HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-08 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Meeting – April 3, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: ,
Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnisStanley, Tragish, Tkac
Absent:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for regular Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 2008.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the
Consent Calendar Non-Public Hearing Items.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6361 (SmithTech/USA,
Inc.)
4.3a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1930 (Brent Dezember)
4.3b Approval of Zone Change 07-1930 (Brent Dezember)
4.4 Approval of Zone Change 07-1977 (San Joaquin Engineering)
4.5 Refer Zone Change 07-2111 Back to Staff (R.C. Abbott & Associates)
4.6 Approval of Zone Change 07-2273 (Michael H. McAllister)
4.7 Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11698 (McIntosh & Associates)
4.8 Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11773 (McIntosh & Associates)
4.9 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6510 (M.S. Walker & Associates)
The public hearing is open.No one from the audience or the commission requested
removal of any consent item. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Public
Hearing Items from the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac.
NOES:
Minutes of Planning Commission – April 3, 2008 Page 2
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – General Plan Amendments/Zone Changes
5.1a General Plan Amendment 07-1930) (Brent Dezember)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.1b Zone Change 07-1930 (Brent Dezember)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.2a General Plan Amendment 07-2098 (McIntosh & Associates)
5.2b Kern River Plan Element Amendment 07-2098 (McIntosh & Associates)
5.2c Zone Change 07-2098 (McIntosh & Associates)
Commissioner Johnson recused himself from this item as there is the perception that there could
be a conflict. Commissioner Tragish recused himself as he represents the general contractor in
this project. Commissioner Blockley recused himself from this item as he has a conflict.
Commissioner Andrews nominated Commissioner Tkac as the temporary chair for this item.
Commissioner McGinnis seconded the motion. Motion carried by group vote.
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Nancy Newman stated she is in congruence with
not having the stop light, but is against the zone change. She stated that we have an abundance
of big stores in this town and would like one area that will have a different attitude. She stated
that she would not like to see Castle & Cooke just put in a big box store so they can move on.
Susan Ford stated she is against a Target store because of traffic and parking issues.
Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates, representing Castle & Cooke, addressed the issue
of the additional signal stating that they do not agree with staff’s analysis of what the signal is
about and why it is not necessary to go in. He pointed out that an arterial’s only purpose is not
just to move traffic, but to provide access to properties as well because without proper access the
entire plan does not work. Mr. McIntosh further pointed out that the circulation element does
provide for a goal to develop and maintain a circulation system that supports the land use plan
shown in the General Plan and if you can’t get proper access into a commercial center, then you
don’t have a viable center. Mr. McIntosh stated that the lights are not there to make the developer
money, but rather are there to provide safe entry ingress and egress out of a site. He compared
this center to the Northwest Promanade which has signals approximately 1/4 mile apart. He
pointed out that Riverwalk is the same scale as the Northwest Promanade and that it is about ¾
mile from Calloway to Buena Vista Road. He stated that the proposed signals are all spaced
about ¼ mile apart which would provide proper ingress and egress on the center. He referenced
Staff’s conversations in which it is expressed the Gosford Village does not work where there are 3
signals within a ½ mile .
Mr. McIntosh continued to state that another reason they are asking for the access is because of
the connectivity between the properties. He further pointed out that there will be a lot of delivery
trucks coming in and out into the back of the retail stores and connecting back to Buena Vista
Road. He also pointed out that the city has an access easement to gain access to the back of
the amphitheatre.
Mr. McIntosh stated that back in 2006 they prepared a traffic synchronization study, which was
done in accordance with City standards, and it is a recognized national synchronization study
methodology. In June 2006 the City Public Works Department provided a letter in response to the
study indicating that it was acceptable and that the additional single requested signal for the retail
and office commercial entrance 1195’ west of Old River Road will not significant degrade future
traffic progression. He stated that this study was used to construct the signal and processed in
through the Public Works Department. He stated that they would like the condition re-written as
they feel that it is not a land use decision and should not be before the Commission, but rather
Minutes of Planning Commission – April 3, 2008 Page 3
reviewed and worked out the with the Public Works Department. Mr. McIntosh stated that if there
are problems with this corridor (from California Avenue to Renfro Road) they would like to be part
of the solution and work with Public Works to make it work.
Bill Sampson, with Castle & Cooke, stated they have interested tenants at this location, but are
failing to commit until they can tell them they have a settled site plan and have located an anchor
tenant. He pointed out that it has been seven years that they’ve been working on this and they
would like to get going. He also clarified that there will be only 140,000’ in this location, whether it
be in two 70,000’ or one 140,000’ and further pointed out that they are not increasing the overall
size of the shopping center.
Richard Chapman, President of the Kern Economic Development Corporation, stated they are in
favor of the GPA 07-2098. He stated that a Nordstrom-type tenant usually look to at least one
million persons in their demographic area. He pointed out the additional 140,000 sq. ft. will bring
in five million dollars more to the local economy immediately and if we wait the local economy will
suffer. He pointed out that Bakersfield is under serviced currently, pointing out that the Target on
Rosedale is at capacity.
Bill Sampson further commented that the property has been posted with signs up and down
Stockdale and Buena Vista, as well as on Calloway for at least two months notifying the public of
this particular application.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he did meet with Shannon Williams, from Castle & Cooke, at
her request. He commented that he has heard complaints that nobody knows what the posted
sign says because the traffic goes by so fast. He inquired of Mr. Sampson if any of their potential
tenants have shown any opposition to a Target as an anchor, to which Mr. Sampson responded in
the negative. Mr. Sampson assured the public that Target will not have any outdoor storage, or
garden shop and the architecture will be commensurate with what they are doing with the center.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Target has a minimum footprint that they will work with, to
which Mr. Sampson responded that they are at the minimum now.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. McIntosh if any of the letters in support of this project
have any professional or business relationship with this center, to which Mr. McIntosh responded
that Staff was not supportive of the project so they requested Castle & Cooke to go out and do a
public outreach. He stated he does not know how many have relationships with the project, but
they were surprised as to the number that came back as well.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired as to what Mr. McIntosh meant by his statement that “staff was
against it.” Mr. McIntosh explained that they were told that because it was a political decision, or
mandated by the Council the last time it was approved, that Staff couldn’t come out for or against
it and therefore they were going to have to recommend against it. He stated that they discussed
options such as a public outreach, which showed an overwhelming support for the project.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. McIntosh if he knew what the delivery isle is behind the
shops. Mr. McIntosh responded that they are either 25 or 30 feet. He stated that he concurs with
having signalization for this site.
Commissioner Stanley inquired of Staff if there is a concern with the truck traffic coming down
through the CPK parking lot. Staff responded that this project started as a blank slate and they
knew at the time that they were going to have limited signalization. Staff further stated that the
proposed site plan for the rest of the property did not accommodate the signals they knew they
would get at the time and apparently now there is an obstruction that has been created on the
eastern side for truck traffic. Staff points out that it is what it is and with that knowledge they
agreed upon conditions that were part of the justification why a PCD was not put on the site. Staff
explained that originally it was going to be a PCD and the applicant indicated that they would
agree to many specific conditions so that they could develop under a straight C2 zoning. Staff
Minutes of Planning Commission – April 3, 2008 Page 4
pointed out that the alleged problems were not created from Staff’s imposition of the signal
limitation, but are rather a design issue that could have been dealt with some different design of
the property.
Commissioner Stanley inquired of the applicant if the Target is not allowed, what would happen
on the property. The applicant stated that without an anchor tenant there probably will just be a
free-standing office building that is currently under construction and it would be a blank piece of
property.
Commissioner Stanley asked the applicant to explain the process they’ve gone through to attract
some other tenants. Bo Lundy stated that they have looked at tenants not at the Market Place and
have started from the top down. The lifestyle tenants, including Nordstrom, Sax Fifth Avenue,
Neiman Marcus, and Potter Barn are ones they have looked at. The mass of tenants that will
create a mixed lifestyle center include mixed use, office, retail, and medical. Mr. Lundy stated
they talked with Nordstrom, Dillards, and Robinson May, and Nordstrom was looking for a
different concept and they said that it would be another 30 years at least before Bakersfield would
ever get a Nordstrom. Mr. Lundy explained that the volumes that some of these department
stores are doing does not impress a lot of the other retailers. He stated that most of the retailers
are in New York and it is very hard to get them to Bakersfield.
Commissioner Stanley inquired what demographics the retailers are looking for. Mr. Lundy
responded they look at education levels and income.
Commissioner Stanley inquired if there are any renderings as to what it would look like potentially
and the dollar amounts for the architecture. The applicant responded that in the main street,
where they are hoping to attract the more lifestyle-type tenants, the buildings are extremely
upscale in a walking environment with parking in the peripheral. The applicant explained that
there will be upgrades to the 140,000’ tenant and the material used will blend together. He
commented that it will be better than the Market Place. The applicant stated that C trains will not
be allowed.
Commissioner Andrews inquired if the current Target stores are at capacity and if any analysis
has been done to determine whether or not there is a demand for the types of products they offer.
The applicant responded that they have done an analysis and further pointed out that Target has
placed Bakersfield on one of their absolute top priority list of communities that they want to better
serve, because it is way under served according to Target.
Commissioner Andrews inquired what the inside of Target will look like and if it will reflect an
upscale kind of arrangement with perhaps wider aisles, or anything that would distinguish it from
the run-of-the-mill Target that would be built in any other area. The applicant responded that
Target is constantly coming out with new prototypes and are continually evaluating those issues.
He stated that he is sure that it will be the latest rendition of what Target has come up with.
Commissioner Andrews inquired as to the signatures from PFC in support of the project and the
applicant explained that they talked to the manager, who has stated that he is interested in getting
the project going and is willing to help out, and subsequently the manager obtained signatures in
support of the project.
Commissioner Stanley inquired if there will still be a collaborative effort between Staff and the
applicant to try to come up with something regarding the signalization. Staff responded that if the
Planning Commission agrees to have a signal the Public Works Director would have to approve it
and approve the studies to make sure it flows adequately. Once the signal is approved the
condition relieves him to be able to go in and make sure it works.
Commissioner Stanley stated that while it is disappointing that the higher end stores are not
willing to come to Bakersfield, he does understand the applicant’s frustration. Commissioner
Stanley commented that in reading some of the letters some of the people did not know what they
were talking about and he encouraged the applicant to get out with the public and try to
communicate a little bit better.
Minutes of Planning Commission – April 3, 2008 Page 5
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he hopes that the signalization could be worked out between
Staff and the applicant.
Commissioner Tkac stated they want to try to get these high end upscale stores to Bakersfield,
however Bakersfield’s numbers do not meet their requirements. He further commented on Castle
& Cooke’s good history within the community and that the Market Place provided a lot of entry-
level jobs and he commended Castle & Cooke for their willingness to go into this project in a
down market/economy. Commissioner Tkac stated that if we ever are going to get those higher
end stores, this current property with a Target is a good example to start with.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he thinks the project is well planned and well documented.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving a portion of the requested General Plan Amendment, to change
condition of approval number 19.b for GPA zone change 00-0291, to allow a maximum of 140,000
square feet for any individual retail space on the project site, and recommend approval of an
additional full access point to the commercial center with a signalized intersection on Stockdale
Highway approximately 1200’ west of Old River Road and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tkac.
NOES:
RECUSE: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tragish
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving a portion of the requested Amendment to the Kern River Plan Element
that would change condition of approval number 19.b of GPA GC 00-0291, to allow a maximum of
140,000 square feet for any individual retail space on the project site, and recommend approval of
an additional full access point to the commercial center with a signalized intersection on
Stockdale Highway approximately 1200’ west of Old River Road and recommend the same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tkac.
NOES:
RECUSE: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tragish
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving a portion of the requested Zone Change that will change condition of
approval number 19.b of GPA zone change 00-0291, to allow a maximum of 140,000 square feet
for any individual retail space on the project site, and recommend approval of an additional full
access point to the commercial center with a signalized intersection on Stockdale Highway
approximately 1200’ west of Old River Road and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tkac.
NOES:
RECUSE: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tragish
The meeting was turned back over to Chairman Blockley.
5.3 Zone Change 07-1977 (San Joaquin Engineering)
Heard on consent calendar.
Minutes of Planning Commission – April 3, 2008 Page 6
5.4 Zone Change 07-2111 (R.C. Abbott & Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.5 Zone Change 07-2273 (Michael H. McAllister)
Heard on consent calendar.
6:14:46 PM
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS
6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11698 (McIntosh & Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
6.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11773 (McIntosh & Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6510 (M.S. Walker & Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
May 5, 2008