and he was satisfied with the responses, including
those by Mr. Jamieson. He stated that there is mitigation for open space. He commented that as
much as some people try to micromanage what business people and consumers do, they are still
able to overcome it and make the choices that are success for businesses and consumers. He
stated that he is concerned with the traffic access from the west and that he is concerned with
people being in the “picnic-like” area with the traffic issues. Commissioner Tragish stated that he
is concerned that the traffic will be substantially more accelerated when Wal-Mart is in than it is
right now. He stated that there is too much traffic going on in the one access and he is
struggling with these traffic/access issues.
Commissioner Blockley stated that with respect to the voluminous volumes of binders, an
attempt was made to save paper by printing double sided.
Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to address MBHCP’s comment that the EIR is not adequate.
Staff responded that it is their understanding that it was a personal comment from that person
and that there have been no indications from wildlife agencies that the HCP is inadequate with
regard to Kit Foxes. Staff pointed out that the mitigation measures go far beyond the mitigation
measures required under the HCP and that the developer has already paid his habitant
conservation fees and that plan together with the contribution of development in Bakersfield had
purchased over 15,000 acres of habitant for the Kit Fox. Staff further pointed out that there are
many other mitigation measures as well that go beyond the habitant plan.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Staff could give some examples of some of the agencies that
have agreed to the MBHCP’s adequacy. Staff responded that it is an agreement between the
City and Kern County as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and
Game. In addition, it provides special permits that are under their term called “take permits.”
Staff explained that when you do urbanization you can have some collateral damage to the
species which is why you have to buy habitat and replace it and that’s why you do everything you
can while you’re under the construction phases to take care of the foxes and not kill them on site.
Commissioner Johnson reiterated the same comments and responses regarding adequate
noticing from the previous Wal-Mart project. He stated that he is pleased that CalTrans concurs
with the EIR.
Commissioner Andrews stated he has some concerns with the circulation patterns.
Commissioner Tkac stated the problems he sees are the Kit Fox and that no matter where you
put them they will follow the food. He added that he thinks this issue has been mitigated
properly. He also stated that this project is needed in this area and he would like to see an
increase in the length of the signal that lets the traffic in and out.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 10
Commissioner Stanley echoed the statements about the outstanding job done on the EIR. He
stated that with regard to traffic issues, habits will change and people will eventually use the
eastern access.
Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. Houlihan about the alternative of not building this project.
Mr. Hulahan responded that the “no project/no development” alternative was evaluated and
based on the findings the “no project/no development” was found to be environmentally superior,
however it didn’t meet the project objectives.
Commissioner Blockley stated he has observed some of the problems that have been described.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
CEQA findings approving mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring, and recommending
certification of the Final EIR for GPA zone change 02-0193 to the City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map
designations from low density residential on 33.94 acres, and open space park on 3 acres to a
general commercial designation and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tkac
NOES: Commissioners: McGinnis, Tragish
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution
approving the requested zone change from a mobile home zone on 36.94 acres and .58 acres
from a C-2 regional commercial zone to a planned commercial development and recommending
the same to City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, , Andrews, Tkac
NOES: Commissioners: McGinnis, Tragish
Commissioner McGinnis stated that his no vote is due to a retailer that probably has the highest
traffic volume, which leads to more congestion than is actually anticipated at the intersection.
Commissioner Tragish stated that his no vote is that the access to the property is problematic
and poses issues of circulation and congestion, and is inadequate for the anticipated volume of
traffic to be added by the Super Wal-Mart.
RECESS TAKEN
7.3a Bakersfield-Taft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for GPA/ZC 05-1420 (Marino &
Associates)
Heard on Consent Calendar and being continued to October 4, 2007.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 11
7.3b General Plan Amendment 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC
Heard on Consent Calendar and being continued to October 4, 2007.
7.3c Zone Change 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC)
Heard on Consent Calendar and being continued to October 4, 2007.
7.4a General Plan Amendment 06-2053 (East West Developers)
7.4b Zone Change 06-2053 (East West Developers)
7.4c PCD Preliminary Development Plan (East West Developers)
The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Tragish reiterated that East West Developers have
been a recent client of his and he recused himself from this item. Staff report given.
Chad Leuy stated across the street from this property are vast rolling hills and the area is
beautifully developed with residential homes that are elevated differently. He pointed out that at
the foot of this residential area is this piece of property which is not a good fit for the area and the
rolling hills. He asked that if this Commission is inclined to approve these items that there be
more detailed conditions as to the landscaping and the lighting.
Gary Olsen, the architect for the project, stated he is available for any questions. He commented
that Mr. Leuy’s concerns with the landscaping and lighting are addressed in the conditions. He
specifically stated that one of the conditions states that they can use a 15’ high light for the
parking lot which would greatly reduce the amount of light that will be illuminated from the
shopping center. He further stated that they intend to exceed the minimum city requirements for
landscaping as they want the shopping center to be a very upscale community shopping center
and they are interested in embellishing it with landscape, as well as trying to keep the scale of
the shopping center more residential in nature.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is an ordinance that prohibits
or speaks to anything to do with having commercial on four corners in an area that typically has
been so rural. Staff responded that there is no policy that you cannot have commercial on four
corners or anything to do with a rural area, however there is encouragement in the General Plan
to keep a ½ mile separation between new commercial areas. Staff further commented that there
are area exclusions for sites like this that don’t lend themselves to the typical General Plan policy
adherence. Ms. Shaw further pointed out that originally they had commercial on two corners
when Commanche got moved.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Olsen about the lighting condition and asked if it was the
one on the PD plan review page 2, condition 4. Mr. Olsen responded it is in the conditions and
ordinance compliance section B, item number 4. Commissioner Johnson read, “illumination shall
be evenly distributed across the parking area with light fixtures designed and arranged so that
light is directed downward and is reflected away from adjacent properties and streets.”
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Olsen to explain the common practice to move the lighting
away from adjacent properties. Mr. Olsen stated that the lighting fixtures are focused down onto
the parking surface. Commissioner Johnson further inquired about using 15’ poles when they
are 50’ away from a residential dwelling. Mr. Olsen stated they are considering using these
because when the height of the light is lowered it brings the foot candles down closer to the
surface of the parking lot and as the light goes up higher it dissipates a lot quicker, and therefore,
if you are looking down on the project it will look a lot darker. Commissioner Johnson inquired if
they anticipate much of a need for lights above the 15’ level. Mr. Olsen responded the canopy
underneath the gas area would be at 15’ and is going to be the highest structure on the property.
Mr. Olsen further responded that the problem with using lower lights is that you have to have
more of them.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 12
Commissioner Johnson read a condition stating, “The final building plan shall include a picture or
diagram of the light fixtures being used and show how the light will be directed onto the parking
area.” He also noted that Staff can require additional adjustments to installed lighting after
occupancy to resolve glare or other lighting problems if they negatively affect adjacent
properties. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Staff could highlight for concerned neighbors what
other opportunities might exist for them to provide additional comment through the rest of the
process. Staff responded that Tuscany is farther away from this center then they typically see in
residential areas and that within this area before Tuscany was ever constructed, it was
commercial for years. Staff stated that residents can complain and code enforcers will be sent
out to the site. However, Staff responded that they cannot really see the lighting being a
problem.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the final landscape plan, condition 5, which reads, “The
developer shall include a copy of the final landscape plan with each set of the final building plans
submitted to the building division. Building Permits will not be issued until the Planning Division
has approved the final landscape plan for consistency with the approved site plans and minimum
ordinance standards.” He inquired if someone wanted to get a copy of the minimum ordinance
standard and follow this project could they call the Planning Department. Staff responded that
tonight is when the Planning Commission is approving the preliminary development plan and the
final development plan would comply with this landscape plan, however would provide more
detail on irrigation, shading and tree sizes. Staff further stated that the specific ordinances are
on the City’s website, under Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Tkac inquired when the proposed five southbound lanes on Alfred Harrell will
become a reality. Staff responded that generally it is three through lanes, one right turn lane and
two left turn lanes and won’t be completed until the commercial across the street gets put in.
Commissioner Tkac responded that one of his concerns is Ming and Ashe which has traffic
concerns and he is concerned about the flow of traffic in this current project and the speed of that
traffic and stated that he wants to make sure that ingress and egress are properly planned to
avoid any problems like Ming and Ashe. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the minimum footage
requirements are from the corner to the westbound and northbound turn in. Staff responded that
the minimums required on a turn lane are 150’ of storage and 90’ of the lane change taper to get
into that storage. Staff indicated that the frontages shown on the illustration are adequate for
this. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is a technical term for an ingress or egress being too
close to a corner where there’s potential stack up. Staff responded that it is an operational
consideration, which is why they try to get them as far away as the can. Commissioner Tkac
used the shopping center at White Lane and Gosford, which has a Taco Bell and the stacking
problems in that area. He inquired if the traffic engineer has jurisdiction inside of these
properties to attempt to alleviate these types of problems. Staff responded that they get involved
with the design layout of the interior circulation when it is seen to be an effect on the local street.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he thinks he is in support of this project, but he just wants to
make sure that all of these bases are covered.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Estate Residential to General Commercial on 4.59 acres
as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) to C1-PCD (Neighborhood Commercial Planned Commercial Development) on
the 4.59 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 13
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the PCD (Preliminary Development Plan) for the development of a
new neighborhood commercial development on 4.59 acre site as shown on Exhibit A-3, and
recommending the same to City Council
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
General Plan Amendment 07-0619 (McIntosh & Associates)
7.5
The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has done business with the
applicant and therefore he recused himself. Staff report given. Mr. Campbell pulled this off the
Consent Calendar and did not want to stay through the items and therefore he handed a
statement to Staff which reads, “The Planning Commission should consider the large
developments sprawling into the farm lands are presently for individual homes mainly on large
lots. We need equal multiple housing units to concentrate the population in a smaller area that
creates easier access to public transit. You could encourage and require developers to make 25-
50% of the development be multiple housing units.” Staff responded that in as part of Old River
Ranch, four square miles, was a mixed smart growth type of community with paseos and parks
and trails throughout where they did have several different mixed housing types and that while
this is single family it is an area that will have opportunities for several different housing sizes
and types.
Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates, representing ASU, stated the property is already
zoned R-1 and was annexed as part of the Old River Ranch project. He stated that there was a
farmland conversion study which revealed that the impacts were less than significant.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that the problem with farmland
conversion is that most farmers would keep farming if it were competitive to farm.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from R-1A (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density
Residential on approximately 30 acres on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
7.6a General Plan Amendment 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates)
7.6b Zone Change 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Ron Holbert stated he is not against growth, but
he is against controlled growth when it comes to traffic and homes that are being built that do not
fit the area. He stated that the existing homes will have the increased noise and will not be able
to have it reduced by anything that happens with the project. He stated that his main concern is
traffic. He stated that traffic is already at a stand still and nowhere in the report has he seen
where this is indicated. Mr. Holbert showed some pictures with the traffic problems. He also
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 14
pointed out that the traffic counts were done in 2005. He stated that he does not see how the
traffic issues will be solved because it involves the County and there is a CalTrans off-ramp issue
at 8:05 a.m. Mr. Holbert stated that he is agreement with stop lights in order for these
developments to occur and he is agreement with stop lights in front of Fairfax School and Shirley
Lane School, however it is not mentioned anywhere in the report. He further indicated that there
is nothing at Redbank Road and Fairfax Road. Mr. Holbert pointed out that he does not think
you can say roads exist when they do not currently exist. He gave the following examples: 1)
East Wilson Road is a designated east-west collector that currently exists as a two-lane
undivided roadway from Fairfax Road to east of Fairfax Road--- this is a dirt road and does not
currently exist. 2) Muller road is a designated east-west arterial that currently exists as a two-
lane undivided roadway west of Oswell to east of Vineland Road. – Muller Road is a dead-end ½
mile west of Fairfax Road. It is an unmaintained road that is taken care by the association that is
out there. Mr. Holbert concluded by stating that he is against a 6,000 sq. ft. lot next to his 2.5
acres.
Steve Gerber stated he has concerned with the traffic issues.
Joy Ernest concurred with the previous two speakers and that her concern is that it is only a two-
way street all the way down and with the proposed high school she did not know how long it
would take to make it a double lane. She also inquired if there will be a light at the exit of Hwy 58
and Fairfax.
Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates, representing SIA Partners, summarized the
application. He stated that they feel this is compatible with the neighborhood, because the
property to the north is R-1 (low density residential) and the property to the west (south of the
high school site) is also R-1. He explained that the high school at Redbank and Fairfax will
construct the west side of South Fairfax Road along the frontage of their project for a total of
three lanes and the east side will ultimately become a full arterial (6 lane) and will get built with
this current project, as well as with the project to the north. Mr. McIntosh stated that East Wilson
Road is designated as a collector and will ultimately become four lanes running east-west and
the north half of East Wilson Road will be built with this current project, as well as the project to
the west of Fairfax. He stated that the project to the north, under protest, was conditioned to fill in
a gap which will be about 1,000 feet of arterial (6 lanes) and has to be built by that developer
even though that strip is in the county and is not part of that annexation. He stated that the traffic
study was prepared using the city standards and a model from KernCog. Mr. McIntosh stated
that even though a signal light at Hwy 58 and Fairfax was not identified in their study, they have
agreed to put that signal in along with this project.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish asked for an aerial picture of the subject
roads. He inquired what is south of the rural lots and the applicant’s lot. Commissioner Tragish
also inquired if the school’s parcel to the left is designated SR, to which Staff responded in the
affirmative. He stated that he does think that some of the development will take care of the traffic
concerns. He inquired about the project to the north of this applicant’s project, which has an LR
designation and if it is known when that project will be developed. Mr. McIntosh responded that
there are three tract maps approved on the other project to the north and would hope it would be
developed in the next two to three years depending on the market. Commissioner Tragish
inquired what the time frame is for developing the current project, to which Mr. McIntosh
responded that if this project were approved, these applicants would probably start processing
tentative maps on this property as well. He explained that when the high school is completed,
that is the trigger that brings in all the infrastructure, including a trunk line, water, etc.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the high school is putting in their side of Fairfax Road as
construction moves along. Staff responded that the high school is required to do it between now
and the completion of the project. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concern is the transition
from rural to low residential and perhaps the applicant as far as the two southern most lots
designated RR should be SR for transition purposes for the neighbors to the south. Staff
explained the neighborhood south of the existing RR is a square mile of rural residential-type
use. The area to the west and back up west of Fairfax towards the school is also rural residential.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it seems that this area is still somewhat rural and putting that
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 15
whole area that is in front of them in LR is somewhat overkill at this point. He stated that he
would support this agenda item if there was a way that the RR in the addenda items parcels
were configured as SR instead of RR. He inquired if this could even be part of a motion. Staff
responded that it can be modified with this general plan amendment and zone change.
Commissioner Tragish stated that this would be his recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson stated that with regard to the traffic, when these projects are built out
there will be three lanes of traffic going north, three lanes of traffic going south and the traffic in
front of the school and the GPA 526 that’s already been approved, along with this current project
will allow for better flow of traffic. Commissioner Johnson inquired what East Wilson Road’s
designation is suppose to be, to which Staff responded it is designated as a collector which is
90’. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the properties to the south by right allowed animals, to
which Staff responded in the affirmative. He inquired if there is a covenant condition regarding
animals to the south. Staff responded that this would typically be done at the tract stage and
because there is a road separation it may or may not be on projects. Staff stated that it could be
added now or at the tentative tract stage. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would probably
wait until the tract stage. He inquired as to the sidewalk and landscaping widths, to which Staff
responded that the sidewalk and landscaping would only be put on the north side with this tract
and not on the south side where the existing county parcels are which is about a 95+ foot buffer.
Commissioner Johnson stated that if the properties abutted one another he could see
Commissioner Tragish’s comments, but because of the 90’ collector buffer there is no need to do
the transitional designations. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there is a block wall required
along the southern boundary, to which Staff responded that it depends on the subdivision layout
and that it is allowable to front homes on a collector street. Staff recommended a condition at this
time if the Planning Commission wants a block wall. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the
applicant would be in favor of a condition requiring a block wall along the southern boundary,
with wording that if anything changes to the density to the south that adjustments to the block
wall requirement can be made. Mr. McIntosh stated that they do not have a problem with a block
wall requirement, but he is not clear what may occur to the south that will make it disappear as
there are already houses there.
Commissioner Blockley stated he has seen traffic getting worse and worse in the high school
area. He stated that there is going to be change, especially with the high school being built. He
commented that the light at Hwy 58 and Fairfax will do a lot to relieve some of the immediate
traffic problems. He stated that he is going to support this project.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the 95+ square feet is just for the two lanes on the applicant’s
side of the property, to which Staff responded the 90’ right of way is for the entire four lanes, of
which the applicant would be putting in ½ of this 90’. Commissioner Tragish inquired when the
improvements on the other property will be done, to which Staff responded that it is the county
jurisdiction and they don’t know if they have a requirement that they put full improvements in
when they pull a new building permit. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not have a
problem with Commissioner Johnson’s comments as long as they are trying to establish some
buffer, however he does not know if this is going to do the trick if there will be 42’ buffer when
you’re entitled to 54’ if you there wasn’t a street between them. Commissioner Tragish inquired if
the ordinance requires if property has animals that the adjacent property has to have setbacks of
54 sq. ft. and 140’ depth. Staff responded that it is 50’ setbacks if it is immediately adjacent for
inhabitable structures, and 140’ lot depth. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the setback
requirements would be for this project and the homes that would be put on the south portion of
the applicant’s property, which would be adjacent to the properties to the south. Staff responded
that since there is a requirement for a street there, they are not considered immediately adjacent
to those zones that allow animals and all they would have would be a wall, if it is required, the
landscape and a 5’ rear yard setback to the structure from the wall. Commissioner Tragish
stated that he would like to do what Commissioner Johnson suggested, but he does not see the
buffer.
Commissioner Tragish inquired that if the properties to the south were in the City, when would
their side of the street usually be put in. Staff responded that current regulations are that if you
have a new building permit, or an alteration that increases the assessed valuation by more than
25%, then you are required to bring all of the off-sites up to current standards.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 16
Commissioner Tragish stated that he cannot support Commissioner Johnson’s suggestion
because he does not see the buffer and he does not know when the East Wilson side
improvement will be put in.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if Staff knows the width of the south half of East Wilson, to
which Staff responded that generally speaking if there is anything there it would most likely be
30’. Commissioner Blockley inquired if Mr. McIntosh knows the width of the existing roadway
which abuts this project on the south. Mr. McIntosh responded that he has not done a survey of
that roadway, but if those parcels were created by parcel map and they were done in the County,
the County would generally require an additional right of way dedication of about 30’ on the south
half and they may have required another 15’ to take it to 45’, as well as the north side.
Commissioner Blockley stated that the 53’ of buffer could be increased by another 30’ for
speculative purposes to produce a buffer of about 80’ under the current circumstances.
Commissioner Andrews inquired of Mr. Holbert that if there is a block wall placed along the
street, if that would resolve some of his issues regarding a buffer. Mr. Holbert responded that if
there was a block wall and houses weren’t directly on the street it would address concerns with
their animals.
Commissioner Andrews stated that he is prepared to support Commissioner Johnson’s proposal.
Commissioner Tragish stated that if they could confirm some of the 45’ and 15’ right of ways it
would add to the buffer between these projects and he might be able to support this project. He
requested to continue this issue for two weeks to verify the distances and right of way. Staff
responded that the Planning Commission can continue this for two weeks and still keep it on this
GPA cycle. Commissioner Tragish stated that if a continuance is approved, he would like for
them to identify if there is a dedication or a set back, and if so, how many feet there is in that
setback dedication (right of way).
Commissioner Johnson stated that it could be to “clarify transitional space.”
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to continue the General Plan
Amendment Zone Change Number 07-1193 to October 4, 2007, with specific instruction to
identify the dedication right of way in order to ascertain the buffer between the property where
the applicant is and the south where the rural property is.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
7.7a General Plan Amendment 07-1218 (Aaron Hashim)
7.7b Zone Change 07-1218 (Aaron Hashim)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
7.8a General Plan Amendment 07-1365 (Carl R. Moreland)
7.8b Zone Change 07-1365 (Carl R. Moreland)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
7.9 General Plan Amendment 07-1373 (City of Bakersfield)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff’s
recommendation. The public hearing is closed.
Planning Commission – September 20, 2007 Page 17
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Notice of Exemption and Approving the General Plan Amendment
to amend the text of the lane use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to
incorporate two new policy statements as written in Exhibit A-1, and recommend the same to
City Council.
Motion unanimously passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES: None.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that there is a memo and an article in the newspaper regarding the status of the CSUB EIR.
9. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Johnson inquired if they should leave their copy of the Taft EIR, to which Staff responded
they can be left.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
October 22, 2007