HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/01 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
oF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Council Chamber, City Hall
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 200~
5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman
RON SPRAGUE, Vice Chairman.
MA THEW BRADY
DA VID GA Y
TOM MCGINNIS ~ .
JEFFREY TKAC
MURRAY TRA GISH
NOTE:
Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72
hours prior to the meeting.
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
-ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO .SPEA'K
REGARDING ^ PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS
WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND
PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps
are subject to appeal by any interested person adversely affected by the decision of the
Commission. No permit shall'~ be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final~
acceptance, date of appeal.
The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject Property, the
decision or, action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes
the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld.
Such appeal mu.st be.filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City
Council, cio Office of the CityClerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non-
refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the*.
applicant or any person Outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a
$334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will
not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand.
If no appeal is received withinthe specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the
action of the Planning Commission shall become final.
The Planning Commission will be taking a dinner.break from 7:15 to 8 p.m.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk )
These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the
Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are
recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditiOns
and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the
consent agenda.
If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off
consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be
opened and the items acted on as a group.
3.1) Agenda Item
3.2) Agenda Item
3.3) Agenda Item
3.4) Agenda Item
3.5) Agenda Item
3.6) Agenda Item
3.7) Agenda Item
3.8) Agenda Item
3.9) Agenda Item
3.10) Agenda Item
3.11) Agenda Item
3.12) Agenda Item
3.13) Agenda Item
3.14) Agenda Item
4.1) - EOT Vesting Tentative Map 5948 (Mclntosh & Associates)
4.2) - EOT Tentative Tract Map 5077 (Porter-Robertson)
5) - Tentative Parcel Map 10800 (Rio Bravo Dev. Co., LLC)
6.1) -Vesting TT 6045 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
6.2) - Vesting TT 6046 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
6.3) - Vesting TT 6050 (Pinnacle Engineering)
6.4) - Vesting TT 6057 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
7.1) - Zone Change P01-0400 (City of Bakersfield)
7.2) - Zone Change P01-0377 (Porter-Robertson)
9.4) - GPA P01-0163 (City of Bakersfield)
9.6 ab&c) - GPA/ZC P01-0224 (Interstate Properties)
9.8 a), GPA P01-0285 (City of Bakersfield)
9.8 b) - ZC P01-0334 (Soper Homes)
9.9 a&b) - GPA/ZC P01-0302 (The Lusich Co., Inc.)
(Ward 1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSION OF TIME
4.1)
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Map 5948 (Mclntosh & Associates)
containing 275 lots on 55.73 acres, zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and
R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located south of Virginia Avenue, west of Sterling
Road-. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Group Vote.
4.2)
(Ward 4)
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 5077 (Porter-Robertson)
Containing 17 lots on 11.50 acres for single family residential purposes zoned
R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located north of Highway 178, on both sides of Lene
Place. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: 'APPROVE
Group Vote.
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
Page 3.
5,
PUBLIC HEARING -Tentative Parcel Map 10800 (Rio Bravo Dev. Co., LLC)
Containing two parcels On' 31 .'06 acres for single family residential purposes, zohed R-1
- (One Family Dwelling); located in the Rio Bravo golf course area, south of Casa Club
Drive on the east and west;sides of the terminus of Donald Street. (Exempt from
CEQA)
(Ward 4)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Group vote- -
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps
6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & AssOciates)
A proposed subdivision containing 32 lots for single family residential purposes,
and l lot for a well site on 13.47 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a
request to allow for private streets; and waiver of mineral rights signatures
pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista
-Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber
Blvd.-(extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on file)
(Continued from April 19,.May 3, 17 & June 7, 2001)
RECOMMENDATION:
Group vote
Continue to the July 19, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting
6.2)
Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates)
A proposed subdivision containing 48 lots on 20.83 acres for single family
residential purposes, zone R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow
maximum block length to exceed 1,000 feet, a reverse corner lot; and waiver of
mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generally located %
mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the
southweSt corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street.
(Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from April 19, May 3, 17 & June 7,
2001)
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the July 19, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting
Group vote
Agenda, PC, Thursday -'June 28, 2001
Page 4
(Ward 4)
6.3)
·Vesting Tentative Tract 6050 (Pinnacle Engineering)
A proPosed Vesting Tentative Tract map containing 186 lots (184 buildable lots)
on 72.69 acres for single family residential purposed, zoned R-1 (One Family
Dwelling); generally located at the southwest corner of Norris Road and Coffee
Road. The applicaht intends to obtain waivers of surface entry rights signatures
from all parties Prior to recordation of the final map. (Negative Declaration on
file) (Continued from June 7, 2001)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
(Ward 4)
6.4).:
Group'Vote
Vesting Tentative Tract 6057. (Mclntosh and Associates)
A proposed vesting tentative tract map containing two phases: Phase A
containing 8 lots on 6.63 acres for multi-family residential purposes, zoned R-2
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and Phase B containing 3 lots on 4.95 acres
for commercial development, zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial); located at
the northeast corner of Jewetta Road and Brimhall Road. (Negative Declaration
on file) (Continued from June 7, 2001)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Group vote
(Ward 2) _
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGES
7.1) Zone Change No. P01-0400 (City of Bakersfield) Zone Change from an R-3
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on
a pproximately 12,8~19 square feet located between State Route 178, Flower
Street, Owens Street and Beale Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:. APPROVE
(Ward 5)
7.2)
Roll Call Vote
Zone Change No. P01-0377 (Porter-RobertSon) Zone Change from a PCD
(Planned Commercial Development) to a revised PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) zone on 16.75 acres to allow a 6,462 square foot increase in total
building square footage from 135,710 to 142,172 square feet and building
reconfiguration. The increase in building square footage and recon, figuration of
buildings applies tothe second phase (Phase II) of the Ralph's shopping center;·
located on the north side of Stockdale Highway, east of California Avenue.
(Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION:' APPROVE
Roll Call Vote
A~l'enda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
. Pa~le5
(Ward 4)
(Ward
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RIVERWALK COMMERCIAL CENTER
(castle & Cooke CA, INC.) (THIS ITEM IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING)-
Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR
for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P00-0291 which has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Ci!y of Bakersfield CEQA
Implementation .Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY'FINAL EIR
Roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS,
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS:
'9.1.a)
General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0291 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) has
proposed to change the land use designation from OC (Office COmmercial) to
GC (General Commercial) on 32.89 acres; generally located weSt of Calloway
Drive,' betWeen Stockdale Highway and the Kern River. (Final EIR on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
. Roil call vote
9.1.b)
(Ward 4)
Kern River Plan Element Amendment File No. P00-0291 (Castle & Cooke
CA, Inc.) has proposed to change the Kern River plan Element from 6.25 (Office
Commercial) to 6.2(General Commercial) on 32.89 acres; generally located
west of Calloway Drive, between Stockdale Highway and the Kern River. (Final
EIR on file) '
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Roll cal~ vote
9.1.c)
Zone Change File No. P00-0291 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) has proposed a
change in.zoning f~om C-O (Professional and Administrative Office) to C-2
(Regional Commercial) on 32.89 acres; generally located west of Calloway Drive,
between Stockdale Highway and the Kern River. (Final EIR on file)
RECOMMENDATION:
Roll call vote
APPROVE
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
Page 6
(Ward 4)
(Ward
9.2.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0227 (Project Design Consultants) -
has proPOsed tO change the land use designation as follows: In Area (1) from
LR to HR on 18.88 acres, from LR to HMR on 13.93 acres, from LR to GC on
1.11 acres, from HR to HMR on 7.45 acres, and from HR to GC on 6.39 acres.
.-In'Area (2)*from HMR to GC on 3.71 acres, from HMR to LR on 7.20 acres, from
HMR to SI on 1077'5 acres, from HMR to SI on 0.38 acres, from P to LR on 0.81
acres, from LR to SI on 0.76 acres, from LI to LR on 1.87 acres, and LI to SI on_
4.60 acres; and In Area (3) from LR tO LMR on 4.61 acres; located as follows:
Area (1) generally south of Hageman Road, east of RiverLakes Drive, west of
Coffee Road; Area.(2) generally east of Coffee Road, south of Hageman Road,
north of Meany Avenue; and Area (3) at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and
RiverLakes Drive, all within the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan area (total
acreage 82.45).. (Negative Declaration on File)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
9.2.b)
RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan Amendment (Project Design Consultants)
has proposed to change the land use designation as follows: In Area (1) from
LR to HR on 18.88 acres, from LR to HMR on 13.93 acres, from LR to GC on
1.11 acres, from HR to HMR on 7.45 acres, and from HR to GC on 6.39 acres.
In Area(2) from HMR to GC on 3.71 acres, from HMR to LR on 7.20 acres, from
HMRt0 SI on 10.75 acres, from HMR to SI 'on 0.38 acres, from*P to LR on 0.81
acres, from LR to SI on 0.76 acres, from LI to LR on 1.87 acres, and LI to SI on
4.60 acres; and In Area (3) from LR.to LMR on 4.61 acres (totalacreage 82.45);
located as follows: Area (1) generally south of Hageman Road, east of
RiverLakes Drive, West of Coffee Road; Area (2) generally east of Coffee Road,
south of Hageman. Road, north of Meany Avenue; and Area (3)'at the southwest-
corner of Olive Drive and RiverLakes Drive, all within the RiverLakes Ranch
Specific Plan area (~total acreage 82.45). (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION~
APPROVE
Roll Callvote
9.2.c)
Zone Change File No; P0t-0227 (Project Design Consultants) has proposed
changes in zoning as follows: In Area (1) from R-1 to R-3 on 18.88 acres, from
R-1 to R-2 on 13.93 acres, from R-1 to C-2 on 1.11 acres, from R-3 to R-2 on
7.45 acres, andfrom R-3 to C-2 on 6.39 acres. In Area (2) from R-2 to C-2 on
3.7 acres, from R-2 to R-1 on 6.38 acres, from R-2 to M-2 on 0.38 acres, from R-
1 to M-2 on 10.75 acres, from P to R-1 on 0.81 acres; from M-1 to R-1 on 0.86
acres; from P to M-2 on 0.76 acres, from M-1 to M-2 on 4.76 acres; and In Area
(3).from. R-1 to R-2-on 4.61 acres (total acreage 82.45); located as follows: Area
(1) generally south Of Hageman Road, east of RiverLakes Drive, West of Coffee
Road; 'Area (2) generally east of Coffee Road, south of Hageman Road, north of
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
page.7·
(Wa. rd
' Meany.Avenue; and Area (3)at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and
RiverLakes Drive, all within the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan area itotal
acreage 82.45). (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
9.3.a)
(Wa~'d 4)
General Plan Amendment File No. P00-0810 (Kyle Carter Homes, Inc.) has
proposed to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential)
to GC (General Commercial) on 10.81 acres; located south of Olive Drive and
west of Highway 99, at the northwest corner of the Knudsen Drive and. Hageman
Road alignment. (Negative Declaration on file) ~
RECOMMENDATION: DENY
(Ward 4)
Roll call vote
9.3.b)~Zone Change File No. P00-0810 (Kyle Carter Homes, Inc.) has proposed a
change inzoning from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) on 10.81. acres; generally located south of Olive Drive and west of
Highway 99, at the northwest corner of the Knudsen Drive and Hageman Road
alignment. (Negative Declaration on file) -'
_RECOMMENDATION: DENY
(Ward 3)
(Ward 6)
9.4)
9.$.a)
Roll-call vote
General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0163 (City of Bakersfield) has
proposed to change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density
Residential) to GC ~(General Commercial) on 7 acres; located at the northeast
corner of Alfred Harrell Highway and State Route 178. (Negative Declaration on
file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0223 (SmithTech USA, INC.) has
proposed to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential)
to HMR (.High Medium Density Residential) on 28.41 acres; located along the
southwest corner of~ Old River Road and Pacheco Road. (Negative Declaration
on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE .
Roll call vote
Agenda, PC', Thursday -June28, 2001
Page 8
(Ward
(Ward 2)
(Ward 2)
(Ward 2)
9.5. b)
9.6~a)
9.6.b)
9.6.c)
9.7.a)-
Zone Change File No. P01-0223 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) has proposed a
'change inzoning from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-2(Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) on 28.41 acres; located along the southwest corner of Old River Road
and PacheCo. Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll Call Vote
.General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0224 (Interstate Properties) has
.proposed to change the land use designation from HR(High Density Residential)
to GC (General Commercial) on 2 acres; located generally between Chester
Avenue and Eye Street along the north side of Brundage Lane. (Negative
Declaration on .file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
Zone ~Change File No. P01-0224 (Interstate Properties) has proposed a
change in zoning from C-2 (Regional Commercial), C-O (Professional. and
Administrative Office) and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to PCD
(Planned Commercial Development) on 3.89 acres; generally located between
Chester Avenue and Eye Street along the north side of Brundage Lane.
(Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
General Plan Consistency Findinq Pursuant to Government COde Section
65402 (Interstate Properties)
For the vacation of 1st Street between Chester Avenue and Eye Street.
RECOMMENDATION: MAKE FINDING
Group vote
General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0228 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) has
proposed to change the land use designation from R-lA (Resource Intensive
AgricUlture) to LR (I.ow Density Residential) on 147.17 acres and to HMR (High
Medium Density Residential) on 10.03 acres; located between Snow Road,
Reina Road, Jewetta Avenue and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Roll call vote
Agenda, PC, Thursday - June 28, 2001
Page 9
9.7.b)
Zone Change .File No. P01-0228 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) has proposed a
change in zoning from E (Estate) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 69.22, from E
(Estate) to R-1 Ch (One Family Dwelling-Church) on 10.80 acres, from A
(Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 67.12 acres, and from A
(Agriculture) to R-2,(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 10.03 acres; generally
located between Snow Road, Reina Road, Jewetta Avenue and Allen Road.
(Negative Declaration on file! .
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
9.8.a)
(City-wide)
Roll call vote ~
General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0285 (City of Bakersfield) has ·
proposed a formal acknowledgment of the Kern County Board of Supervisors
approved Land Use Element Amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan from September 1999 to December 2000. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
(City-wide)
Roll call vote
9.8.b) Zone Change File No. P01-0334 (Soper Homes, Inc.) has proposed a formal
acknowledgment of the Kern County Board of SUpervisors approved zone
change from A (Agr~iculture) to E (Estate) on 20 acres; generally located along
the south side of Brimhall Road, west of Jenkins Road. (Exempt from CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
(Ward 6)
9.9.a)
Roll Call Vote
General Plan Ame'ndment File No. P01-0302 (The Lusich Company, Inc.).
has proposed to change the land use designation from GC (General
Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 8.56 acres and LR (Low Density
. Residential) to GC (~General Commercial) on 8.56 acres; located at the northeast
corner of Buena Vista Road and Panama Lane. (Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
9.9.b)
Roll call vote
Zone Change File No. P01-0302 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) has proposed a
change in zonin~ from C-2 (Regional Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
on 8.56 acres and R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on
8.56 acres; is located at the northeast corner of Buena Vista Road and Panama
Lane.: (Negative Declaration on file)
Agenda, PC, Thursday-June 28,2001
PagelO
RECOMMENDATION:
Roll .call ,vote
APPROVE
10.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
B) Verbal
11.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A) Committees
12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE
NEXT PRE-MEETING
13. ADJOURNMENT
June 25, 2001
~_..~<JAMES D. MOVIUS Secretary
Acting Planning Director
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish
None
Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard
Staff:
Marc Gauthier, Wayne ClauSen, Pam Townsend
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Brian Baker and John McVicker presented speakers cards regarding the Vista Montana Tract.
The commission told them that the issues raised should be directed to Jack Leonard, Assistant
Building Director, of the Building Department.
Chairman Boyle read the Notice of the Right to Appeal
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner McGinnis suggested that Consent Agenda Item Number 3.8 be removed as he has
unanswered questions. He has revieWed portions of the taped meeting that he was not present
for at the Pre-Meeting.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he will abstain from Item Number 7.1 due to a conflict.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he will abstain from Consent Agenda Item Number 3.1
(agenda item number 9.4) due to a conflict.
Commissioner Gay abstained from vote on Consent Agenda Item Number 3.6 (agenda item
number 6.3) due to conflict. ·
Commissioner Boyle Stated that staff has requested that Agenda Item 3.6 be deleted from the
Consent Calendar.
Extensions of Time
)
3.1) '. Agenda Item 4.1) - EOT Vesting Tentative Map 5948 (Mclntosh & Associates)
3 2) A,~nda" ' "' ~'""' '" ' ' '" ' ~' ......... ~ '- "'
3.3)
Tentative Parcel Map
Agenda Item 5) - Tentative Parcel Map 10800 (Rio Bravo Dev. Co., LLC)
Vesting Tentative Tracts
3.4) Agenda Item 6.1) - Vesting TT 6045 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
3.5) Agenda Item 6.2) - Vesting TT 6046 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
~Page2
3.6)
3.7)
3.8)
3.9)
3.10)
3.11)
3.12)
3.13)
3.14)
Agenda Item 6.4) - Vesting -Fl' 6057 (Mclntosh & Assoc.)
Zone Changes
Agenda Item 7.2) - Zone Change P01-0377 (Porter-Robertson)
General Plan Amendments/Zone Changes
Agenda Item .9.4) - GPA P01-0163 (City of Bakersfield)
Agenda Item 9.6 ab&c) - GPA/ZC P01-0224 (Interstate Properties)
Agenda Item 9.8 a) - GPA P01-0285 (City of Bakersfield)
Agenda Item 9.8 b) - ZC P01-0334 (Soper Homes)
Agenda Item 9.9 a&b) - GPA/ZC P01-0302 (The Lusich Co., Inc.)
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the'
Consent Agenda Items with ithe exception of 3.6, 3.8 and 3.2.
Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSION OF TIME
4.1) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 5948 (Mclntosh & Associates)
See Consent Agenda.
4.2)
Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 5077 (Porter-Robertson)
Mr. Movius said there was nothing to add from Monday's pre-meeting. Public portion of
the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of
the hearingwas closed.
Commissioner Boyle asked if the drainage issue from lot-to-lot created any public health
and safety issue to which staff responded that typically the Building Department does not
like to see a lot-to-lot drainage, but sometimes it is unavoidable, and there does not
appear to be public health and safety issue.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac,~to approve a
three year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5077 Revised to expire July 6, 2004 with
findings set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit "A".
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - TentatiVe Parcel Map 10800 (Rio Bravo Dev. Co., LLC)
See Consent Agenda
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps
6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates)
ContinUed until July 19, 2001. See Consent Agenda,
6.2) Vesting Tentative TraCt 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates)
6.3)
Continued until July 19, 2001. See Consent Agenda.
Vestin.q Tentative Tract 6050 (Pinnacle Engineering)
Staff reported that there were two memorandums - one from Marian Shaw dated June
22, 2001 and one from the Planning Department dated June 4, 2001 - and any motion to
approve should include a reference to those memos. ·
Commissioner Gay excused himself from this vote due to a conflict.
Public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition.
Mary Cave stated that she is not an obstructionist and she lives on a one acre piece of
property on Norris Road that is at issue, and she was made an unacceptable offer. If she
accepted the offer she would have to lower her lifestyle. She remains open to reasonable
offers.
No one else spoke either for or against the project. Public portion °fthe ~hearing was
closed.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he is not happy with condition number 11 that requires
the applicant to acquire property which he has no control over, and which is located in the
County.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve
and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract Map 6050 with
findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution and incorporating the memo
from the Planning Director dated June 4, 2001, the memo from Marian Shaw, dated June
7, 2001 and the memo from Marian Shaw dated June 22, 2001.
Motion carried. ~ ·
PUBLIC HEARINGS -ZONE CHANGES
7.1) Zone Change No. P01-0400 (City of Bakersfield)
Staff advised that the concerns raised at the pre-meeting have been answered in a
memorandum the Commission received today.
Commissioner Tragish excused himself from this item due to a conflict.
Public portion of the hearing was opened and no one spoke either fOr or against the
project. Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page4
Commissioner McGinnis said he cannot support the project without some more questions
answered.
Commissioner Sprague stated that if City staff would pursue the vaCation of the alley and
install temporary barricades that he would be able to support the project,
commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gay,-to adopt
ResolUtion making findings approving a Notice of Exemption and approving the Zone
Change with the memorandum from the Planning Department dated June 28, 2001 and
recommend same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner McGinnis
Commissioner Tragish
7.2) Zone Change No.* P01-0377 (Porter-Robertson)
See Consent Agenda.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RIVERWALK COMMERCIAL CENTER (Castle &
Cooke CA, INC.)
Mike Houlihan, the Section Manager'of Environmental Services of MBA gave an overview of the
Final EIR. The project issues that were addressed in the EIR included biological resources,
traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, cultural resources and aesthetics. The EIR revealed two
significant issues which were unavoidable and were related to air quality. One was a short-term
air quality impact during construction activities, and the other was long-term air quality impacts
during the operation of the project: Lighting, building heights, odors, voice boxes of potential fast
food-restaurants, traffic were issues in the EIR, and based upon their review of these issues and
evaluation it was found that the issues did not result in a significant alteration of the findings in the
EIR. Based on their findings city staff is recommending that the Commission recommend
certification of the EIR to the City Council.
CommiSsioner Brady stated that his concerns have been addressed, and the conditions that have
been put inplaCe will resolve the lighting issues and the fast food issues.
Commissioner Gay asked if there are long term issues with regard to the air quality to which staff
responded the biggest problem istail pipe emissions in that the EPA regulates what has to be
done with auto emissions.
Commission Spragu~e Stated for the record that he would like the Coast Redwood be put back on
the tree species liSt for recOnSideration.
Commissioner'Tragish Commented that he has met with staff and Castle & Cooke in reviewing
this project.
Commissioner Boyle advised that he met with the applicant and is satisfied that the EIR
adequately addresses the issues and gives adequate information to make informed decisions.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 5
Commissioner Sprague advised that he met with the applicant regarding these items.
Commissioner McGinnis advised that he met with the applicant.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution
making CEQA findings pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and
recommending to the City Council the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for
GPNZone Change P00~0291
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, :Boyle
None
.None
o
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS:
9.1 .a.b&c.)
General Plan Amendment/Kern River Plan Element/Zone Change File No.
P00-0291 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.)
Staff recommends approval with 56 conditions of approval, with the deletion of the five words
within condition 6 discussed at the Monday Pre-Meeting. No building within 100' of Stockdale
Highway may-exceed 40' in height (condition 12). Lighting was already reviewed: With regard to.
traffic, at full build out there will be 12,000 vehicles a day. Stockdale currently has 10,300 vehicles
a day. The.15 acres next door upon total build out will incur about 6,000 trips. All the numbers
assume the 15 acres is going to be built.
Commissioner Tkac advised that he has met with Mr. Sampson and Mrs. Mulkey regarding this
item.
The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition.
The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Scott White, Cheryl Scott, Linda Redman,
Ryan Oliver, Michelle Roy, and Ken Hammer. Most of them objected to the C-2 zoning and would
like the property to remain Office Commercial. They are concerned about odors traffic and
lighting.
Hearing .0pened for those speaking in favor of staff's recommendation.
Roger Mclntosh, representing:Castle & Cooke, .stated that this project is not intended to be the
same architectural style as the MarketPlace. The Crossings at RiverWalk is proposed to be an
upscale retail development integrated into the City of Bakersfield's new 30 acre park at Buena
Vista Road and Stockdale Highway, which is one of the gateways to .the city. The Crossings at
RiverWalk includes an upscale shopping venue with a grand plaza opening into a new 30 acre city
park and its water features. The Crossings at RiverWalk will create a unique project with a city
park, Kern River Bike Path and an attractive shopping environment could be integrated in a
complimentary _way.. _By doin91so they feel they can attract more upscale retailers to this area.
A dinner break was taken from 7:45 to 8:25.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 200t
Page 6
Bill Sampson with Castle & COoke stated that he is present to answer questions. They believe the
120,000 square feet tenant space on the 15 acres is not ample space for the big box stores.
Castle and Cooke nor the city have received any complaints of odor coming from the fast food
establishments in the Market Place and this project will be modeled after the Market Place project.
The following residents of SeVen Oaks spoke in support of the project: Mark Porter, Heather
Dewars, Joe Columbo and Anna Maria Braun.
The public portion of the heari.ng was Closed.
Commissioner Sprague expressed concerns about the lighting and it is his understanding that
they will conform to 22,000 lumens in the front and rear and graduate the shielding into the center.
He also expressed concern for the height limit and inquired if staff and applicant would be
agreeable to limit the height to no more than two stories, which should be 40', to which the
applicant responded they would agree to that. He inquired if the applicant would :be agreeable to
an 11:00 p.m. closing time for: restaurants, to which the applicant responded that they are hesitate
to do this because they do not want to lose the opportunity to have a specific restaurant that would
be advantageous for the area, but would prefer 12:00 a.m. The applicant stated that they are
agreeable to shielding any noise (generators).
commissioner Sprague stated he supports the project.
Commissioner Gay stated that he thinks the drive-through at the Market Place is too close to the
street and would like the applicant to address this. He likes the staggering 22,000 lumens, and
the 12:00 a.m. closing time on restaurants and would like to see no 24 hour operations on the
project. He stated that he was not particularly in favor of the PCD in that it restricts the design of
the project. He would prefer to see the easterly 1200' remain CO.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that in response to fellow Commissioners' request for a PCD
overlaY on the project, he thinks that the work that has gone into this project with the additional
restrictions accomplishes what the intent of the PCD would be, and would not favor continuing the
project, andtherefore would support the project.
Commissioner Brady inquired of the applicant their response to the request that there be no movie
theater due to increased competition with the Market Place, hours of operation and increased
traffic, to which the applicant responded that they do not want to put a restriction of a theater,
although they are not intentionally looking for a theater. The applicant is not concerned with the
viability of the Market Place because of the subject project.
Commissioner Brady asked why there needs to be four fast food pads, to Which the applicant
responded that they might not, need four fast food pads, and feels that these type of tenants are a
viable force in the market place, they are credit worthy and the applicant has to look at every
possible opportunity. The pads out front are what economically make up the difference. The fast
food pad locations are restricted in that they can not be up on the east end of the property which is
the closest to the residentsl As the property moves to the west, the separation from residential
becomes greater and greater. Commissioner Brady stated that with the acreage available he
would-be willing to support four fast food pads.
Commissioner Brady stated that he is not too concerned with the closeness of the shopping
center at Buena Vista because they are going to serve two different needs. He further stated that
from what are the conditions and the past practice and what the area is suppose to be he does
not feel compelled to require a PCD at this time and will support the C2.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Parle 7
· Commissioner Tragish stated :that he can support the project, although he has reservations not
knowing exactly what type of tenants will go in.
Commissioner:Boyle stated the applicant could put any store they wanted on the existing C-2
property at the current time, and thinks that the idea proposed deserves great merit. The
conditions that will be imposed on the applicant are the same issues that would be in a PCD, and
the only things that are being given up by not having a PCD is the ability to control the architecture
of the center. He suggested that a condition to the General Plan Amendment be a requirement
that the applicant come back with a landscaping plan, which would include the pedestrian and
bicycle circulation.
Commissioner Boyle further stated that a condition for any hotel/motel should be limited to 100
rooms. Commissioner Boyle~inquired if the hours of operation restriction applied only to
restaurants or other businesses to which staff responded that it only applied to dinner restaurants,
family style restaurants and fa'st food restaurants. Commissioner Boyle stated that there should
be a restriction on the hours of operation, and fast food pads should be restricted in number and
location on the site.
Commissioner Boyle pointed out the following restrictions: 1) 22000 illumines on :the lighting; 2)
diesel screening and sound wall; 3) two-story limitation on hotel;. 4) hours of operation for
restaurants having a closing time of 12:00 a.m.; 5) his request for restriction of requiring a
landscaping plan; 6) his request to limit the hotel rooms to 100; 7) his request to exclude fast food
restaurants from the 1200 easterly feet.
Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant if a 100 room maximum limit is reasonable to which
the applicant responded that they would accept 100, but they would prefer to see 120 because he
knows that would stillaccomplish what they are after in a restriction. With that number you would
not have a convention center connected.
Commissioner-Sprague stated that he would support the motion.
Commissioner Brady asked if'a C-2 zone is approved under the conditions does the applicant
have to bring a landscape plan before the Planning Commission? Staff responded that as'the
conditions are worded currently there is no requirement for that.
Commissioner Brady also asked if there is a requirement that the applicant bring:a landscape plan
through the site plan review process to which staff responded in the affirmative, and suggested
that wording such as "the landscaped pedestrian walkway shall link parking areas with
commercial uses to provide aesthetic pedestrian circulation throughout the site" to address this
issue without requiring the applicant to come back.
Staff said the site plan is reviewed at a public hearing and there is opportunity to present
comments at that time. The Development Services Director would perform the public hearing but
they look only at compliance with the ordinances and conditions and are not doing discretionary
things regarding architecture and site layout.
Commissioner Brady inquired iif there is currently any requirement on the project that the applicant
bring back to the city a pedestrian and bicycle Circulation plan, to which staff responded in the
negative. The applicant responded that the landscape plan submitted for site plan review will
include a bicycle and pedestrian plan, and staff responded that they are agreeable to this also.
Commissioner Boyle asked if there can be any discretionary items from the applicant as part of
the public hearing on the site Plan review, to which staff responded in the negative unless they
were a mitigatiOn measure for environmental purposes.
Minutes, PC, june 28, 2001
Page 8
Commissioner Gay stated that he supports the project with the conditions.
The applicant stated that tonight is the time for discretionary approval. They do not want to have
to come back and do this all over again. The applicant will meet all of the standards in the
ordinances that apply. The applicant does not see the need to come back for a landscape
approval when they will include the pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan within the landscape
plan when it is submitted to site plan review.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by McGinnis, to adopt a resolution approving the
reqUested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designation from OC to GC on
32.89 acres as shown in Exhil~it "A" and recommend the same to the City Council and incorporate
.the memorandum dated June28, 2001 from James Movius of the Planning Department making
the change to amend Condition Number 6 by deleting the phrase as shown in Exhibit attached,
and to add the following conditions: to address the concerns with diesel generators the second
sentence of Condition Number 6 should be amended as follows: all trash enclosures, diesel
generators and loading docks:shall be screened with block walls and landscaping. T° address
the concern with lighting, the first sentence of Condition Number 55 should be amended as
follows: parking lot and securi.,ty lighting shall be provided by no more than 40,000 lumina lamp
poles, except that within 200 feet of Stockdale Highway, and on the back of buildings, lighting
shall be limited to 22,000 lumina lamp poles, which shall range in height from 20 to 30 feet.
Condition Number 15 will be amended by changing 1:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. for all sit down
restaurant types. There will be a new condition that any hotel or motel placed on the property
shall be limited to 120 rooms and not more than two stories, and add a condition that with respect
to the easterly 1200 feet any fitness center operation hours shall be limited to the time between
5:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. There will be a new condition that the applicant shallSubmit a
pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan as part of his landscaping plan when submitted for site plan
review.
Mr. Movius clarified that hours of operation for Condition Number 15 included family style
restaurants, dinner restaurants and fast food restaurants, and would go until 12:00 a.m.
Motion carried by the following ~roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner McGi'nnis, to adopt a
resolution approving the requested amendment to the Kern River Plan Element to change the
land use map designation from 6.25 to 6.2 on 32.89 acres as shown in Exhibit'B and recommend
the same to City Council, along with all the changes and modifications that were made to the
previous ~motion:
Motion Carried by the folloWing roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, iBoyle
NOES: . None
ABSENT: None
'Minutes, PC, Jun® 28, 2001
Page 9
Motion made by commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a
resolution approving the requested zone change from C-O to C-2 on 32.89 acres as shown in
Exhibit C and recommend the, same to City Council along with all the same changes that were
made on the last two motions..
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissione'rs Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES:
COmmissioner Sprague
ABSENT: None
A two minute recess was taken.
9.2.a.b&c.) General Plan Amendment/RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan -
- Amendment/Zone Change File No. P01-0227 (Project Design Consultants)
Commissioner.Gay stated a conflict of interest on Agenda Items 9.2 and 9.3.
Staff stated there are no new memos from Monday's meeting, and the applicant has agreed to .
stafFS recommendation..
The public portion Of the hearing was opened for those in opposition.
David Olds, the principal of Centennial High School, stated his concern with Area 1 of this
proposal'that deals with traffic~on RiverLakes Boulevard which borders the high school on the
east. He feels that putting high density at the corner of Hageman and RiverLakes does pose a
problem in access to that road and create a safety issue. ' ·
The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in support of the project:
Dave Demahousky with Project Design Consultants representing RiverLakes Land Company, who
is the property .owner. They agree with stafFs recommendation and the recommended conditions
of approval with the exception 'that they are still requesting Commission review and approval of
Iow medium density residential on site area three up near the corner of Olive Drive and
RiverLakes Drive. -If the Com'mission supports that recommendation, the applicant would also.
agree that the conditions that apply to the other residential parcels under the R-2 classification
apply to that as well. In Area 3 of the northern most part they are requesting Iow medium density
residential and in-lieu of Iow density with a maximum density there would be 10 units per acre. In
Area 1 tt'iere isno increase in dwelling units. The designation for the zoning would become R-2
whereas now it is a combination of R-1 and R-3. The area north of the section line closest to the
area of Hageman and RiverLakes would be Iow medium density residential, 10'units per acre
maximum, and the area south:of that section line would become high medium density residential
not to exceed 17.42 dwellings iper net acre on average. Applicant has requested a number of
revisions relating to the commercial designation of property. Staff had concerns with the total
amount of retail with the development currently, and they modified their original proposal from
general commercial at Coffee'and the future extension of RiverLakes to be commercial office
which would allow professional office or medical office. The applicant believes there is a rational
for providing professional employment opportunities in close proximity to the housing that is
catering to professionals in the community and also provide professional services for the
residences without having to get on the major arterials to go downtown. In Area 2, the east side
of Coffee, they are in concurrence with staff on their recommendation and are converting a
current multi-family site to retail to really square off the retail development that's currently allowed
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 10
parallel to Coffee easterly of the roadway because that property is impacted severely with
overhead power lines and retail makes much more sense in that location than the R-2 that was
previously allowed." The applicant is also requesting conversion of some of the existing Iow
density R-1 land to an industrial buffer north of Meany. Staffs' recommendations of June 25th
regarding a buffer and landscape set back for the M-1 light industrial zoning is only intended for
the M-1 zoning paralleling Patton not to the M-1 paralleling Meany. He requested the Traffic
Engineer respond to some of.the traffic issues that have been raised. He has met with
Centennial High School's principal and they intend to respond to his issues during the site plan
review process, in the future, and requests the Commissions' approval.
Matt VoVilla With Pinnacle Engineering prepared the traffic impact for the project and stated that'
the city has advised that parking will not be permitted on RiverLakes and therefore that issue has
been mitigated. With regardsito increased traffic in the area of the high school, Mr. VoVilla stated
that the application as been amended to eliminate any R-3, and Area 1 is entirely R-2 and
proposed office commercial. A comparison trip generation shows a decrease in trips with the
current proposal.
The public portion of the hearihg was closed.
commissioner Sprague stated that he has reviewed and agrees with most of the. things but with
respect to the area that.says to LMR he believes that it is appropriate to have the apartments as
set forth in the housing element instead of staff's recommendation to deny that in Area 3 from R-1
to R-2 on 4.61 acres.
Commissioner Tragish asked what the current land designation is for Area 3 and what changes
are being requested, to which .the applicant responded that they want to change Area 3 zoning
from R-1 to R-2 and the land use designation would change from Iow density residential to LMR
which allows up to 10 units per acre. It would allow attached units or small lot, single family
detached for some flexibility.
Commissioner Tragish also asked if there was a neighboring or adjacent property to Area 3 that is
zoned R-2 and currently has a land use designation of LMR, to which applicant responded in the
'affirmative. Applicant explained that the LMR and HMR designations are concentrated along
Coffee Road. There is a high ~medium density north of Hageman and west of Coffee. There is Iow
medium density proposed on vacant land within the golf course development in the south and west
of Area 3. The only other properties in the immediate area that have been designated for
residential have a Iow density classification. The property westerly to Area 3 is currently zoned R-2
Commissioner Brady asked staff why their recommendation is to deny the change in Area 3 from
LR to LMR on the 4.61 acres, to which staff responded that because there is a great deal of LMR
and staff felt that some areas along the golf course should be preserved.
Commissioner Brady asked staffs response to the situation where a developer wants to comply
with Smart Growth and staff wants to deny it, to which staff responded that there are areas that are
HMR, and they did feel that there was a high concentration of small lot subdivisions in this area..
Commissioner Brady stated that he would support Area 3 LR to LMR on the 4.61 acres.
Commissioner Sprague made.a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving a portion of the request in Area
1 from LR to LMR on 18.88 acres with a maximum of 142 dwelling units from LR and HR to HMR
on 21.38 acres with a maximum of 403 dwelling units/acres and LR to HR to OC on 7.5 acres, and
then Area 2 from HMR to GC on 3.71 acres from LR to LI on 10.75 acres. From HMR to LI on 0.3
acres, and from HMR to LR on 6.38 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit maps dated June 21,
2001, and also approving in Area 3 from LR to LMR on 4.61 acres, and denying without prejudice a
portion of the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in Area 1'
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 11
from LR to HR on 18.88 acres from LR to GC on 1.11 acres, and from HR to GC on 6.39 acres,
andin Area 2 from LR to SI on 10.75 acres from HMR to SI on 0.38 acres, from LI to LR on 0.81
acres, fromLR to SI on 0.76 acres, 'from LI to LR on 1.87 acres, and from LI to SI on 4.6 acres
which is shown on Attachment Number 1 of the Staff Report dated June 28, 2001, subject to
mitigation from the project found on Exhibit 4 attached to the draft resolution and recommend
same to City Council.
Commissioner Tragish asked iif the motion is denying Area 3 use from LR to LMR on the 4.61 acre,
to which CommisSioner Sprague stated that he is including it as approval.
Motion carried by the following roll call Vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brady, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES:
ABSENT:
'None
Commissioner Gay
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative .Declaration and approving a portion of the request in Area
1 from R-1 to R-2 on 18.88 acres with a maximum of 142 dwelling units, from R-1 and R-3 at R-2
on 21.38 acres with a maximum of 403 dwelling units, and R-1 to R-3 to CO on 7.5 acres, and in
Area 2 from R-2 to C-2 on 3.7i acres, from R-1 to M-1 on 10.75 acres, from P to R-1 on 0.81
acres, and from R-2 to R-1 on:6.83 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit maps dated June 21,
2001 and also approving Area!3 from R-1 to R-2 on 4.61 acres, and denying without prejudice a
portion of the requested zone change in Area 1 from R-1 to R-3 on 18.88 acres from R-1 to C-2 on
1.11 acres, and from R-3 to C-2on 6.39, and Area 2 from R-2 to M-2 on -.38 acres from R-1 to M-
2 on 10.75 acres, from M-1 to R-1 on 1.78 acres, from P to M-2 on 0.76 acres, and from M-1 to M-
2 on 4.6 acres, and as shown on Attachment 2 of the Staff Report dated June 28, 2001, subject to
mitigation for the project as shown on Attachment 4 as part of the draft resolution and recommend
the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissione~ Gay
Commissioner :Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the, Negative Declaration and approving a portion of the request in Area
1 from Iow density LR/R-1 to Iow medium density LMR R-2 on 18.88 acres with a maximum of 142
dwelling Units, from Iow density LR/R-1 and high density HR/R-3 to high medium density HMR/R-2
on 21.38 acres with a maximum of 403 dwelling units, and Iow density LR R-1 to high density HR
R-3 to CO on 7.5 acres, and in Area 2 from high medium density HR/R-2 to General Commercial
C-2 on 3.71 acres, from Iow density LR/R-1 to light industrial M-1 on 10.75 acres, from Iow density
LR/P to Iow density LR/R-1 on 0.81 acres, and from high medium density HMR/R-2 to Iow density
LR/R-1 on 6.83 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit maps dated June 21, 2001, and also
approving Iow density to Iow medium density in Area 3, and denying without prejudice the
requested RiverLakes Ranch Pacific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations and
zoning districts on' 82.45 acres as shown on Attachment 3 of the Staff report dated June 28, 2001,
and approving the establishment.of a light industrial design guideline sections by adding a new
'section 11.9 to the Specific plan approving modifications to 8.-A Exhibit, concept land use plan to
Exhibit 8-B, concept zoning map to Exhibit 26-A, wall and fence plan and to Exhibit 27-A, maste~'.'
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 1.2
landscaPe plan that would reflect the above recommendations subject to mitigation for the project
as shown on Attachment 4 aSpart of the draft Resolution and recommend the same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COmmissioners Brady, McGinnis Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES:
ABSENT:
9.3.a.&b.)
None
Commissioner Gay
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change File No. P00.0810 (Kyle Carter
Homes, Inc.)i
Staff stated that there have been no issues raised with members of the public or: public agencies
with Kyle Carter proposing this neighborhood commercial development.
The public portion, of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to denying the request
Harold RobertSon representing Kyle Carter, the applicant, gave a history of the project.
Thomas Fallgatter, rePresenting Amber Chemical, Inc., is in favor of the rezoning and stated that
one of Amber's suppliers has advised that they may not be able to remain a supplier if the
residences are too close due to liability issues.
Kyle Carter gave a little history'and stated he considers this a health and safety issue and would
request their cOnsideration.
The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Boyle asked if staff would be in opposition to office commercial instead of general
commercial, to which staff responded that they would not be opposed to it if it was office
commercial. Mr. Robertson stated that if the General Plan Amendment application was approved
with a GC designation, it could be a condition that a PCD zone change would be applied for upon
development, and under a PCD uses can be installed that are allowed under C-1, C-2, CO and
uses that are allowed by conditional use permits under those zonings, to which staff confirmed that
this would be correct, and therefore the applicant would propose withdrawing the zone change
application if the general commercial land use designation was approved with a condition that a
PCD zone change be approved upon development.
Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant if they would support a PCD to which the applicant
responded that they would support a PCD as opposed to a CO designation.
Commissioner'Sprague asked Mr. Fallgatter if his client would agree to this, which was responded
to in the affirmative.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he could support this alternative.
Staff advised that since the staff recommendation was going to be for denial of the GPA the
conditions that wduld be required as a result of that traffic study were not given to anyone, and with
the talk of going to a PCD zone at a later date that would give staff the opportunity to discuss the
mitigation measures based on the actual project rather than generalized zoning. Staff pointed out
that there will I:Je additional traffic mitigation measures placed on this General Plan Amendment at
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 13
a later date with the zoning.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he feels deceived in the beginning when they were told it was
safe for R-1 and now it is trying to be rezoned commercial, and he does not think that he could
support a zone change for anYthing other than what it is right now. He does not believe they have
enough information, the City doesn't agree that it's a hazardous site, and does not see the need to
attempt to do a rezone to PCD or general commercial.
Mr. Fallgatter responded that Amber never attempted to deceive anyone, and Amber considers
itself a dangerous neighbor in: the ~beginning, and now for residential, while the City considers
Amber to have been a safe. neighbor in the beginning and now.
Commissioner Brady proposed they approve the GPA with the condition that it cannot be
developed without a PCD zone placed on it. This will solve the industry's concerns because it's n°t
going have houses, and it will appease the developer, and the city can determine if a proposed use
will fit within the area.
Commissioner Brady made a'motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution
approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from LR to General Commercial on 10.81 acres as shown in
Exhibit "A'~and recommend same to City Council, however this project will have an additional
condition that no building can.be conducted on the project site until the developer brings forth a
planned commercial development zone and has it approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council. -
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Gay
Commissioner Brady made a-motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution
approvingthe Negative'Declaration and denying the requested zone change from R-lto C-1 on
1.0.81 acres as shown in Exhibit "B" without prejudice, and recommend same'to City Council.
Motion carried .by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gay
A one minute recess was taken at this time.
9.4) General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0163 (City of Bakersfield)
Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. See Consent Agenda.
Minutes, PC, June 28,'2001
.Page~14
9.5.a.&b.) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change File No. P01-0223 (SmithTech USA',
Inc.)
Staff reported that since Monday's pre-meeting the Commissioners have received a Memo from
the Planning Department with~a revised motion to reference an attached Public Works change of
conditions.
The public portion of the hearing is opened. No one spoke against staff's recommendation.
Tricia Harvison with SmithTech USA, Inc., representing the owner and developer, Don Judkins,
stated they are n agreement with the mitigation measures as presented in the Staff Report and
modified by the Public Work's memo dated June 26, 2001.
Don Judkins stated that they Support the new condition change that was added since Monday.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment
with the Memorandum from PUblic Works dated June 26, 2001, and recommend same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, .Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the, Negative Declaration and approving the zone change with the
Memorandum from Public Works dated June 26, 2001, and recommend same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle
NOES: None
ABSENT: -None
9.7.a.&b.) General Plan Amendment File No. P01-0228 (SmithTech USA~ Inc.)
Staff stated that the applicant has withdrawn his request to change Snow Road from an arterial to a
collector. Staff also reported that Norris School wrote a letter concerning the payment of fees to
pay for the school facilities in the area, and it is illegal to require a developer to join a Mello-Rous
district and is at the developer's option only. Staff has re-written the conditions and should be ·
added to a motion, which gives the applicant the option of joining Mello-Rous or paying statutory
fees, both at the high school and elementary school district level.
The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation.
MinuteS~ pC, june 28, 2001
Page 15
The following people spoke in opposition: Judy Fritch and Robert Mann. Ms. Fritch said that she
is concerned with green buffer zones, parks and sidewalks. Mr. Mann is concerned about density.
The public portion of the hearing is opened for those in support of staff's recommendation.
Tricia Harbison of SmithTech ~USA stated that they are in agreement with the mitigation measures
as presented in the staff report and modified by Public Works Memo dated June 25, 2001, and
Planning Department Memo dated June 27, 2001. Ms. Harvison states that there is a lack of multi
family dwelling and multi family designated land in the northwest Bakersfield area. They agree
with the Mello-Rous district or the payment of statutory fee. With regard to landscaping they
believe there is a possibility that a block wall would be developed, but the appropriate time for this
would be at the time of the tenant map or site plan review stage.
Walley McCormack,'Superintendent of the Norris School District, stated that he is in favor of staff's
recommendation.that the land proposed for development be placed in the R&R Mello-Rous CFD.
Norris' issUe is how to pay for schools to keep up with development.
Dan Beaty, representing Beaty Development, Inc., stated he is available to answer questions.
John Genter, a trustee in the Norris School District, stated that having land in the Mello-Rous
allowsthem to build schools more effectively than developer fees. -
The public portion of the hearing is closed.
The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of applicant's response to the issue of R-2 zoning with the
northerly neighbors, to which applicant responded that they are in compliance with standards.
Commissioner. SpragUe confirmed that this cannot be conditioned upon Mello-ROus, but would be
a condition upon the applicant paying a prorata share as required by Norris School District, and at
such time as they opted to go, into a Mello-Rous with the applicant they can change that area of
assessment. CommissionerSprague stated that he is comfortable with the ordinance as
proposed.
Commissioner Gay stated this his preference woUld be that there be some kind of dedicated buffer
or landscape with a limited access such as one street, serving the 10 acres; and not allow
driveways or access off of Snow Road.
Staff pointe~l out that Snow Road as an arterial implies restricted access. There is a standard
condition on any General Plan Amendment where there is not yet a development plan that access
to the arterial and collector streets will be limited and will be determined at the time of division or
development~
Commissioner Brady stated that he would support a limitation on the access from the HMR to
Snow Road to one. Commissioner Tragish feels that it is not appropriate to put the apartments
there. He inquired about ha~ing the property zoned R-1 to which the applicant responded that
might be a possibility but he would have to think about it.
Commissioner Boyle pointed out that the City nor this Commission had an opportunity to vote on
the large subdivision that is to the west; it was the County. He stated that he cannot support the
project, and thinks that it became instant infill because of the County action.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page16
Commissioner Gay Stated that unless the applicant could agree to a R-1 designation he could not'.
support Without the proper buffer and limited access.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is opposed to taking ag land to make residential, and that
he would 'support the Project With an R-'~ zoning, but not an R-2 zoning.
Commissioner Brady pointed out that he feels to oppose would be losing an opportunity to develop
a necessary element in this aCea which is R-2 property. Apartments have to be available in all
parts of the City. He feels that the applicant has attempted to comply with the City ordinances and
include appropriate land use in their application.
Patricia Harbison stated that they are not opposed to a buffer or the access issue.
Commissioner Brady does not believe it is appropriate to deny the application because of a
disagreement with action previously taken by the County.
CommisSionerlSPrague stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brady.
Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment
with memorandums from the Planning Department, dated June 28, 2001 and the Public Works
Department dated JUne 25, 2001 and recommend same to City Council, and will include the Mello-
Rous fees, and including the landscape buffer and limited access conditions that the applicant has
.agreed to. . -
Motion carried by the folloWing roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, Sprague, Tkac
Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Boyle
None
Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change with
memorandums from the.Planning Department, dated June 28, 2001 and the Public Works
Department dated June 25, 2(~01, and recommend same to City Council, including the Mello-
Rous/development fees, and including the landscape buffer and limited access conditions that the
applicant has agreed to.
Motion carried
AYES:
by the folloWing roll call vote:
Commissioners Brady, Gay, Sprague, Tkac
NOES:
Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Boyle
ABSENT:
None
9.8.a.&b.)
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change File No. P01-0285 (City of
Bakersfield)
See Consent Agenda.
Minutes, PC, June 28, 2001
Page 17
9.9.a.&b.) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change File No. P01-0302 (The Lusich
. Company, INC.)
See Consent Agenda
10.
11,
12.
COMMUNICATIONS
None
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Nonel
DISCUSSION ANDACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-
MEETING
Due to the size of the next agenda it was decided a pre-meeting was not necessary.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
12:54 a.m.
Para Townsend, Recording Secretary'
//J JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
'~' Acting Planning Director
July 31, 2001