HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-08 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Meeting – March 20, 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 February 21,
2008.
4.1b Acceptance of Planning Director’s Report on Administrative Review 08-0189
(Castle & Cooke California)
Commissioner Tragish announced that he listened to the CD from the March 17, 2008
Pre-Meeting.
Commissioner Johnson 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 Continuance of General Plan Amendment 07-1930 to April 3, 2008
(Brent Dezember)
4.2b Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 07-1930 to April 3, 2008 (Brent
Dezember)
4.3a Approval of Continuance of General Plan Amendment 07-2098 to April 3, 2008
(McIntosh & Associates)
4.3b Approval of Continuance of Kern River Plan Element Amendment to April 3, 2008
(McIntosh & Associates)
4.3c Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 07-2098 to April 3, 2008 (McIntosh &
Associates)
4.4a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7093 (Stantec Consulting Inc.)
4.5a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-2342 (Spring Hill Development, LLC)
4.5b Approval of Zone Change 07-2342 (Spring Hill Development, LLC)
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 2
4.5c Planned Unit Development 07-2345 – Preliminary Development Plan –
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT (Spring Hill Development, LLC)
4.6aApproval of General Plan Amendment 07-1135 (David Dmohowski)
4.6b Approval of Zone Change 07-1135 (David Dmohowski)
4.7a Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-0151 (Bakersfield Memorial Hospital)
4.7b Approval of Zone Change 08-0151 (Bakersfield Memorial Hospital)
Commissioner Tkac arrived at 5:35pm.
The public hearing is opened. Items 4.5 a & b were removed from the consent calendar
with the hearings remaining open on 4.2 a & b and 4.3 a, b & c. Public hearing is
closed. Commissioner Tkac abstained from item 4.4 a, regular agenda item 5.1 a, and
stated he listened to the CD from the March 17, 2008 Pre-Meeting. Commissioners
Johnson, Tragish & Blockley abstained from item 4.3 a, b & c.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Tragish, to approve the public hearing
items as read.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN:
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Tract Map
5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7093 (Stantec Consulting Inc.)
Heard on consent.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS /Land Use Element Amendments
/ Circulation Element / Zone Changes
6.1a Panama/Ashe Commercial Center Environmental Impact Report GPA/ZC 06-1052
(Maurice J. Etchechury)
6.1b General Plan Amendment 06-1052 (Maurice J. Etchechury)
6.1c Zone Change 06-1052(Maurice J. Etchechury)
6.1d Planned Commercial Development 06-2260 (Maurice J. Etchechury)
Commissioner Tkac: I will not be participating on this item, I have a conflict of interest as I do business with a
certain majority of this entity so I will be excusing myself from this vote, thank you sir.
Commissioner Blockley: 6.1 a through d
Commissioner Tkac: That is correct sir.
Commissioner Blockley: And the public hearing on all these items is now open is there a staff report please.
Staff: Yes Commissioners, you have two pieces of correspondence you have a memorandum
th
dated March 20 from the Planning Department, we transmitted correspondence from U-
Haul construction regarding this item to you and you also have correspondence
transmitted to you from MR Wolfe, that correspondence has questions regarding the EIR
and the consulting team will be responding to those when you ask the applicant on this
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 3
project. This project is located at the southwest corner of Panama and Ashe Road, it is
about 20 acres in size. The site itself is undeveloped and right now in agricultural
production, the property to the south and west is undeveloped, the property to the east,
northeast and to the north is currently developed. As we said it is 20 gross acres in size
about 138 square feet of retail space is proposed, consisting of 1 large grocery store at the
west end and 6 smaller pads, the land use amendment is from low density residential to
general commercial and the zoning is proposed to go from R-1 to C-2/PCD Planned
Commercial Development. This is the preliminary site development plan for the site, as
you can see Panama Lane is a major arterial on the north, Ashe road on the east and then
a local street would be on the west to serve a future residential community and that assists
in traffic mitigation, also because then the population does not have to get out on the
major arterials to get to the site they can access it directly from the neighborhood. At this
time I would like to introduce Tom Henry from Jones & Stokes, the City’s consultant on this
project, to review the environmental document, thank you.
Tom Henry: Good evening Commissioners and thank you Mr. Movius. I would like to just spend a few
moments of your time reviewing the environmental process as to how we got to this point
and then summarize the major findings of the final environmental impact report, which was
recently issued and is this document. As a review of the EIR process we initiated scoping
st
on this project back in July of 2007, the scoping meeting itself occurred on August 1 of
2007, and then we worked diligently on the draft environmental impact report.
We analized 13 different environmental topics and then circulated the draft EIR from
thth
January 9 through February 25 of this year and last month I was before you to review
the specifics of that draft environmental impact report and now we are at the stage of the
final EIR, we have responded to the comments and provided some minor errata in this
final EIR document and we have circulated the responses to those comments for the
required 10 days prior to this hearing. These are the conclusions that are in the final
impact report, you will see on the left hand side the vast majority of analysis of various
resources was found to be less than significant with the required mitigation. However, on
the right you will see that there is one specific area where we did have significant findings
and that is in the area of traffic and transportation. There are 4 intersections in that area
that did not meet the required level of service C and that is with the project and with
required mitigation. It’s a reflection of not only the project but more predominately about
the nature of the rapid growth expanding in that area of the city.
As to the comments we received on the draft EIR, we received 10 comments and on the
left hand side you will see the number of agencies, State and local, that commented to us,
the California Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, the Native American Heritage
Commission, the City of Bakersfield’s Public Works Department, we had a comment from
your Commission at our last hearing and a comment from the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District and on the right hand side you will see that we received 3 letters
from interested parties, the Sierra Club, Mr. Wolfe and Associates, and Mary Lou Miller,
who is a nearby resident of the proposed project. And finally this is a quick summary of
the issues identified in those 10 comment letters. Some further clarification was asked for
regarding protection for the Kit Fox, Burrowing Owl and Swansons Hawk wildlife species,
a concern regarding light pollution, agricultural land conversion, solar power, future traffic
conditions, the funding of a regional traffic impact projects, air quality and global warming,
noise, urban decay, the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, we were wanting to
ensure that the plant was able to accommodate the project, the issue of project
piecemealing, making sure that this project was adequately and properly addressed
relative to other projects in the area, and finally the area of alternative considerations in
the EIR. That concludes my presentation I would be happy to answer any questions you
have at this time or later.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you very much. At this time is there anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to
staff’s recommendation, if so please come forward and state your name for the record.
Seeing no one, is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of staff’s recommendation or
the applicant, please come forward.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 4
Herb Horowitz: I am the principal architect with LHAGKK/Works Architectual Firm located at 1833 Victory
Blvd. Glendale California. It is a pleasure for me to be here tonight and share with you our
vision for this project, it is a 20 acre shopping center located at the southwest corner of
Panama and Ashe consisting of a grocery store, which is referred to as major number 1,
located at the westerly portion of the site, in addition to the grocery store we have a drug
store that is located at the northeast corner of the site along with a 20,000 square foot
multi-tentant shop building consisting of retail and food uses for that location. In addition
we have a wonderful opportunity here to provide some additional retail and restaurant
buildings right on Panama Lane so that we can create some very interesting architecture
at the perimeter of the project.
This is what we call our image board, or our context page, and what this does is describes
to you the character of the shopping center that we plan to create, on the upper left hand
corner you have the wonderful selection of colors, earth tones and very bright colors, to
begin to accent different building features, we are also indicating different kinds of shading
effect which consist of metal awnings, fabric awnings, very colorful displays as well as
entry features and interesting architectural shapes, we are also introducing entry monitors
along with very interesting roof shapes, storefront materials, and wall surfaces consisting
of natural split face materials as well as natural stone. In addition the landscaping will be
extremely colorful to give a seasonal color and then we are also accenting public
improvements and accommodations such as plaza’s and pathways that will provide
connectivity for the entire project. This is a view of one of the connecting links to the
shopping center, it will connect some of the other retail buildings to our major building 1,
which is the grocery store, this is intended to demonstrate the interesting sidewalk
patterns, the interesting textures as well as the site furnishings that we plan to place in the
center. This particular image describes what we call vehicular pedestrian circulation and
also illustrates the gathering places as well as the main circulation patterns throughout the
site, the red dots that surround the perimeter of the site, and also within the center itself,
describe the circulation patterns for pedestrians, the blue stripe patterns indicate major
traffic circulation patterns, the circles indicate gathering places connected to focal points
and other gathering places throughout the site, these gathering places and circulation
patterns have trellis elements that help break up some of the circulation patterns. This
image describes one of the main entrances off of the proposed neighborhood access
which would be at the southwest corner of the site, it is our intent to introduce these trellis
elements in a number of different locations, they would consist of a base of natural stone,
stucco pylasters and then a natural roughsond wood trellis. Here again we are illustrating
the emphasis that we are placing on connectivity and gathering places, if you look at the
site drawing that we have located in the center of the board you will see that the circles
represent gathering places which really become focal points within the center. We start
with the gathering place area number 1, which would be at the easterly portion of shops A,
you then walk underneath the canopy to another gathering place, these become focal
points as you circulate through the project.
Our landscape plan has a tremendous number of trees, we have several species of trees
that help define the peremeter of the site, we also have special species of trees that help
delineate the circulation patterns for automobiles and then a third species of trees that
define the parking area itself providing large areas of shade particularly during the hot
summer months. Our image board for landscaping, as you look at it you will see that we
have trees that have different color blossoms, different sizes and shapes, some are
evergreens and other trees might be desigious, again giving a seasonal color and
describing various interest in landscaping throughout the year.
The exterior elevations, I must add that I want to thank staff for really assisting us in
helping us develop these elevations with the new guidelines that we have to adhere to,
quite frankly they allowed us to create some very interesting architectural shapes and
textures. The east elevation is the primary elevation for the market located at the westerly
end of the site, this particular elevation is highly articulated, and because of the size of the
building, what that’s enabled us to do is to break the architecture down into a number of
different architectual components. You will see that these are what we call bookends of
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 5
architectual shapes at the corners, there’s a main entry feature that is an element that is
increased in height to identify the entrance, then we also have these arcade elements and
then these elements are used on other elevations of the building so that there is continuity
between the four sides of the building, each very visible from the public view. These are
the exterior elevations for the drug store, which are located here, again using the criteria
that has been defined in your design guidelines, which basically require that we articulate
the building, layer the exterior surfaces, use interesting, contrasting material, colors and
identify shapes. This is the shop building 1, again a multi-tenant building identified with a
number different entrance monitors and connected with canopys that give us the continuity
to link the architecture together. A larger view of our color material board, as you can see
the colors are earth tones, pastels, then we have a few colors that we are using for accent,
were describing the clay tile roof, the natural stone materials that will occur throughout the
project and then our fabric awnings that we propose on the site. Getting back again to our
preliminary site plan which concludes my presentation and I will be very happy to answer
or respond to any questions you might have, thank you.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you very much Mr. Horowitz. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor.
Mary Jane Wilson: Chairman Blockley, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Mary Jane Wilson
and I am president of WZI Inc. WZI is a professional services firm consisting of geologists,
engineers and environmental specialists. WZI has prepared many of the technical studies
on which the Panama/Ashe commercial center EIR relies and we have extensively
reviewed all of the studies in the EIR itself. I have prepared a summary of issues brought
forward through the public comment process, including the letter that you received today,
and I would like to draw them to your attention.
Before I begin I would like to thank the staff for their hard work on the preparation of the
final EIR for this center. The only significant environmental impacts that remain are
related to traffic, the project traffic is a small contribution to the cumulative traffic at the four
intersections. It should be noted that this significant impact will occur whether this project
is built or not. The issue of piecemealing was brought up, CEQA requires that a project
may not be segmented or piecemealed into smaller parts if the effect is to avoid full
disclosure of environmental impacts. As stated in the response to comments or in the final
EIR the previously approved and entitled residential project was subject to CEQA and it’s
mitigated negative declaration was prepared. The City is not required to re-evaluate the
impacts of a previously approved and entitled residential project. The proposed
commercial was not contemplated at the time the residential tentative tract map was
processed and ultimately approved. Additionally, activities do not need to be evaluated in
the same CEQA document when the proposed project is independent of and not
contemplated as a future part of the original action. The proposed commercial project in
the previously entitled residential project is not integral part of the same project, each can
proceed independently of one another, furthermore the environmental impacts, from the
project disclosed in the EIR, do not reflect any credits for impacts that will not occur or will
be mitigated with respect to the portion of the residential project that will not be built if the
current project is approved. Finally, all of the impacts associated with the previously
approved residential project and its total size were assessed as part of the cumulative
impact analysis.
Hazardous materials -- A phase 1 environmental site assessment was prepared by Krazan
and Associates and was provided to the City during the scoping process, the phase 1
environmental site assessment, which was included in the EIR as appendix J, was
conducted in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM E-1 5-2700
standard practice for environmental site assessments. Phase 1 environmental site
assessment process, the findings of the report were as follows, “the potential for
recognized environmental conditions to exist on the site appear to be low as a result of
historical uses, current uses and from adjacent properties. As stated in the EIR there is no
evidence that the site contains hazardous material from a historical, current use or from
adjacent properties.” Access to the site, the south wall, as you can see, on the drawing on
the site plan, is required by the city and we understand that all walls must meet the design
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 6
requirements that take into account, private property, safety, security, aesthetics and noise
reducing requirements. The wall design will be reviewed by the city engineer prior to the
issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all city design requirements,
including safety and security. Pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the shopping
center is available by the way of sidewalk entrances at both the southwest and southeast
corners of the commercial project as stated in the draft EIR, figures 2-4, 2-5, 2-6 and 2-7.
The circulation at the site has been designed to direct pedestrian traffic to patio and shop
entrance areas without creating traffic related safety issues. Any penetrations in the south
wall might provide a distance benefit of several hundred feet to homes that are directly
adjacent to the central portion of the south wall. All other residents would have to travel
the same distance, either as pedestrians or by automobile access, to the commercial
project regardless of access through the south wall. Additionally, the major use of this
commercial property is grocery, few people these days, need to carry home their
groceries, the need for occasional pedestrian access from the nearest homes in the
adjacent neighborhood to the commercial area needs to be balanced within the context of
usefulness and security for the residential area, therefore we respectfully reiterate our
belief that normal neighborhood egress and ingress be controlled through neighborhood
entrances.
Light from the project -- Lighting design is mandated by City ordinance and a project
lighting study will be supplied. The lighting design requirements within the City’s
standards have been determined to avoid significant adverse lighting impacts by experts,
however to ensure the proper positioning of the approved luminary equipment a nighttime
evaluation by the applicants experts with the concurrence of the City inspectors shall be
conducted and documentation of the final testing results shall be provided to the City for
acceptance before granting the developer a final certificate of occupancy. By doing this
the project will optimize compliance with City ordinances that balance security and safety
considerations with night lighting effects.
Impacts to farmland -- The applicant provided an agricultural study to the City during the
scoping process and the study is in the administrative record. The agricultural study
supports the City’s determination at the scoping phase of the project, the potential impacts
to farmland from this project do not rise to the level of detailed consideration in the EIR.
As explained in the study, the California Land Conservation Act, better known as the
Williamson Act, has been the State’s premier farmland protection program, more than 16
million of California’s 30 million acres of farm and ranch land are currently protected under
the Williamson Act. The California legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to
preserve agriculture and open space by discouraging premature and unnecessary
conversion to urban uses. The project site is not in the Williamson Act, continued use of
the 20 acre, R-1 zoned site as farmland in such close proximaty to the adjacent residential
uses will have a limited life, even without this commercial life, due to the dust noise and
pestisides related to agricultural activites. The quanification of these activities is contained
in Appendix D, Air Quality Impact Study, and Appendix L, Noise Study, of the draft EIR. It
was suggested that the project should use photovoltaic panels for electricity. The project
already incorporates mitigation measures to reduce electricity demands through measures
such as those listed below. The commercial buildings will meet title 24 standards at a
minimum. The proposed project design employs reflective roofing materials for all of the
proposed buildings to be consistent with policy 100 of the Bakersfield General Plan Land
Use Element. The project will voluntarily mitigate criteria pollutants with a voluntary
emission reductions agreement, the voluntary emissions reduction agreement has it’s own
set of design requirements imposed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District, it is contained in Appendix E, Voluntary Emission Reduction agreement of the
DEIR. The project will utilize, as you’ve seen before, some wonderful landscaping to
provide reasonable canopy’s for shade and to create a walkalbe community. There was a
comment on Swansons Hawk mitigation, the study performed by Paul Prewitt and
Associates stated that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan sufficiently
mitigates to less than significant those Swanson Hawk impacts related to habitat loss for
three reasons, #1-- the known nest occurring within the 10 mile radias of the project was
last identified as active 26 years ago in 1992, this is beyond the 5 year window for
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 7
threshold by CDFG of mitigation, #2 – the species account listed in California Natural
Diversity database represents less than .006% of occurrences reflected by CDFG & #3 –
the size and location of the project site, and the fact that it is adjacent to existing
urbanization, minimizes the potential for foraging by the Swansons Hawk.
Traffic Impacts -- The project incorporates all feasible mitigations for traffic, the project
level and cumulative traffic impacts have been stated to be significant and unavoidable.
As mentioned earlier there are no remaining project specific traffic impacts on any
intersection with the implementation of road improvements for which the project is paying
it’s fair share for the improvement. It should be noted that the level of service at the
project impacted intersections will require improvement with or without the project as
discussed in the draft EIR. The fair share was calculated according to the traffic
projections by the traffic engineer and approved by the City. The fair share of
improvements verify’s the bilocation which varies from a high of 10.19%, at the corner of
the development, to a low 1.11% at some distance in accordance with the formula
specified on page 49 of Appendix M in the traffic study. The actual traffic volumes are
shown on tables 5a through 5c and 6 with the fair share percentages of improvements on
tables number 7 and 8 of Appendix M of the traffic study. The fair share fees that are
identified as mitigation for those road segments and intersections are to be improved to
level of service C will be funded at the time the project proceeds. The City will collect
those fees for the projects mitigation at the time of the commencement of the project. We
understand the City will schedule these and all other improvements based on the City’s
ongoing, comprehensive analysis of road improvement requirements and that the project
related mitigation should be put into affect by the year 2030. These roadway
improvements are considered “constrained” which means that these improvements will be
reasonably funded through 2030. The major roadway improvements are contained on
pages 66-96 of Appendix 13 of Appendix D of the Air Study in the DEIR as well as in the
Regional Transportation Impact Facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield
Transportation Impact Fee Program. The projects are funded in 3 ways, #1 – through the
regional fee program which is non-discriminatory, everybody pays it, #2 – through fair
share development fees charged to developers as projects are implemented and #3 –
through improvements actually accomplished by developers during their project
construction, as developer may improve half a roadway for instance. The significant
impacts remaining after all feasible mitigation are in place are those related to the projects
incremental contribution to accumulatively significant impacts at 4 intersections, as
discussed in the DEIR on pages 4-14 and 4 through 24, the roadway space itself, at these
intersections, is constrained by right-of-way issues. Constructing the necessary mitigation
would entail the taking, by eminent domain, of 23 homes and several commercial
operations as well as having impacts to access and egress at several on going
commercial establishments. The traffic engineer performed this study that established that
the project’s fair share of this would be at least 1.8 to 2 million dollars of a 36 to 40 million
dollar project. Additionally, the improvements would be outside the City’s design factors
for traffic safety. On these basis the City established that there is no feasible way to
presently mitigate the anticipated cumulative impacts at these subject intersections until
future need on part of the City mandates a justifiable basis for taking up private property or
changing their design standards.
Air Impacts and Greenhouse Gases -- The voluntary emission reduction agreement is in
the record and it shows the applicants willingness to exceed regulatory requirements to
reduce the amount of emissions created by this project. Because of the terms of the
agreement the voluntary emission reductions will exceed the project related emissions and
therefore the net criteria air quality impact is 0. Additionally the project is adhering to the
provisions of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan that reduce emissions for both
criteria pollutants and green house gasses. The project, by design, is providing
commercial services within a residential area which limit the vehicle miles traveled and
therefore the greenhouse gasses emitted by unnecessary travel to more distant
commercial services. Both Appendix M, the Traffic Study, and Appendix N, the Economic
Impact Study, to the DEIR estimated the average trip distance for customers to be
approximately 3 miles, this is opposed to the 7.3 miles for customers and 9.5 miles for
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 8
commuters which the San Joaquin Valley Air District averages are specified in the
Urbamess program. As stated in the DEIR on page 4-8 the project is consistent with
green house gas emission reduction strategies identified by the California EPA Climate
Action team to meet the green house gas reductions of AB32.
Urban Decay -- An Economic Impact Analysis was prepared for this project by CB Richard
Ellis and was included in the EIR as Appendix N. The urban decay analysis included the
planned Wal-Mart stores at Panama and 99 and at Gosford and Pacheco in the
cumulative sales impact analysis on pages 39-43 of Appendix N, Economic Analysis. Also
as discussed in Appendix N, in the population and income estimate section, the
methodology for population estimates was based on KernCOG Council of Governments
population and household estimates and projections which were derived from State and
County level projection prepared by the State of California Department of Finance, this is
the official source of demographic data for State planning and budgeting. Population
figures published by KernCOG and the DOF are not dependent on the relative strength or
weakness of the housing market. As such population and household data used in the
urban decay analysis were bench marked to the official growth projections of the DOF and
are independent of the relative strength or weakness of the housing market. We have all
the staff here that are available to answer your questions on these issues but before we
close we would like to have Jess Frederick come up and talk about the noise questions,
but before that I am going to submit my testimony into the record.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you very much Ms. Wilson.
Jess Frederick: Honorable Chair my name is Jess Frederick, I am the Vice-President of WZI. We just
today received a comment letter from M.R. Wolfe, one of the areas that they raised
questions was in regard to the noise study. The commenter, MR Wolfe, is making several
erroneous assumptions in their questions that they raise. The first error that they make is
that the area wide traffic noise modeling reflects any and all conditions at each subject
segment, they also make an erroneous assumption that the analysis is overstated, the
pre-existing area wide noise impacts and understated traffic noise impacts. They are also
erroneous in their statement that the general plan noise element is inadequate to provide a
reasonable basis for experts to measure, predict and disclose noise impacts. Lastly, that
the general plan does not provide adequate basis for evaluation of many small projects or
many projects for that matter. The table 4.5-1 of the noise study, that they refer to,
actually shows a combination of data gathered from previous sources such as the general
plan data provided by Brown & Button as well as data that WZI has gathered related to
this project specifically. These data are put in the context of the same impact area defined
by the traffic study so that there is a correlation between the two in the area of interest. In
order to establish a reasonable current background noise level to which the cumulative
traffic related noise can be added, in a meaningful manner, the predicted traffic for current
traffic is algebraically subtracted from the measured data, the known data today to get a
background without traffic, so that we can add traffic to it because if you don’t do that you
just keep traffic on data that already has traffic in it and it becomes pan caked and
irrelevant. Each of the columns in that table, 4.5-1, shows progressively how we arrive at
the values that are for the future impacts and accumulative analysis setting. The results
were tested against the general plan noise element specified criteria for significance. The
cumulative noise study area extends to alignments through nearby rural areas where no
road exist but are planned to suburban road segments that are adjacent to State Route 99.
Receptors close to roads with large traffic counts or trucks going by will experience traffic
dominated noise, areas where it’s rural will experience agricultural noise but regardless of
the location if you have air traffic overhead your gonna have a higher noise level and one
of the things that I think that we fail to note related to that region of Bakersfield, we’ve
taken a lot of noise data there, is that that is a practice area for flying it’s also a lot of farm
trucks coming and going and such. The farther suburban areas that we studied, which are
in the outer reaches of the project, those areas have less project related traffic but they still
have a lot of background noise that exists there but is not related to this project
incrementally in 2030. We have gathered data from other similar projects and found the
background data that we were analyzing was consistent. I have a chart, I have many
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 9
charts, their the noise sources and what their levels are, rural areas and suburban areas
tend to run about 50 to 55 decibels, it varies depending on how much air conditioning you
have running. The modeling techniques that we employed were not adjusted to reflect
common sense or to support any forgone conclusion, the data was gathered and the
models were run based on the road segments of interest, the results were presented
without bias. There are numerous sources of noise associated with the project, the area
around the project, as I said, is commonly used for practice and it’s agriculture as well and
you have traffic so it depends on where you are as to what dominates what noise source.
When you look at the project specific location it’s largely agricultural and it has trucks and
it has over flights of small general aviation aircraft, when you get further away you start
going up into the northeast area and your back in the areas that are dominated by a lot of
traffic such as Pacheco and Gosford. The noise modeling requested by the City included
traffic areas such as the Gosford and Pacheco area specifically, that area uses large
setbacks, they have a train running through that area. This is the intersection of Pacheco
and Gosford and what you see is a large Home Depot, this is a commercial area, I believe
this is a bunch of little light industrial facilities and this is a railroad track so the noise in
that location is dominated by rail, commercial and traffic. The other intersection of interest
of the commenter was this one, sorry it’s not as brightly lit, I believe this is the intersection
of Panama Lane and Akers Road. Panama Lane here is an arterial, it’s already very busy
as we all know, you can see it is close to State Route 99 over to the east. These road that
the commenter is so concerned about in the context of the cumulative impact analysis are
always going to have traffic dominated noise or they are going to have industrial related
noise and when you start assessing cumulative impacts you start from a very high noise
level and noise is added algebraically, I know it’s a complex mathematics but basically
what you do when you do basic algebraic math is logarithms. Logarithms allow us to
condense very large differences of numbers into small differences so we can readily
process them as technical blocks. The commenter presumes that future uses would
require consideration of the context of sensitive receptors that for some reason might try to
locate in those highly impacted areas that are already industrial or we already have arterial
and now they are going to build homes in that location and therefore we need to give them
special consideration relative to what the general plan should presume or what the
commenter presumes the general plan should be doing on behalf of the future residential
not known yet. I would imagine if that were the case the City, as they always do, would
require a noise study in that location and would make a determination as to whether or not
sound barriers would be required or whatever other mitigations would be required in that
instance. In the same context the same general plan that the City’s been successfully
implementing in the past. In closing, I would like to, on behalf of WZI, express our opinion
that the noise study is adequate, that the EIR represents the results of the noise study and
that the noise element of the general plan meets the commonly acceptable requirements
for specifying noise studies, the protocols, the criteria for evaluation for both cumulative
and project specific impacts, thank you.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you very much Mr. Fredericks, Mrs. Wilson.
Mary Jane Wilson: My name is Mary Jane Wilson, President of WZI, and I would like to make one correction
to my testimony that I just submitted in that is that I said “the activeness of the Swansons
Hawk was 26 years ago” but it was 1992 so it wasn’t 26 years ago it was only 16. If you
could please correct your copy I would much appreciate that, thank you.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you Mrs. Wilson, is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of
staffs recommendation. Seeing none the public hearing on this item is closed and we will
open it up to the Commission for comments, Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Johnson: Thank you Chair Blockley it’s been about an hour and I think it would be nice if we had a
break.
Commissioner Blockley: Let’s take a break till around 6:50pm.
Recess Taken
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 10
Commissioner Blockley: We’re ready to get going again. Commissioner McGinnis can weigh in with questions.
Commissioner McGinnis: Thank you Mr. Chairman. A question for staff just for my clarification more than anything
else. It appears as though we’ve got a situation here that, at best, with or without the
project the traffic impact there as far as that intersection goes will be minimal. If the
mitigation measures from this applicant, or any future ones, they’re to provide some
improvements in that area, why do we set the base level of C on that? Why don’t we try to
achieve a higher level?
Mr. Movius: Probably the traffic engineer should respond to that Commissioner McGinnis.
Commissioner McGinnis: Okay.
Mr. Movius: From a general plan standpoint, C is the adopted level of service in the General Plan.
Actually in the metropolitan areas, C is a very high level of service. It just gets so
unattainable and expensive if you try to get higher than that. It’s really not realistic for this
type of project.
Commissioner McGinnis: That’s basically what I was asking. But isn’t C kind of the base level? In other words, we
wouldn’t probably go from the project where the level is D or something like that, Mr.
Walker?
Mr. Walker: Yes, through the Chair, Commissioner McGinnis. Steve Walker, Public Works, Traffic
Engineer. Level of service C is the, as Mr. Movius said, the basic level of service that we
have for the City of Bakersfield. Some cities have a level of service D, which is a little bit
less traffic friendly than C as their basis. As we talked about B and A, which is near free-
flowing traffic is near unattainable on a steady basis in a built-up city area. But, it’s useful
for comparison to see how things are going. I didn’t catch the beginning of your question
as I was just walking in. Was there more?
Commissioner McGinnis: No. Basically it was – if we’re going to have mitigation measures at any rate, why don’t we
try to achieve a higher level and I think you pretty much answered my question. Is there
anyway you can prognosticate, for example, what it would take to achieve a higher level;
say to B? Just a matter space or just the configuration itself, or ?
Mr. Walker: Usually, just to give you a broad example, it’s a question of the amount of lanes of traffic.
You can get to a point where it becomes infeasible because you got so many lanes of
traffic that operations-wise you’re not going to be able to get pedestrians across the street,
you’re going to have to build a structure to get pedestrians across the street. The length of
time that you would have at an intersection may be so horrendous just to be able to get
the cars through and across the intersection that it then becomes an operational
consideration and, that’s your limiting factor, so, on the theory, the more lanes you add,
the more capacity you add. It comes also to a limiting point where just the addition of
lanes does not cut it, because you got to also operate the intersections where those
multiple lanes of traffic cross. If you have ever been down in Irvine or even over in Las
Vegas where they have some huge--- tremendously huge intersections, they face primarily
just the operational consideration. You will have five and six minute times of cycling, where
we try to keep ours two minutes and less.
Commissioner McGinnis: I see.
Mr. Walker: So that’s the other factor you have to consider is just the operational ability of doing
something like that. And, that’s why they talk about you get to a point where it’s not really
feasible to do any more expansion, because you’re not going to be able to operate it
anyway.
Commissioner McGinnis: Maybe you could clarify, while you’re at the microphone, Mr. Walker, clarify this question I
had that I was going to ask Mr. Horowitz, but you could probably handle it as well. On his
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 11
diagram that he showed us in regard to the project, he has various points on the --- on his
layout of entry into the project.
Mr. Walker: Yes.
Commissioner McGinnis: Would those also be exits?
Mr. Walker: Yes. They’re all, as far as I know, in recalling looking at the plan, they are both ingress and
egress. So in and out. And, you’ll have, depending on where the traffic is coming in, you
may have different volumes going out, but usually we consider, unless there is a specific
study for a specific intersection, or of the private driveway, the public street, you consider
it’s a 50/50 in and out type of situation.
Commissioner McGinnis: And would those exits be restricted as far turning?
Mr. Walker: Those are on the main streets, which are in this case, Ashe and Panama, will have
restrictions for turning. Where feasible, there is allowance for left turns in and then they
are proposing a traffic signal on the main entrance on Panama Lane, which requires
completion of the --- what we call out progressive study to be assured that you can do a
coordinated flow on the street, or it will not impede a coordinated flow on the street that
we’ve established for other signals on the area there. So, there are some hoops you have
to jump through to just be able to put a signal on the street. But, that’s the only area that
you can have a left turn out. That seems to work the best for this type of situation.
Commissioner McGinnis: Good. Thank you Mr. Walker. Those were all my questions Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Blockley: Thank you Mr. McGinnis. Commissioner Tragish.
Commissioner Tragish: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just want to make some observations and I believe maybe a
question too. In looking at this project, it made me think of the fact that there’s been time
and time projects come through for retail where the developer wants to go to a C-2, even
when he has a C-1 and they want to utilize every inch of the lot or property to maximize it’s
use via it car washes or whatever for drive-ins, and fast foods and so forth. And, looking
at this project, I kind of like it because it doesn’t seem to be over built. They have a WinCo
and a drug store, it looks like they’re going to have a couple drive-thrus and basically the
retail, which I think is about 20,000 sq. ft. And, I also noted that on the parking, while they
are only required to have 727 spaces, in fact of 1,026, which seems to indicate that they
are trying to minimize the overuse of the property and kind of support and substantiate
their representations that they’re trying to make the atmosphere at the retail center
somewhat more relaxed. I like the fact ---- a lot of the things that they’ve done, by the
same token, has been required by various ordinances and policies that have been
enunciated or passed by the City Council in the last couple of years. The shading is nice. I
like the fact they’re using different kinds of trees to bring some color to it. I like the
pedestrian access, which I think is somewhat required and you have a lot of nuances that
some of the recent commercial retail stuff has brought to the Commission in the last
couple of years and it seems to integrate all those various factors. I like the fact that there
is pedestrian access and does make some kind of use of bikes, allowing them to get
access as well. So, when I looked at this project, initially when it came through several
months ago, I wasn’t too thrilled about it, because of its location and it still was passed by
the Planning Commission, I think it went to City Council and for reasons that I don’t want
to go into, apparently they had to do an EIR, which brings me to my next comment. I am
somewhat taken back by the requirements that have been put on this particular project,
because it really is a neighborhood retail center and, it’s almost been restudied as if it was
a major regional commercial retail center. So, it’s just amazing to me the time and money
and expense that has been put into this for a project that is reasonably well situated and
reasonably well laid out.
I had reviewed the letter of Mr. Fallon, Farrow--- excuse me, M.R. Wolf that was in the
es
comments to the Draft EIR, which went 7 pag and then I noticed that he just submitted
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 12
a letter today that goes about 3 pages and appears that he’s backed off of about 90% of
his comments, because I think they were responded to by Staff. And, in reading this I was
just kind of taken back by some of his comments, because some of them are not only not
substantiated, they’re really not on point at all. And, I believe that WZI’s representative
pretty much addressed most of his comments. Again, he made some comments regarding
the loss of ag land and he had a comment in here that the EIR must be revised to include
feasible mitigation measures for this impact per the Sierra Club’s comments and then
recirculated. These comments have been responded to already. They’ve been enunciated
by WZI what they are. I have no idea what he is talking about at this point. He made a
comment about hazardous waste or hazardous materials, excuse me, that the site does
not contain hazardous—we need a study, they couldn’t get a study pertaining to whether
or not this hazardous materials from previous agricultural use and as WZI indicated, I
think, she said there was a phase I done, and—which is pretty common and standard.
And, I’m sure it was available. So again, I don’t know what he is talking about. I think the
traffic has been pretty much beaten to death and I think that Commissioner McGinnis’s
comments were pretty much crystallized what the problem is and that the bottom line is
with or without this project, we’re going to have the resulting traffic impacts and without the
project we’re not going to get any fees that contribute to reduce it. With the project we do
and we will see improvements along that street. The street being Panama and Ashe.
I think there was another comment by Mr. Farrow (sic. Wolf) regarding urban decay, and it
was a very curious comment. He states that, “The urban decay analysis fails to include the
planned Wal-Mart stores at Panama and 99 and at Gosford and Pacheco. Both of which
are less than three miles from the project and their admission renders the urban decay
analysis meaningless.” And, I kind of read this and wondered what city he was talking
about, because if anyone was going to be injured, if there’s going to be any decay, I would
presume it would be WinCo putting in their shopping and grocery store in there and they
don’t seem to be bothered by it at all. And, I just don’t understand what he’s talking about.
If the applicants willing to put this project in – if WinCo’s willing to go in with the
developments of the Wal-Mart, if in fact they get final approval from the court, the only one
that appears to me that’s really at risk is WinCo and their corresponding drug store. And,
they don’t seem to be bothered by it at all. So, I don’t know what he’s talking about there
either.
He also made another comment that the urban decay analysis projects substantial
population growth, which is essential to it’s finding that urban decay impacts will not be
significant. In light of the housing market collapse, these projections are now justified. The
purpose of the EIR is to give us enough information to project into the future and plan what
this project’s impacts will be. The current housing market either collapse, or whatever else
you want to characterize it, we’ve had several of them over the past 20 years. I’m sure
most of the people have gray hair like myself that lived through them, and they come and
they go. And, I don’t think you can plan these projects, and I don’t think this particular
applicant spent hundreds of thousands of dollars worrying about a housing project,
market, whether it’s going to stay this way for the next 25 years. I doubt it very much. So, I
again, I don’t think that it has really a substantial inclusion in any analysis. You have to
plan on what’s going to be coming down the line, and Bakersfield has shown a significant
steady population growth. I think 20 years ago, 25 years ago, we only had 75,000 people
in the city, and now I think its over 300,000. Or 350,000 people, and we are still a strong
center for agriculture and oil, which has always provided a significant shield for substantial
down runs in the economy. I don’t know. I just felt like it was somewhat of a flippen
comment that was made, and got the impression that if Mr. Farrow (sic. Wolf) felt real
strong about these, maybe he would have shown up today. I don’t really put much in it. I
think WZI has pretty much answered most of the comments that he made in both of his
letters.
I do have two questions. And, through the Chair, I’d like to ask the individual from WZI,
who talked about the noise.
Chair Blockley: Mr. Frederick.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 13
Mr. Frederick: Yes Commissioner Tragish.
Commissioner Tragish: Thank you. I have to admit that sometimes---- I have to admit listening to you this evening,
I was impressed with your command of the vernacular in your particular area of expertise.
And I would like you to explain it to me in layman’s language, what Mr. Farrow (sic Wolf??)
is talking about and how you responded to it, because it seems like when reading this
th
thing it seems like he’s going in circles. The letter that he had from today, March 20. I
didn’t quite understand what he was talking about and then I did listen to you and I got a
little bit confused listening to you trying to understand what he was saying. The first part of
what he talked about was that he was saying that the non-traffic noise, the existing traffic
noise is inconsistent, or at least your analysis of it is inconsistent and that the future traffic
noise either with or without the project will be less than the background noise. Whatever
he’s talking about there. And his conclusions, he’s saying that you’re inconsistent with the
common sense expectation that traffic will continue to dominate the noise environment.
What is he talking about and if you could explain that to me simplistically.
Mr. Frederick: I’ll try, because to some degree I’m at a loss as well for some of his --- I can only make
assumptions as to what he is trying to infer in some of his issues that he raises. He uses
portions of a table. He doesn’t really read the entire table from left to right as it progresses
through the calculations that we arrive at relative to cumulative impacts. First of all, this is
about cumulative impacts. His questions are about the cumulative analysis. In the
cumulative analysis, we used a traffic noise model that’s federal highway approved. It’s
their model. We commonly call it the T&M traffic noise model. It does a fairly good job
approximating noise impacts and it’s a conservative model of noise impacts related to road
segments. And, we build the model out as far as the extents are that we are required to.
Normally we try to match the extent of the traffic study and in doing that, we —you can run
the model and the model will give you the traffic-related noise. Nothing else. It only
predicts how much noise is related to the traffic. You have to add that traffic noise to the
background noise to get a really valid conservative analysis. In order to get the traffic –
the future background noise, assuming nothing changes in land uses and we don’t
become a seaport, for instance, you have to back out today’s traffic. The current traffic.
So, we run the model twice. We run the model today, and we use it --- I had to say
algebraically, but because noise is actually measured in decibels, and decibels are a
logarithmic projection of noise, because we’ve got to go from basically 1 pascual, the
noise is actually measured in sound pressure as pascuals, you know, millions of pascuals,
which is like a jet taking off; we convert that to decibels, and we logarithmically process it.
And, in order to add or subtract any numbers in that context, you have to convert them
back to their absolute number and then do some math. It doesn’t readily lend itself to
someone’s common sense interpretation; to say noise has a common sense element. I
could spend days discussing problems related to trying to apply what common sense will
dictate and then show that when you run the model, that indeed that is wrong. This is what
happens. I use to take my staff out to coastal cities where there were waves breaking and
I could take them inland, you could hear the waves. Take them 10 feet forward in the
shadow of a building, the noise goes away. These things don’t readily reveal themselves
to someone on a common sense basis.
To the extent that he says certain comments related to whether or not it should be – the
background should be greater than the traffic noise, or the area should not be dominated
by traffic, or should be dominated by traffic. It goes from location to location and in this
region, as I said earlier, in this area, you know, in a five mile stretch you can go from very,
very rural locations that still have a lot of truck traffic noise--- make no mistake. Those rural
areas are not like out in the middle of the desert with no wind, all the way to almost an
urban center location with a lot of vehicular traffic associated with it.
Commissioner Tragish: Excuse me. It sounds like he cherry picked an area just to kind of use it to illustrate what
he wants to kind of pull out of thin air as an argument.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 14
Mr. Frederick: Well, that was why I had some trouble kind of trying to come up with something other than
just addressing the entire flow of where he started to all the way to where I thought he was
trying to end up.
Commissioner Tragish: I think I understand. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frederick: Thank you.
Commissioner Tragish: Those are the only comments I have and just my closing comment is that I like the project.
I think mostly everything, if not everything, has been addressed and it has been addressed
very thoroughly and I, in fact, I think some of this is really over the top for this particular
kind of project. I don’t know if it necessarily deserved the type of studies that have been
done over and over, but they’ve been done and they just verify or substantiate what the
applicant has submitted. Those are my comments. Thank you.
Chair Blockley: Thank you Commissioner Tragish. Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Johnson: Thank you Chair Blockley. With out belaboring and hitting a lot of the points, I too like the
gathering areas and some of the features of the project. In reference to the M.R. Wolf and
Associates Attorneys At Law letter, many of these things have been addressed by the
consultations from WZI in such detail that we have multiple pages of comments that were
read into the record and we got a full tutorial on the algebraic equations and the ways to
calculate noise; brings me back to the days of law sign and cosign and the Pythagorean
theorem. That’s, I think, given that, the project’s met the needs of the EIR, is adequate and
I am prepared to make a motion if there are no other lights.
Chair Blockley: There are no other lights, but I do have a question or two. First one would be easy. Mr.
Holiday, is there a rewording of Condition Number 25?
Mr. Holiday: Yes, the very last sentence should say, “incorporation of City approved project design
features into the project design, as well as construction documents shall ensure that the
operational surface water colony is equal to or above acceptable water quality standards.”
Chair Blockley: Okay. Very good. And, then I too have a question for Mr. Frederick related to the noise
studies. And, -- if you could state your name once again.
Mr. Frederick: Jess Frederick.
Chair Blockley: Thank you very much. First, I want to applaud you. I think I heard the word decibel twice.
This is excellent. And, this should put it in layman’s terms. But on a serious note, the ---
one of the conditions is number 34, and it requires a 14’ high wall.
Mr. Frederick: I understand.
Chair Blockley: And, I’m in favor of those kinds of things for the practical reason that the decibel-creating
things on refrigerated trucks tend to be mounted right on the top of the trailers and that’s
about 14’ if I’m reading the highway signs correctly; that say 14’ clearance and you see the
truck just skimming the top of it. And, I’m hoping that wont be reduced for the houses that
sort of have their backyards next to the driveway, where I’m assuming that WinCo will get
its deliveries from. Or trucks will leave that way. Is that a concern, or something I should
not be concerned about?
Mr. Frederick: Well, it is certainly – to the people who will be directly adjacent to any loading zones, or
areas where they are crushing boxes; those are areas of concern. And, certainly we know
that a high wall can mitigate those problems. When we design the specific mitigation for
this project, we were using very conservative assumptions to ensure that from an
architectural standpoint, the loading activities could actually be brought forth in that
southern portion of that building structure that’s major one up there. In the context of when
we know what the loading schedule, loading locations are, well you know, it’s pointless
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 15
from the residential standpoint to have a 14’ wall that annoys them to no end, not
protecting them from anything that’s there. So to that extent I think that it warrants
consideration, as it does many times. We do this on many projects where we can look at it
with the final design and in the final operating schedules in hand and if there’s no noise-
generating equipment associated with that wall, then, you know, some consideration
should be given to it. The model’s run and if the City Engineer and City Staff approve it,
then I think it benefits the residential area not to have a 14’ wall in their backyard, if it
doesn’t give them benefit.
Chair Blockley: Well, that sounds reasonable. I was just --- I just want to make sure that ---
Mr. Frederick: And also Commissioner, I think it’s important to keep that in the context with regard to the
trucks that have refrigeration, as there are mandatory shut-off periods with regard to that.
So, it’s not like they’re out there throttling up the refrigeration and throttling up the truck.
Even if they were doing that in that location, those activities do have short periods --- short
duration, and those are the things we look at in the context of the study.
Chair Blockley: Okay. Very good. I appreciate that answer. I think that satisfies my question and I’ll—
Mr. Frederick: Thank you.
Chair Blockley: --- in my series of questions, most of them have already been addressed. And, return to
you Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Johnson: Thank you Chair Blockley. Just a quick question for Mr. Sherfy. The referenced condition
25 rewording that’s already been read into the record ----
Mr. Sherfy: Yes, that would be sufficient, and whatever motion you make will incorporate by reference
the—the – what was read into the record by Mr. Holliday, you don’t need to reference it. It
is part of the record now.
Commissioner Johnson: Right. Is that on every motion that we’re making currently, or is it just on the General Plan,
or does the condition change for each one?
Mr. Sherfy: It’s the same.
Commissioner Johnson: Does the numbering change?
Mr. Sherfy: Give us just a second.
Commissioner Johnson: Great.
Mr. Sherfy: On all four.
Commissioner Johnson: Thank you. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt
a Resolution making CEQA findings and approving the mitigation measures and mitigation
monitoring program, and recommending certification of the Final EIR for GPA Zone
Change number 06-1052 to the City Council, incorporating the amendment to condition
number 25 that’s previously been read into the record.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a
Resolution making findings approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change
the land use map designations from low density residential to general commercial on
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 16
approximately 20 acres, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the
amendment to condition number 25 that’s previously been read into the record.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a
Resolution making findings approving the requested Zone Change from R1 (one family
dwelling) to C2-PCD (Regional Commercial) on approximately 20 acres, and
recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the amendment to condition
number 25 that’s previously been read into the record.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tkac
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a
Resolution making findings approving the Preliminary Development Plan for the
development of a new multiple tenant commercial development on approximately 20
acres, and recommending the same to City Council, incorporating the amendment to
condition number 25 that’s previously been read into the record.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tkac
6.2a General Plan Amendment 07-2342 (Spring Hill Development, LLC)
6.2b Zone Change 07-2342 (Spring Hill Development, LLC)
Public hearing is opened, staff report given, pointing out there are four different memoranda: 1)
th
March 19 from Planning Department regarding the biological surveys, which needs to be
thth
referenced in the motion; 2) March 18 from Planning, needs to be referenced; 3) March 20
th
from Public Works needs to be referenced; and 4) Additional March 12 from Planning which is
just informational and does not need to be referenced.
Rick Davis a resident and property owner in the general area shared a couple of his observations
and concerns. He pointed out that they are dealing with an area that has become R-1 and he
feels there is reason for concern with taking a unit and wrapping it with R-1 and tucking a PUD
where you increase the saturation of occupancy almost 3/3.5 times. He stated his other concern
is the ingress and egress from the unit with respect to the family members who will be visiting the
location.
Andy Plant, a principal in the Spring Hill Development, stated they build retirement communities
and operate them. He stated that they like to build campuses where they can offer a continuum
of care. He stated that the traffic generated by their projects is less than a single family home
development in this local, based upon the underlying zoning. Mr. Plant stated that with respect
to Masterson there is a plan to realign and they are aware of the awkwardness of where
Masterson hits 178 currently and they agree that it needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if Mr. Plant supports staff’s recommendations, to which Mr.
Plant responded that he is in support of them.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 17
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Andrews inquired of Mr. Plant if consideration has
been made to address the availability of support services for the mobile residents. Mr. Plant
responded that they provide transportation for the seniors and their services are available within
approximately 10 minutes or less away.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it is his understanding that the property directly to the south of
the applicant’s property also has a general plan designation of LMR and the property to the
south, is also LMR designated. He asked for confirmation that it appears to be entitled to
multiple unit housing. Staff confirmed this, stating that the property directly to the south along the
southern boundary is L-R/R-1, and therefore there is LR on three sides, and across the highway,
it is LMR. Commissioner Tragish commented that there appears to be some balance as it is not
being developed in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired if the property directly to the south of the applicant’s
property while it shows as LR, Staff’s graph on page 4 seems to indicate that it also has an LMR
general plan designation. Staff responded confirmed that it is referring to the property on the
other side of 178, explaining that if you are directly south of the property there is LMR, and the
other end there is LR, and the road will eventually go through and hook up at a 90° angle to 178,
and Staff fully expects that the chunk next to the highway and the arterial will eventually end up
being multiple family as well, because it is not a prime location for a single family.
Commissioner Tragish stated he initially thought it was inappropriate to have the L-R/R-1 directly
adjacent underneath the applicant’s property because it is kind of squeezed in between two
residential neighbors. He further stated that he does not know if will end up being an LR R1
neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish stated with regard to the property across the street from
the applicant’s property which is GC and C2, there will probably be a lot of services for the
residents of the applicant’s property.
Commissioner Tragish further comment that it appears that Highway 178 along the strip does not
have much commercial property along it and makes him think there is not a lot of interruption in
the flow of the traffic coming down Highway 178, which is still a highway and yet when you get to
Masterson and where the applicant’s property is, you’re going to have a higher flow because of
potential for multiple housing on both sides of Highway 178. He stated that he is not sure if 178
will be able to handle more traffic at that intersection, not to mention the huge regional center
coming in across the street on Masterson.
Staff responded that there is a new alignment of Highway 178 in the future that would carry a lot
of traffic in the area. Staff further clarified that portion of Highway 178 is an arterial
classification, and in the future it will be six lanes, and part of the TRIP program will make it into
four lanes for the interim time period which more than adequately can handle the traffic that is
expected with the development in the area. Staff also commented that with the extension and
realignment of Masterson down to a more normal intersection with Highway 178 it will solve a lot
of conflict problems that are there. Staff further stated that the developer in the City in the Hills
area is under obligation to do this.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is money for Highway 178, and when will it be done
because it is a timing issue. Staff responded that the Highway 178 future alignment north of this
area, is in the future and is part of the long term plan, and until that happens (20 years from
now), Highway 178 existing alignment will be the main thoroughfare, which is where the impetus
of construction will be happening over the next few years. The existing Highway 178 will become
a four and/or six lane arterial until the realignment is accomplished.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired when Highway 178 is projected to become a six lane
arterial. Staff responded they don’t have information on when it would be a six lane, as it will be
dependent on the adjacent developments through there and then doing the gap closures
between those where it is not active development. He stated that it will be done through the
TRIP program.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 18
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the 3 lanes have to be developed as the developments are put
in. Staff responded in the affirmative, stating that they will do the frontage improvements.
Commissioner Tragish reiterated that as the properties develop in this area the developers will
have to put the third lane and make it a six lane and hopefully it will all come together. He stated
that he is satisfied that the traffic aspects will come together as it goes along. He also pointed
out that his only reservation is the property adjacent to the south, but he agrees that he doesn’t
see this property being developed as residential. Commissioner Tragish stated he will support
the project.
Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the compatibility issue and what the maximum density is
under the current R1 designation. Staff responded that it is 7.6 units per net acre and usually in
that area it is about 4 units per acre, which equates to around 80 units, with three people per
unit. Commissioner Johnson stated that with this current development the projection would be
180 unit assisted living, with a 30-room Alzheimer care building and a 99-bed skilled nursing
facility. He inquired if the 30-room Alzheimer care building will be single rooms or double rooms.
Mr. Plant responded that the 28-units of Alzheimer will be a combination of private rooms and
semi-private rooms. Commissioner Johnson stated that these numbers should be removed
from the table because we don’t know exactly what they’re going to be. However, if a
comparable project comes back you’re looking at a 334, 350 people compared to 240 in R1,
which is a difference of 100 people on the same acreage. Commissioner Johnson stated that
there actually is a higher density given the specialized use of the project.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if this poses compatibility problems given the R2 PUD going
right next to R1. Staff responded that there is no compatibility problems, as Staff believes that
even if this was just R2 and was built with multiple family it would in fact be compatibility. Staff
pointed out that there is assisted living next to single family residential and apartment complexes
next to single family, pointing out that this project has a PUD overlay so the design can be
regulated.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if this will come back with the skilled nursing facility proposed on
the table. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the traffic stipulates that there is going to be 24 peak
hour trips and he inquired about his concern with the timing on Masterson being built out to full
arterial standard if it will pose a problem for Vista Montana Drive. Staff responded that Vista
Montana is a collector road and with Masterson being an arterial there are two major roads on
either side of this facility and therefore the access and availability of ingress and egress is
excellent. Staff further stated that the 23, 24 peak hour trips is analogous to about 20 to 25
single family homes, which is a small amount for a development of this size. Staff pointed out
that they do not even require a traffic study for a project that is doing less than 50 peak hour trips
and this project is way below that threshold.
Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to draw the future alignment of Masterson. He inquired
where there will be traffic lights. Staff explained how Masterson will move and align up. Staff
pointed out that Vista Montana and Masterson will eventually be signalized and have full left turn
capability, with protected pedestrian crossing. He further stated that there are designs be made
with regard to how Kern Canyon Road will actually align, and is part of the TRIP program.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the whole area will be safer and easier to traverse overall, to
which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson stated that given that traffic
volume going from R1 to R2 if typically you wouldn’t expect traffic to be higher, however with this
project there will be less traffic than the current R1 development. Staff responded that this
decrease in traffic is due to the analysis considering it to be a senior care facility.
Commissioner Johnson inquired why the 178 freeway alignment is seen to continue to the west.
Staff responded that it is just the way the maps are and that perhaps for future use they can
include the interchanges, and the plans further west.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 19
Commissioner Johnson stated with regard to the compatibility issue Staff has addressed this
issue, and given the specific use that will be going in there, it will limit the traffic, however will the
project will not be incompatible with the area.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he thinks the City is fortunate to get an application for this
type of property which is sandwiched between two arterials, a collector and a proposed freeway
alignment. He stated he is in favor of this project.
Commissioner Tragish advised Mr. Davis to provide his name and number if he wants to come
back for the site plan review.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from LR (low density residential) to HMR (high medium density
residential) on approximately 18 acres shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City
th
Council, incorporating memos from Staff with the dates of March 18, 19 & 20.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Zone Change from R1(one-family
dwelling) to R2-PUD (limited multi-family dwelling residential/planned unit development) on 18
acres shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating memos
th
from Staff with the dates of March 18, 19 & 20.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac, Tragish
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6.2c Planned Unit Development 07-2345 – Preliminary Development Plan (Spring Hill
Development, LLC)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.3a General Plan Amendment 07-1135 (David Dmohowski)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.3b Zone Change 07-1135 (David Dmohowski)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.4a General Plan Amendment 08-0151 (Bakersfield Memorial Hospital)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.4b Zone Change 08-0151 (Bakersfield Memorial Hospital)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that next Tuesday there is a healthy air living conference at the Holiday Inn Select.
Minutes of Planning Commission – March 20, 2008 Page 20
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
May 5, 2008