HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-08 MINUTES OAK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
'�t�FOR Regular Meeting December 18, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis,Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 6,
2008 and November 20, 2008.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to approve the Non-
Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1238.(City of Bakersfield)
4.2b Approval of Zone Change 08-1238(City of Bakersfield)
4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1079(E&R Surveying &Consulting)
4.2d Approval of Zone Change 08-1079(E&R Surveying & Consulting)
4.2e Approval of Planned Development Review 08-1340 (Inland Architects)
The public hearing is opened. Edwin W. Wilson requested removal of 4.2a and 4.2b,
which are regular agenda items 5.1a and 5.1b respectively.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that he reviewed the Monday
tape and he will be participating in this evening's hearing. Commissioner Tragish pointed
out that he did listen to the tape from Monday's pre-meeting.
Commissioner Johnson requested removal of item 4.2e, regular agenda item 6.
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the
Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar, with the exception of removing items 4.2a,
4.2b, and 4.2e.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 2
5. PUBLIC HEARING — EIRS/ AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CIRCULATION AND KERN RIVER PLAN
ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN/AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PARKS AND TRAILS PLAN
FOR NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD/ZONE CHANGE
5.1a General Plan Amendment 08-1238(City of Bakersfield)
5.1b Zone Change 08-1238 (City of Bakersfield)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Edwin Wilson stated he owns the entire block
north of the Rabobank Arena. He pointed to the Executive Orders which specifically state that a
federal building, such as a courthouse, belong with other buildings of similar use and purpose.
He further pointed out that in previous conversations the City has indicated that they wanted a
courthouse in this location. He also explained that the proposed federal building site near River
Walk was canceled. Thereafter, GSA (General Services Administration) decided that they
wanted the property donated, because the appropriation had already been made to the Dept. of
Justice for the courthouse. Mr. Wilson explained that the GSA did not want to use the allocated
funds for the property, but rather just for building structure to have a larger courthouse. In that
case, a private developer would own the property and lease it to the Federal Courthouse on a 10
year with a 5-year option.
Mr. Wilson stated he was approached by the City and asked if he would donate his block to the
City so that they could then engage private developers and ultimately convey that land to the
private developer with the adage that he would leave a "legacy' in Bakersfield. (disruption in
audio) Mr. Wilson said he did not want to sell the property, but rather wanted to develop the
property. Therefore, GSA said to the city that they had to donate the property and the City said
the only available property is the Wilson property, which is substantially vacant lots (disruption in
audio) Then, they proposed a portion of Central Park which is a poor location. (disruption in
audio)
(Break taken to fix audio.)
Mr. Wilson continued stating that he has an interest in this project. He stated that the current
proposal is a very poor choice. He stated that he only learned that this item was on the agenda
this morning. He pointed out that he filed a letter with the clerk that states, "As a property owner
in Downtown Bakersfield, I strongly oppose the Planning Commission's approval of item 4.2a
and 4.2b (5.1a and 5.1b)." I first learned of these items on today's calendar by reading the
Bakersfield Californian early this morning. I strongly urge that the Commission continue this
matter to a later calendar. I am strongly opposed to this matter being passed on to the City
Council on the basis of a Negative Declaration, which I deem to be totally inappropriate and in
my opinion not in conformity with the code and case law requirements. Mr. Wilson stated that if
this matter is continued he has voluminous statutory code sections and a number of cases. Mr.
Wilson also pointed out that the traffic study was incomplete/inadequate and there is no evidence
of a parking study or of an air survey study. He also stated that the archeological study is
inadequate and generated probably from office files only. He explained that the proposed park
area is detrimental to the children living in the Park View Cottages.
Mr. Wilson went on to state that placing the courthouse in that park will be detrimental to the
children that use the park and he sees a rather sharp contrast with regard to attitude of not
having it at River Walk where it's roughly a 30-acre park, compared to this 2.5 acres out of
Central Park.
Mr. Wilson stated that this is not a matter that should be sent on simply with a Negative
Declaration which is incomplete. He asked that this matter be continued so that they can go into
it in depth. He pointed out that he does not believe that the public knows that this is a private
development and that the City will be giving it to a private developer for his own personal
investment. He commented that the City can give it to the Redevelopment Agency who can then
make the gift or sell it for $1.00. Mr. Wilson explained that the City Council is the
Redevelopment Agency and in one Appellate Court decision it was pointed out that this type of
action is a charade as they are one in the same.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 3
Dale Wilson, brother of Edwin Wilson, stated he has no financial interest in this project, but
pointed out that his brother and his wife are in their mid-80s and he has been trying to help them.
Dale Wilson pointed out that he has been working on this project for two years and this is the first
public hearing, that he is aware of, that has ever been called on this matter. He explained this
concerns him as this is a much more deep matter to the public and the public does not know
what is going on. Dale Wilson stated that Alan Tandy quoted in a letter that that property is
worth between 6-9 million dollars which is public property and they want to give it to a developer
who will come out of this thing a multi-millionaire and not have a dime invested.
Dale Wilson commented that he has two copies of his statement on this and he submitted it to
the Commission for review.
Ken Mettler stated that he has never met Mr. Wilson but encouraged the Commissioners to read
the pamphlet that the Wilsons provided because it is more than just the matter here about open
space in this one location, as it is one step in a process to locate this courthouse. Mr. Mettler
spoke to the issue of using taxpayers' money, via the Redevelopment Agency, to subsidize a
public project that is privately owned. He questioned if they are unjustly enriching, with taxpayers'
money, a private party. Mr. Mettler stated that this is an issue for the Redevelopment
Agency/City Council to make, however the Planning Commission is the first step in the process.
He suggested that they address publicly the concerns of Mr.Wilson.
The City's comments will stand on their own as they are the applicant. There were no public
comments in favor of this project.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Stanley asked staff to explain how the meeting was noticed for tonight's hearing.
Staff explained they followed state law for noticing on General Plan Amendments and Zoning,
which is a 300-foot notice boundary, it was noticed in the Bakersfield Californian and went to all
state agencies that might have an interest in this. Staff further commented that it is on the City's
web site.
Commissioner Stanley inquired if the notice will be the same if it is approved and goes to City
Council, to which Staff responded in the affirmative, explaining that anybody can ask to receive a
notice. Commissioner Stanley asked that if this item is approved to go on to City Council that Mr.
Wilson be added to the noticing list. Staff responded that he will be.
Commissioner Stanley asked if Staff could address the five points that Mr. Wilson brought up.
Staff responded that with regard to the traffic study, there was a traffic analysis prepared by
Steve Walker the Traffic Engineer, which showed for a government office building such as this
extremely low vehicle trips and did not trip any thresholds for additional studies under traffic or
with regard to air quality because it's such a low amount. Staff further explained that with regard
to the parking study they would do a parking study when the site plan comes in. Staff also
stated that there was an archeological record search completed that looked at studies in this
area in the past and recommended no additional studies be done, with the only requirement that
if anything is found that they be notified. Staff agreed that the park area will be diminished in
order to accommodate this structure. Staff pointed out that a lot of work has been done to
improve and extend the park environment down along the Mill Creek Corridor. Staff said, with
regard to the environmental document for this proposal and the land use issues, Staff is
confident that there is enough on the record and enough information has been looked at to
evaluate it from a land use standpoint.
Commissioner Stanley agreed with Mr. Mettler that there are some valid points to be debated
with regard to redevelopment and ideas about gifting property. He inquired of Staff if the
Planning Commission's decision tonight is in any way making a decision about how this land will
be potentially given to a contractor or any other private entities. Staff responded in the negative.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 4
Commissioner Stanley stated that at this point in the project he knows there has been a lot of
work put into finding a site for the courthouse, and while there are some issues to be debated, he
is confident with a lot of the analysis that has been done and feels that there are still going to be
points in the process to bring up some of these other issues and debate them.
Commissioner Tragish stated that this is a new concept where the government is giving money
away for free to private individuals. He inquired of Mr. Edwin Wilson what specifically about a
traffic study or the analysis did he find inadequate. Mr. Wilson responded that a federal
courthouse is going to generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Tragish inquired if he had an
opportunity to review the traffic analysis. Mr. Wilson responded that traffic is one of the elements
in an EIR. Mr. Wilson pointed out that 20th Street dead ends at the east fence at Central Park
and then commences again on his street going west. Mr. Wilson explained that one of the
federal security requirements is that no street can dead end at a Federal Courthouse. He further
pointed out that Homeland Security needs about 3.5 million dollars to mount barriers and to
comply with this requirement of having a street dead end. Mr.Wilson further explained that there
are no main streets that are coming into Central Park where there would be in the downtown
area. In addition, Mr. Wilson explained that if the Federal Courthouse was built near the County
Administration Building there is a parking structure behind the County Administration Building
and with high speed rail it would be a short walk to the Federal Courthouse. Mr. Wilson said at
Central Park there would be local traffic, plus out of town traffic, driving near the park and
therefore there is a traffic impact, again pointing out that there are no main streets near the park.
Commissioner Tragish commented that Mr. Wilson's letter appears to reference his comments
and pointed to the fact that he thinks an EIR should have been done. Commissioner Tragish
inquired what factors have to be present to require an EIR for this particular project. Staff
responded that there needs to be potentially significant impacts to the environment that covers
traffic, air quality, biology, cultural resources and several other things. Staff commented that they
looked at these issues and did the initial study check list and responded to each specific item in
the check list as to why or why not it was significant. This was sent out for review, including the
State Clearing House, and found no evidence that there would be a significant impact, which
included a close look at the project from the traffic engineer, which correlates to the air quality
requirements for analysis. Staff found no potentially significant impacts.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if one of the factors for an EIR is whether it has any type of
cumulative impact that prejudices another homeowner or another activity that is going on
adjacent to a proposed project. Staff responded that the cumulative impact analysis looks at
how many projects that the City may be considering over a course of time. Staff further
commented that it looks at if you place a project at a certain site with a certain zoning if there is
potential for development of that type of zoning and what any impacts might be to adjacent sites.
Staff explained that it does not go into analysis of competition, competitive sites, economic
analysis that will not have a physical impact on the environment or the types of issues that were
presented this evening.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is Staff's testimony that there has been a review to see if
there is a significant impact and/or cumulative impact by the anticipated approval of this project
prejudicial to any adjacent property owner or activity in the area. Staff responded they do not
know what is meant by an analysis to determine if there's been a prejudicial impact on other
properties in the area.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if this has an impact on the children that live in the Park View
Cottage housing project, by reducing the park or the playground, if that impact is significant
enough to trigger an EIR. Staff responded it depends on the specific evidence provided to
support the claim that it will somehow harm children in the area. Staff's analysis of impacts on
population or a group of people, and impacts on park land, found no evidence of a significant
impact.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the analysis is in his staff book. Staff responded that they are
not sure that he received a copy of the initial study.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 5
Commissioner Tragish referenced Mr. Wilson's comment that the City is going to give this
property of indeterminate value to a private developer and inquired if this issue is something that
the Planning Commission has to consider, since this is a General Plan Amendment, and there is
an extreme amount of discretion as long as reasons are given for rejecting or approving
something. Staff responded that the Planning Commission does have an extreme amount of
discretion with this project, however, with regard to turning this over to a private developer, that
would actually be a separate determination with regard to whether that action is consistent with
the General Plan. Staff commented that what has been presented this evening goes to
decisions that the City Council will ultimately be making through the advice of the City Manager's
Office. Staff recommended the Planning Commission weigh what they do every meeting,
regarding the land use decision portion and if there are other issues that Mr. Wilson would like
discussed that are really outside the Planning Commission's pervue and those should be taken
up with City Council.
Commissioner Tragish confirmed that the Planning Commission has the power to take Mr.
Wilson's allegation that the property would be turned over to a private developer into
consideration. Staff responded that they do not have that evidence before them and nor does the
Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Planning Commissioner's are looking at a land use
decision.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he tends to agree with Mr. Movius in that he does not have
any evidence to support Mr. Wilson's allegations and even if he did the question still remains if it
is within the ambit of their decision making or even if the Planning Commission wants to consider
it because ultimately it is City Council who Mr. Wilson has to wrestle with on this issue.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to have the opportunity to see what book is
submitted to see if there is anything relevant. He also pointed out that in the past the Planning
Commission has provided the courtesy of more time to property owners to provide evidence. He
stated that he is not against a two-week continuance to see what evidence Mr. Wilson has on the
land use issues.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he has not read anything in the Staff report, or heard
anything, that makes him want to go against Staff's recommendation regarding the land use. He
further commented that he has been aware that the federal government's been kicking around
the idea of a federal courthouse here for the last 10 years. He commented that he has done
GSA projects under the same basis in the past and they were successful. Commissioner
Blockley stated that with regard to the courthouse it appears that the GSA is kind of a bad actor,
because city's of comparable sizes to Bakersfield do not get their courthouses built in the way
that Bakersfield is being built, pointing out that they are owned by the federal government and
they are much nicer facilities and feels we are getting short-changed by the GSA in this regard.
Commissioner Blockley referenced a courthouse in Eugene, Oregon.
Commissioner Blockley commented that there is no requirement under the lease program that
requires the gift of land. Therefore, the developer, for the purposes of developing this
courthouse and leasing it to the federal government, does not have to own the land underneath
it. In that case, the City could hold the title to the land and lease it to the developer for the term
of their building lease to the federal government. Commissioner Blockley stated that he will vote
in favor.
Commissioner McGinnis clarified that their responsibility as Commissioners is to determine if the
intended use of this parcel will meet the needs and also whether the zoning is adequate to meet
those needs. He stated that their responsibility is not to decide whether they should choose this
parcel, or Mr. Wilson's parcel, or any other parcel. Staff confirmed this understanding.
Commissioner McGinnis further clarified that the Planning Commission is not making a
determination as to where the courthouse should be located, to which Staff confirmed this
understanding. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is in favor of Staff's recommendation.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 6
Commissioner Johnson acknowledged Mr. Wilson to present new information. Mr. Dale Wilson
stated that his brother, Edwin Wilson and his wife, were the low bidders when this project was
bid three years ago and the site was approved. Thereafter, GSA came in and on their own,
without consulting the low bidder, made the change. Mr. Dale Wilson indicated that action did not
follow federal procurement regulations. He further stated that the site being looked at has about
a one mile radius designated by the Police Department as a gang area and pointed out that there
are nine separate gangs operating in that area.
Commissioner Johnson commented that while there are other issues of merit, they are not
before the Planning Commission this evening and given the land use decision the Staff
recommendation stands on its on.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to recommend Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from OSP (Parks and Recreation Facilities) to
MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) on 2.5 acres as shown on attached Exhibit"A-2", and recommend
the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Stanley
NOES: Commissioner: Tragish
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the Zone Change from OS
(Open Space) to CC ( Commercial Center) on 2.5 acres as shown on attached Exhibit"A-2", and
recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Stanley
NOES: Commissioner: Tragish
Commissioner Tragish explained the reason he voted against this is because he does think that
Mr. Wilson is entitled to provide the Planning Commission with additional information that he
believes will be relevant to the decision making on this project. In addition, he stated that he
finds it somewhat ironic that as an attorney he would like to see the building at this location, but
the project in the southwest was turned down because people were concerned about the
transportation of people who were cited for criminal activity in a proposed federal courthouse and
here there is a courthouse location proposal where they want to put it in a certified gang activity
area and he would have liked to have been able to hear more about this for analysis. Thirdly, he
stated that he wanted a continuance because he does not want this to become a football where it
is looked at as something that was just put through.
5.2a General Plan Amendment 08-1079 (E&R Surveying &Consulting)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.2b Zone Change 08-1079 (E&R Surveying & Consulting)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
Break is taken.
5.3a Canyons Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 03-0337 (Robert Kapral,
Canyons, LLC)
5.3b General Plan Amendment 03-0337 (Robert Kapral, Canyons, LLC)
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 7
5.3c Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield 03-0337 (Robert
Kapral, Canyons, LLC)
5.3d Zone Change 03-0337(Robert Kapral, Canyons, LLC)
The public hearing is opened. Staff introduced Tom Holm with Michael Bradmon & Associates the
city's consultant, who gave a presentation. Mr. Holm stated the goal of his presentation is to
provide an overview of the Canyon's project, the Final EIR, the environmental issues addressed,
comments received and conclusions reached in the EIR. He pointed out that Staff is
recommending certification of the Final EIR. Mr. Holm stated that the 890 acres is predominately
covered by non-native grasslands. He pointed out that there are Edison easements on the site, as
well as trails that run through the site. Mr. Holm stated that the proposed actions certify the Final
EIR, adopting General Plan Amendments that would modify the land use element, amend the
circulation element, as well as the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan. There is
an associated Zone Change with the project, as well as future subdivision maps, including Parcel
and Tract Maps that would be approved for inclusion within a consolidated maintenance district.
He further stated that other actions include utility and public facility improvement plans, grading and
building permits, landscape plans and a stream bed alteration agreement with the Department of
Fish and Game.
Mr. Holm explained that the project consists of 11 gated communities, 1214 single-family
residences, 120-multi-family residences, 650,000 square foot of general commercial use, 5.2 acre
private recreational center, approximately 13 net usable acres of public park, slightly over 11 miles
of trails, 284 acres of retained open space and 42 acres reserved as common areas.
Mr. Holm stated that the existing General Plan identifies approximately 634 acres in open space,
steep-slope category, 254.5 acres in low density residential. The proposed designations would
reduce the open space steep-slope category to approximately 284 acres and increase the low-
density residential category to 521 acres with less than 10% of the site in low-medium residential
and general commercial use.
Mr. Holm further explained the proposed zone change from three existing districts R1-HD, R1, RS-
10-HD, to five zoning districts still including R1-HD, R2-HD, R2-PUD-HD, C2-PCD-HD and OS-HD.
He stated the largest category would be the R1-HD and the OS-HD.
Mr. Holm went on to explain that the project includes a circulation element bike path amendment
and the Exhibit shows an extension of proposed bike paths looping through the site, extension
from Spring Canyon Parkway through the site and connecting over to Morning Drive. He stated it
also includes circulation element amendment to extend collectors through the site as shown in the
roadway extension in the Exhibit.
Mr. Holm also commented on the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan
Amendment, stating it would relocate parks in the east central portion of the site and would remove
and relocate various trails through the site.
Mr. Holm stated that the EIR addressed 15 topical issues, a land use in planning, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, noise, public services,
recreation, traffic and transportation, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, population and
housing, mineral resources, and energy conservation. He explained that five alternatives were
evaluated in addition to the proposed project, which included being a no project, no development,
in accordance with the existing zoning, development of the density proposed by the project on an
alternative site, a reduced density alternative which was among the identified environmentally
superior alternative, and alternative site plan.
Mr. Holm stated the comments that were received on the re-circulated Draft EIR included five
comments provided at the adequacy hearing in August 2008, 28 letters received in response to the
re-circulated Draft EIR, of which seven were from state agencies, including an OPR transmittal
letter, Department of Public Health, Fish & Game, Highway Patrol, CalTrans, Native American
Heritage Commission and the Department of Conservation. He stated comments were also
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 8
received from the Valley Air Pollution Control District, two city departments, as well as comments
from a number of associations, organizations, individuals and interested parties.
Mr. Holm pointed out that environmental issues that required additional evaluation in response to
the comments received on the re-circulated Draft EIR, included additional analysis of traffic at State
Route Hwy 178 and Morning Drive in response to a Cal Trans letter and in response to a letter
from Bear Mountain Cogeneration Facility analysis of hydrous ammonia, noise evaluations at the
facility. He went on to state that no new significant environmental issues were raised through the
re-circulated Draft EIR.
Mr. Holm summarized with regard to the impact conclusions in the document, three issues from the
list previously identified result in less than significant impacts without the need for mitigation
measures. Thirteen issues resulted in significant impacts before mitigation that were reduced to
less than significant levels. Furthermore, there were no impacts identified that resulted in
significant and unavoidable impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation measures.
Mr. Holm stated that the public's review of the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study occurred in
March 2006 and the original Draft EIR was distributed for 45 days on January 14th of this year. The
re-circulated Draft EIR was distributed for an extended 90-day public review period on July 24,
2008. There was an adequacy hearing on August 21, 2008 and the public review on the re-
circulated Draft EIR was extended for 90 days for additional review through October 27, 2008.
The public review of the Final EIR concluded on December 9, 2008. They are present this evening
for the recommended action with an anticipated City Council hearing in February.
Staff provided their staff report.
Karen Johnson stated she wrote a letter and read the substance into the record, as well as
provided copies for the Planning Commission. She pointed out that they are again looking at
homes for the few rather than park sites for the many on the hill tops. She stated that she believes
there is a lot of animal life that can be preserved and observed by the community and that there
could be buildings for learning that could be rented which would be fiscally helpful to the city. She
stated the residents will support such areas as these through user fees and she asked the
Planning Commission to consider extending saving more of the hill tops for all of Kern County and
not so many of the few lucky homeowners. Ms. Johnson also recommended, as a side note, that
the Planning Commission consider including more trails and open spaces on the parks and not on
city streets.
Will Winn stated he previously provided a letter and added that it has come to his attention that
page 39 of the Initial Study deals with agricultural resources and specifically stating that the site is
not used for agricultural production, or zoned for agricultural use. Then it drops down to address a
checklist of responses asking three specific questions. Focusing on letter "b" he read: 'Would the
project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or Williamson Act Contract?"The statement
from Staff indicates that "according to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, the
project site is not a part of the Williamson Act Contract and is not zoned for agricultural use.
Therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning or the Williamson Act." Mr. Winn stated he
recently heard that there was a Williamson Act Contract and he went to the County Planning
Department and had them pull up from their on-line mapping a map that shows parcel 386-030-04
as identified as a Williamson Act active parcel. Mr. Winn pointed out that the parcel is directly in
the project and is in the amount of 240 acres. Mr. Winn commented that apparently in 1977 a Mr.
Calvin Cheek went before the Board of Supervisors petitioning that this particular parcel be
removed from the Williamson Act and the resolution was approved however, the resolution
stipulates that a fee be charged to Mr. Cheek in the amount of$24,000 to have this parcel removed
from the Williamson Act. In fact, it should have been deposited within 60 days. Mr. Winn went on
to explain that the County Treasurer indicates that Mr. Cheek never deposited the stipulated
amount and the Board of Supervisors' resolution specifically says, "if the amount is not deposited
with County Treasurer within that time, the approval of cancellation (of the Williamson Act) shall
lapse, be rescinded and this resolution shall thereafter have no force and effect and said
cancellation shall not be effective until such time as the said cancellation fee has been paid in full."
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 9
Mr.Winn commented that when the property was annexed into the city in 1994/1995, he is not sure
what happened.
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, focused in on the farmland issue, stating that this
project is on land that has historically been grazed and it may be that some of it is under
Williamson Act Contract. Mr. Nipp suggested that the City require some sort of mitigation for
farmland conversion on this project as it is grazing land.
Dr. Nipp referenced the global warming issue and his computation of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with this project, as well as his computations for the Rio Bravo Ranch DEIR. He
quoted a previous comment by Commissioner Tragish as, "Dr. Nipp has never agreed with any air
quality report since I have been here." Dr. Nipp stated that while that quote might be a bit of an
exaggeration, Commissioner Tragish's comment brings several points to mind. Mr. Nipp explained
that when he has testified about an air quality report like this one, the project impacts that he
arrives at are almost always larger than the impacts that the consultant has come up with and such
is the case with this project, as well as the Rio Bravo Ranch project.
Dr. Nipp explained that his qualifications include being a retired professor of mathematics in the
California State University System, having a PhD. in mathematics and spending decades teaching
college students and doing research, much of which had to do with computer modeling. He went
on to explain that he has some numerical expertise and he would hope that the Planning
Commission would takes his comments in this regard somewhat seriously.
Dr. Nipp stated that with the Canyon's project, the consultant is making several very careless
logical errors related to the numbers. He explained that he has submitted detailed comments in
the letters he has submitted. Mr. Nipp went on to explain that the numbers involved determine the
impact and the significance of the project on air pollution and on global warming. He said these
numbers are important to both the developer and to the public. They are important to the developer
because they determine how much the developer will have to pay to off-set the pollution associated
with the project and they determine how much profit he is going to make, i.e., the smaller the
number the less he will have to pay and the more profit he will make. The numbers are important
to the health because the public's health is involved with respect to pollution and the global
warming impacts will be catastrophic if not addressed. Dr. Nipp stated that the smaller the number
the more pollution will be emitted and the larger the number the more pollution will be off-set. If
global warming numbers are determined to be insignificant then almost none of the pollution will be
off-set and that only incidentally. Dr. Nipp provided an example using the California Air Resources
Board has totaled all the greenhouse gas emissions in California, including agricultural emissions,
industrial emissions like petroleum refining, commercial projects from office and schools, emissions
from oilfields, emissions from traffic waiting to move on L.A. freeways and emissions from diesel
trucks. He explained that if you divide the total of all the greenhouse gas emissions in California by
the state population, it works out to about 14 tons of greenhouses gases per year for each
California resident. He stated that in order to reach the global warming goals of 8032, (The Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006), average per California resident greenhouse gas emission will
have to be reduced in 2020 from the 14 tons per year average to about 9.67 tons per year. Dr.
Nipp commented that the Air Resources Board has just come out in the last week with a
controversial plan to do this, which involves cuts of greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of
the economy, including relatively small cuts from business as usual in urban development projects,
such as the one before the Commission tonight.
Dr. Nipp contrasted this project's EIR numbers with the existing 14 tons per year per California
resident and the goal of 9.67 tons per year goal. He explained that the EIR states the people who
work and live at this project will only be responsible for 5.04 tons per year of greenhouse gasses,
and that this project will help the state attain global warming goals. Dr. Nipp stated that the 5.04
tons number does not include all the emissions that are included in the statewide 9.67 tons per
year goal, nor does it include emissions from traffic waiting to move on the L.A. freeways and does
not include agricultural emissions, industrial emission. He further stated that comparing project per
capita greenhouse emissions with statewide per capita greenhouse gas emissions in this way
undercuts any aspiration of objectivity. He went on to state that the conclusion that this project will
actually help the state achieve its global warming goals should be disregarded as irrational,
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 10
misleading and unfounded. Based on this unfounded conclusion, the EIR determines that project
greenhouse gas emissions are not significant.
Dr. Nipp pointed out that in his written comments he argues from a number of points of view,
including that the project's impact on global warming should be considered to be significant and
based on this EIR's own cumulative impact list, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
associated with this project totals approximately 5 million tons per year. He went on to comment
that the project's adverse cumulative impact on global warming should be considered significant,
as well as the project's specific impact and appropriate mitigation measures should be required.
Dr. Nipp stated that we should be taking global warming climate change very seriously, and he
submitted a recent article that describes the gravity of the situation. Dr. Nipp concluded by asking
the Planning Commission to not certify the EIR.
Craig Smith, with the Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee, stated that this project is dead on
arrival. Mr. Smith commented that the proponents initially said that their plan was inadequate four
years ago and Mr. Kapral stated then that he was going to hire the best to come up with a better
plan however, that is not the outcome. Now it is to the point where staff is recommending
improving on the plan, but this is inadequate. Mr. Smith explained that the Bluffs and Trails
Committee did provide comments previously regarding the Draft EIR, but they have not been
properly responded to. He cited Grave v. County of Madera, Fifth District Court of Appeal, recently
issued in October 2008, which provided that an EIR must contain facts and analysis and not just
bare conclusions. Mr. Smith stated that in this project bare conclusions is what has been
presented. Mr. Smith further explained that there has been a failure to respond to the effects of
the plan regarding a cut and fill, grading effects, endangered species that are on and off site and
the traffic circulation. He commented that they should have provided specific mitigation measures
during the process and there has been no substantial evidence shown that the mitigation
measures provided are feasible or effective in remedying the significant problems.
Mr. Smith went on to state that the two main concerns that have been addressed briefly tonight is
that to the northwest of the project is the Cactus Preserve that is managed by the Department of
Fish & Game. He explained that they put up their own money and bought it and it has been active
for maintaining that endangered species. He further stated that those endangered species are
also on site on this project. Mr. Smith stated that the EIR, and the attempt to remedy or mitigate
the effect on those species, has not been adequate at all. He said there will be an incredible
amount of grading done and it appears that the plan is to grade the entire site pretty much all at
once. He further commented that they hope to do the grading before the MBHCP expires in 2014,
even though it is not a requirement of the EIR or of any mitigation that they actually do that, which
poses a significant problem to the proposal, because they have no idea what is going to happen as
the recession continues. Mr. Smith stated that all of the grading will have a significant effect on
Fish & Game property to the north as well as the onsite property and the only mitigation that the
proponent has suggested is to put up temporary fencing. In addition, the proponent has proposed
paying$200,000, although there is no explanation as to how that figure was derived.
Mr. Smith also stated that it is unclear as to past promises as to what lots are going to be
developed, although it has been very clear that certain lots overhanging Toad's Canyon were
promised to be deleted, but they been on both proposals. This is significant to the recreationalists,
as well as persons who will reside in those proposed lots, as it is very steep and crumbly land and
it is likely it will have an effect on the drainage system, which is used for recreational purposes. He
stated that he would like some indication and certainty as to what if the proposal is in concrete as
to what is tonight, or whether they're going to make good on their past promises.
Mr. Smith explained that they have agreed for five years not to place the road down the canyon to
Morning Drive, which is now going to be called Third Canyon Parkway. He stated that canyon was
very important to recreational ists because of the historic views there as it is right now and it
appears Staff's recommendation is to improve circulation by bringing that in, although the effect of
that will be dramatic for that area. Mr. Smith went on to state that another issue that has not been
considered in the EIR is a traffic circulation by bringing that road in by requiring all of the
infrastructure of bringing in Morning Drive to that location. In addition, it is also uncertain as to
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 11
what improvements will be made to the intersection at Morning Drive and Alfred Harrell, as well as
the effect of bringing all of the traffic either two or four lanes down Morning Drive and how that
effects Hart Park, which is currently a two-lane, 25-mile an hour and whether there will be any
improvements by this proponent to what will be a dramatic increase through Hart Park on a daily
basis. On that basis, the EIR is adequate. Mr. Smith also stated that it is unclear as to the
mitigation how in 2030 an improvement on Morning and Fairfax assists with mediation on this
project.
Arthur Unger stated that Mr. Movius did the City proud with the Cactus Preserve and suggested
that Planning Commission do the City proud by doing something about global warming. He
suggested that it be required that all buildings (residential, commercial, industrial) put photovoltaic
solar panels on the roofs. If this is not mandated, they could ask the applicants to consider it.
Debra Ragosweltz stated she's been a runner in the subject hills for 25 of her 50 years in
Bakersfield. She stated that she is a commercial and residential property owner and believes that
property owners should be able to build on their property, however what one builds should not only
benefit the property owner but the community. Debra stated that the current proposed canyon
would benefit few, has many flaws, will be a gated community, which will not benefit the community
and the people that have been using it for the past years. She further stated that there are many
cuts and fills that have been proposed in Soledad Canyon, Hidden Canyon, Aspen Creek West
and East, Stone Canyon Loop and these would require tremendous amount of fills, some requiring
walls as high as eight feet. In addition she pointed out that there would be a tremendous amount
of drainage, ravines that they loose. Debra asked the Planning Commission to re-evaluate this
proposed plan and do the right thing for the City of Bakersfield; the people that have used that land
for many years.
Kelsey Reed stated she uses the trails once a week on foot and twice a week on bicycle. She
stated that she does not think this area should be destroyed in this manner. She further stated that
having gated communities ruins the aesthetic beauty of the area, not to mention the recreation.
She further commented that while she appreciates the trails and bike paths being provided, she
does not go out there to ride through gated communities. Ms. Reed pointed out that there will only
be 17 acres for trails and paths. She further commented that the traffic by the soccer fields and
Morning Drive, as well as Highway 178 will be significant. She stated that this project goes against
economic and environmental feasibility, and further stated that it is unfair and irresponsible to take
away all the beautiful recreation area that the people of Bakersfield have used for an
unaccountable amount of years by a company that is not even from this community. Mr. Reed
pointed out that there is land south of this project that has been cleared and there are projects
which have been left unfinished.
Russ Thompson, representing Canyons LLC, stated that there are a number of consultants present
that have worked on the project that are available for any questions. Mr. Thompson explained that
this project has a history of misinformation, half truths and the owner is happy tonight that finally
this project and the EIR with documentation is before the Planning Commission to deal with the
facts. Mr. Thompson said one of the key things about this project is the entire design from day
one and the goal to protect the bluffs. He explained that they have incorporated into the project
very limited building visibility from Alfred Harrell Highway, including no visible fences and
furthermore dedicated permanent open space in perpetuity for the use and benefit of the public.
Mr. Thompson clarified that there are 284 acres, which is roughly a third of this project site, that will
be dedicated to the public in perpetuity as open space.
Mr. Thompson explained that some of the tools used to have the view shed is to set houses back
from the edge of the bluff anywhere from 70 to 100 feet and providing public trails along the edge
of the bluffs so that the public can enjoy the trail and view shed from the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Thompson also explained that some of the key aspects of the perimeter trail is that it is going to
be a minimum of a 30 foot wide area for an unpaved trail, with minimal landscaping on either side
of the trail. In addition, the grade of the trail will be lower than the adjacent lots and there will be a
42" high stucco face masonry wall that will allow people that have the lots to enjoy the views from
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 12
their backyards over the wall, while at the same time the public can travel along the trail enjoying
the view from the bluff edges.
Mr. Thompson stated that this project meets the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance.
With respect to the view shed, Mr. Thompson stated from day one the goal was to protect the view
shed and said the diagram shown is the second view shed study that was done after the Hillside
Ordinance was approved, The diagram shows the visual observation points along Alfred Harrell
Highway and in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance there were cross sections taken at each of
the visual observation points which were selected by Staff. The cross sections were done in detail
based on the topographic surveying and grading design, from a point four feet above the center
line of Alfred Harrell Highway. He stated the class one and class two visual resource areas,
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance were preserved and each case this project meets those
requirements.
Mr. Thompson pointed out that the photo simulation done before the Hillside Ordinance is not just a
Photoshop depiction of what is estimated to be the visual scene from the project, but rather photo
simulation is a highly scientific process where the consultant specializes in this using GPS and the
focal length of the topography. He reiterated that photo simulation is a very technical, scientific
process that is state of the art.
Mr. Thompson showed some of the photo simulations along Alfred Harrell Highway to show the
view shed impacts on the project. He explained that this project is an extremely visually isolated
area and when you get on top of the bluff in the sand-gravel mining areas, that has been
completely graded and disrupted, the developed area is extremely isolated visually from the
surrounding area.
Mr. Thompson explained that in the hybrid plan, which the developer supports, Park A in the
northeast was originally going to be 8.5 acres and on the hybrid plan that is increased to 15.2
acres, which is an increase of 6.7 acres. He further explained that this would take this project to 24
gross acres of park area included in the design, whereas the Specific Parks and Trails Plan only
requires 8. Therefore they have three times the amount of park area that is required by the adopted
Specific Parks and Trails Plan. In addition, Mr. Thompson stated that the subdivision has been
planned to be walking friendly.
Mr. Thompson further stated that the development footprint of this project is 634 acres, of which all
of it in the cross-hatched area (238 acres) has be disturbed over the years by cattle and sheep
grazing and off-road vehicle use.
Mr. Thompson also showed where trespassers have been illegally dumping material on the
property.
Mr. Thompson emphasized that everyone keep in mind that the open space with deep slopes does
not preclude development, as the General Plan specifically states that, in these areas that the
underlying zoning would dictate that type of development that could occur. He explained that the
General Plan doesn't preclude development, but rather states that you have to be sensitive to the
step slopes and take extra design measures to account for the steep slopes and the underlying
zoning is still R-1. He also noted that under the existing zoning, this property could be developed
into twice as many lots and this proposal is for only for a little over 1300 lots.
With regard to circulation, Mr. Thompson added that internal to this project there is going to be a
great deal of public streets and parking for access to the bike trails and bike paths.
Mr. Thompson pointed out some of the public benefits incorporated into this design are the 284
acres of public open space, with 9.5 miles of public trails and 1.43 miles of Class I bike path, which
all are in excess of what would be required typically of this subdivision. In addition, there is a
preservation of the bluffs and the views.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 13
Mr. Thompson concluded by stating the beauty about tonight is that for years there's been
misinformation, half-truths and tonight presents a complicated project that has been brought
forward through the process with a lot of hard work from Staff, design consultants and
environmental consultants. There has been no un-mitigated environmental impact. He pointed out
the trails and open space dedications which are being provided in this quality project.
Mary Jane Wilson, President of WZI, responded to the two letters that were submitted by the Sierra
Club on this project, critiquing mainly the global climate change emissions analysis in the EIR. Ms.
Wilson stated that an important element to understand is that global climate change gasses and
greenhouses gases are the same gases. She pointed out that global climate change gasses from
a specific source or project are not felt locally independent of the global impacts. She commented
that in the past CEQA has only approached non-local impacts with cumulative expansion analysis
to like an air basin like the San Joaquin Valley. She pointed out that global climate change
emissions is many order of magnitudes greater. She commented that as the Planning
Commission is being asked to act locally, now they must think globally and act locally and hope
that the Planning Commission's actions will result in global benefits to global climate change. Ms.
Wilson set the global picture for the Planning Commission by showing a graph from the California
Energy Commission, which illustrates the relative contribution of global climate change emissions
as it relates to the gross product. Ms. Wilson pointed out that if they could move more
manufacturing of goods and services and more housing to California, where we are efficient, we
could reduce billions of tons of global climate change if we buy locally from our own manufacturing
which is very efficient compared to other countries around the globe.
Ms. Wilson further presented a summary chart of all the activities that are currently take place
within this arena due to AB 32 and the Executive Orders. The chart shows the different regulatory
agencies across the top and things effecting building standards, transportation standards, utilities,
water, fuel and overall impacts.
Ms. Wilson responded to letters from the Sierra Club dated December 8th and 17th. With regard to
comment 1 considering AB 32 and the threat, she pointed out that the comment is substantially
similar to the comment that was in the original FERI, which was entitled J-15. She explained that
the comment concerned the level of global climate change emissions generated from the project
and the response was extensively set forth in a 1 t/2 page response thereto.
With regard to comment 2 inquiring if CEQA Guidelines were used in the analysis, the response is
yes.
With regard to comment 3 concerning center for biological diversity and the Sierra Club's 2007
arguments about the significance of green building standards, she stated that this is substantially
similar to the comment J-15, J-16 in the FEIR, which was outlined therein.
With regard to comment 4 concerning per capita average CO2 emissions, the comment is
substantially similar in many elements to J-12 and J-13 of the FEIR. She explained that this
comment references URBEMIS as the only acceptable modeling tool for global climate change
assessment. CARB and OPR rely on per capita analysis to assess progress toward attainment of
the global climate change in emissions and they ask for different analysis in addition to the current
URBEMIS program. Ms. Wilson stated that this comment also goes to J-12 and J-13, which are
reproduced in the response.
With regard to comment 5 concerning the greenhouse gas emission inventory, or the global climate
change inventory, it basically says that when different assumptions are used you come up with a
different result and the validity of the calculations are dependant on the assumptions used in the
calculation. Ms. Wilson stated the calculation assumptions used by WZI in the development of the
air quality assessment are thoroughly documented in the assessment and Dr. Nipp chose to use
more generalized assumptions while the air quality assessment reflected the data available for the
project traffic specific study, utility consumption and Title 24 as it relates to the constructed
facilities.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 14
With regard to comment 6 concerning the significance determinations and suggests different
thresholds. This comment also states that the commenter fails to understand how any increase in
global climate change in emissions could assist in the attainment of AB 32 objectives. Ms. Wilson
explained that the proposed project and all new projects will be more efficient because it is
mandated to be more efficient by all of the agencies. She further pointed out that per CARB's
scoping plan document, which was adopted December 11, 2008, has reduction goals and states,
"This plan calls for an ambitious, but achievable reduction in California's carbon foot print, reducing
greenhouse gases emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% of the business as
usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today's levels." Ms. Wilson pointed
out that it does not say that you have to go to zero, but rather states that new projects have to be
approximately 15% from today's, 2008, business as usual levels. She further explained that on a
per capita basis, it means reducing the annual emissions of about 14 tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent for every man, woman and child in California, down to about 10 tons by 2020. She
stated that you do this by building more efficient structures that help off-set the less efficient
developments that are already in place.
With regard to comment 7 which questions how a project which has lower per capita emissions can
help off-set a project with higher per capita emissions. Ms. Wilson responds that it does this
because you are building something new and it is more efficient and you have something old and
the two average together to bring down the average. She stated that this comment has been
made previously and it is important to note that the vehicle miles that are being questioned in
comment 7 were estimated by the traffic engineer and WZI makes it a practice that the air study
must match the traffic study. She further pointed out that it is substantially similar to the comments
used in J-7 and J-16, which are reproduced in the letter.
With regard to comment 8 concerning whether or not the project will contain greenhouse gas sinks
in the way of vegetation, she explained that this project is required to have a landscape plan under
5.3.a.9 and that plan is in substitution for the rolling grasslands and disturbed vegetation that was
previously presented. She pointed out that it is obvious that there will be more trees and more
urban plantings there than currently exists and that does create a greenhouse gas sink.
With regard to comment 9 questioning the thresholds that were utilized in the air quality
assessment, Ms.Wilson explained that the air quality assessment utilized thresholds for analysis of
the project and cumulatively considerable impacts. She further pointed out that the rationale for
these thresholds is discussed in the air quality assessment and in response to comment J-15, as
well as in response to comment 1.
With regard to comment 10 concerning cumulative impact assessment, Ms. Wilson pointed out that
those comments are substantially similar to comment J-10 in the FEIR. She explained that the
thresholds have been thoroughly discussed and why they were used and how the project stacks up
against the thresholds. In addition, the comment appears to question how can the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Guidelines for
General Plans contain any designs that serve or practices that serve to reduce global climate
change emissions. Ms. Wilson responded that the simple fact is that many times when you reduce
criteria pollutants, because you're becoming more efficient in how you do your planning, you also
reduce global climate change emissions. Therefore, WZI has simply pointed to those features in
the Bakersfield Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Plan to demonstrate how that happens with those
two together. Ms. Wilson also stated that there is some verbiage in that comment that were
substantially similar to comment J-10 and it is reproduced.
With regard to comment 11 concerning criteria pollutants and if the criteria pollutants were properly
modeled, Ms. Wilson responded that the voluntary emission reduction agreement is a contract
between the applicant and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and as part of that
contract, the Air District is required to review and approve the air quality assessment and the
emission reductions made under that assessment in order to verify that the impacts really have
been reduced to zero. Ms. Wilson further pointed out that the comment is also substantially similar
to J-17, G-1 and G-2 which are reproduced.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 15
Ms. Wilson pointed out that comment 12 asks to keep the Sierra Club on the distribution list for the
Canyons project and that comment has been noted.
Ms. Wilson went on to state that the comment letter for December 17th has already been submitted
with responses thereto. She summarized that comment number 1 states that the EIR should
revise the 16 tons per capita figure to 14 tons. She explained that the California Department of
Finance revises its population projection and estimates periodically and the 16 tons/year versus 14
tons/year comes into being because the California Air Resources Board does not include in its
global climate change emissions the shipping emissions that are outside waters of California.
Therefore, they included some greater per capita emissions because of the volume of goods that
come in.
With respect to comment number 2, Ms. Wilson explained that it agrees that the per capita
emissions is 9.67 as the goal for AB 32 and looks to another specific plan that was done in Rio Del
Oro, which had an EIR and EIS suggesting that perhaps this significance threshold should be
adopted. Ms. Wilson pointed out that it is important to note that in the residential and commercial
sector, the goal by 20/20 for residential is zero net energy and the goal for commercial is zero net
energy by 20/30. She pointed out that they need these new projects in order to bring down the
average. She also stated that there are low carbon fuel standards that are coming into being that
will reduce the transportation costs, but they are all new.
With regard to comment number 3, which states that the EIR admits being deficient because it
does not quantify directly the reduction of specific greenhouse gases emissions for the engines, or
other criteria pollutant emission reduction projects, that will be utilized in the voluntary emission
reduction agreement. She explained that it is not a deficient comment and that they were
conservative and did not give credit to the project for those, therefore the project's global climate
change emissions are higher than if they had taken those into account. She stated that they did
mention them because it is an important part of the project.
With regard to comment number 4, which is a dispute over how much energy the development will
actually consume, requesting information as to the mandate that was referenced in the response to
comment J-14, Ms. Wilson responded that they have requested that the commenter refer to
Executive Order S-3-05 in the CPUC decision 08-09-0040, pointing out the global climate change
emissions were computed in this manner reflecting the current mandates.
With regard to comment number 5, which disputes if the thresholds delineated for analysis of
global climate change emissions were adequate. Ms. Wilson responded that thresholds were
clearly stated, the impacts were assessed in accordance with the thresholds, she explained the Rio
De Oro EIR project description is not identical to this subject project does not have technical
standing in the subject EIR to either grant or deny approvals for this project.
With regard to comment number 6, which questions the vehicle miles traveled for the project, Ms.
Wilson responded that the Air Quality Assessment thoroughly delineates the assumptions that
were utilized in both criteria pollutants and global climate change and emissions, and the traffic
engineer did define the vehicle miles traveled. She further pointed out that the commenter
speculates about different kinds of vehicles miles traveled that could have been used.
With regard to comment number 7, which asserts that all global climate change emissions of the
project should be completely mitigated. Ms. Wilson responded that one of the suggestions was to
send money to Lemoore. She stated that they have done well in this area of establishing programs
that do bring air quality benefits to this area. She pointed out that there are many design features
and elements of this comment that were found substantially in J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-16, and noted
that the project was determined to be less than significant and less then cumulatively considerable
therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required for the project.
Comment number 8, which asks for the Sierra Club to be placed on the distribution for the Rio
Bravo Ranch project, was noted.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 16
Marsha Wolfe, Senior Certified Ecologist and President of MH Wolf Associates & Environmental
Consulting, responded that with respect to the comments concerning the validity or effectiveness of
the proposed mitigation measures, the applicant has worked closely with the California Department
of Fish & Game. She pointed out that the mitigation measure within the EIR are essentially those
that were agreed upon. Ms. Wolfe also commented that the EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plans usually require that an environmental liaison coordinate and oversee the
implementation of all mitigation measures as well as the EIR for the environment and if there is a
mitigation measure that fails, they are required to immediately report it in writing, and subsequently
modify it so that it can be corrected.
Ms. Wolfe commented that relative to the Cactus and the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan, the impacts to the Cactus from development within the 2010 Plan area have
been fully mitigated by the requirements of the MBHCP, including payment of the compensation
fees. She explained that the project proponent will be paying those compensation fees and in
addition the development of the Cactus Relocation Plan exceeds the requirement of the MBHCP.
Furthermore, the project proponent has agreed to donate $200,000 to support the implementation
of the Cactus Relocation Plan.
Ms. Wolfe responded to the comment about mass grading, stating that prior to any grading there
are mitigation and avoidance measures that are implemented. She pointed out that almost half of
the project is within an existing previous gravel mine that has already been excavated to depths of
20, 30, 40 feet and therefore this is not pristine habitat.
Break Taken
Ed Shaeffer stated he is a CEQA and land use attorney representing the applicant. He stated that
with regard to the Williamson Act Contract issue, this is news to them because the title report for
the property has no sign of it and pointed out that there is a recorded cancellation of the contract
on record. Mr. Shaeffer stated that they will be looking into this tomorrow and getting to the bottom
of it. He commented that if there is a technicality of the payment of a fee required to implement the
cancellation, they will pay the fee. Mr. Shaeffer pointed that this issue should not be a reason to
deny the project or delay the action on it.
Mr. Shaeffer responded to the comment that the property has been historically grazed, suggesting
mitigation for farm land conversion, by stating that there is no requirement for this under any city
regulation and further pointed out that the property is not designated as valuable soils by the
State's Soil Conservation Service that would warrant the need for replacement of that property. He
also explained that the mining on the property does not make it a valuable grazing habitat worthy
of replacement.
Mr. Shaeffer also clarified that AB 32, and all the other laws coming down, do not require that this
particular project achieve zero net emissions.
He referred to the concept in CEQA referred to as "A dispute/disagreement among experts," where
a city is allowed to choose which expert to give greater credence to in making its decision. Mr.
Shaeffer commented that in this case there really is not a disagreement between experts.
Mr. Shaeffer went on to comment that another issue that has been misinterpreted under CEQA is
the question of cumulative impact and in this case the suggestion has been that because all the
projects that are listed in the EIR, that might develop in the Bakersfield area cumulatively, would
generate 5 million tons of greenhouse gases, so therefore there must be a cumulative impact of
this project. He explained that CEQA says that a project will have a cumulative impact if its
contribution to the total is cumulatively considerable, which is a very different test. He commented
that if you have a highway with 10,000 cars on it, a house adding one car to that would not be a
cumulatively considerable addition to the existing situation, or the expected situation. He went on
to clarify that in this instant case, this project by WZI's analysis will be generating much less per
capita emissions than is expected and what the goals are; its contribution, both at a project level
and cumulatively, is not cumulatively considerable and therefore, that is how the EIR concluded
and the Staff report recommends that finding.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 17
Mr. Shaeffer commented that with regard to Mr. Smith's comments and criticisms of the EIR, it is
interesting to point out that Mr. Smith wrote a letter commenting on the first Draft EIR and partly in
response to those comments, the Re-Circulated Draft EIR was prepared that went into more detail,
evaluating the traffic through Hart Park and the Fish & Game issues. However, Mr. Smith never
wrote a comment letter on the Re-Circulated Draft EIR and his comments suggest that he may not
have read the document thoroughly because, as Marsha Wolfe explained, they have worked very
closely with the Department of Fish & Game and the Department is in agreement with the terms
and the details in the EIR regarding the cactus mitigation.
Mr. Shaeffer concluded by stating that after hearing all of the people talking about their adventures
trespassing on the property on their weekly bike rides and hiking, he would hope that they would
look forward to being able to legally have access to the property to walk and bike on these
perimeter trails.
Chad Vegas, representing Kern County Citizens For Property Rights, stating they are in support of
Staff's recommendation and would encourage the Planning Commission to consider more strongly
the rights of private property owners over the complaints of trespassers.
Diana Messmaker, stated she has lived at Cattle King Estates for 25 years and is in favor of the
Canyons project. She explained that she is a fitness trainer and she trains her clients in this area,
and she is looking forward to the 11 miles of trails.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley referenced the Williamson Act Contract inquiring what effect it would have
on this project if it does in fact effect some portion of it. Staff responded by giving the history of
this issue and explaining that it does not result in a physical impact on the environment whether or
not it was in Williamson Act Contract. Staff further stated that in order for the County Board of
Supervisors to consider a Williamson Act Contract Cancellation, state law says that you first have
to file a Notice of Non-Renewal and a Notice of a Non-Renewal over a 10-year period of time which
takes the property out of the Williamson Act without any payment of a cancellation fee, and over
time they adjust the taxes and it comes out after 10 years. Therefore, in theory, the reason there
could be some confusion is perhaps because they never paid the fee, but just let the Notice of
Non-Renewal run and after 10 years it came out of contract. Staff pointed out that they could not
find any maps available and the State Department of Conservation advised that they rely on official
county maps, which did not show being under contract. Staff stated that they will find out about
this contract issue.
Staff further pointed out that the Planning Commission has conditioned several projects to pay
cancellation fees for projects that were in Williamson Act Contract, however the timing has been
everything from prior to annexation to prior to recordation of a map. Staff advised the Planning
Commission to not do anything tonight other than accept the assurance that Staff will look into this,
as well as will the applicant. Staff pointed out that if it is discovered it is under contract before this
gets to council, they can use the standard condition used on projects and say that prior to
recordation of the first phase of the map the contract has to be cancelled.
Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the grading permit and if there is something that would allow
grading of this site all at once. Staff responded that there is not a requirement that would preclude
grading all at one time, however the current ordinance would require the applicant to put in erosion
control measures so that any type of rainfall or sediment would not go onto the adjoining
properties.
Commissioner Blockley commented that there are other projects where grading has commenced,
but is not completed. Staff responded that they do have a permit process that has bond
requirements and if the project was partially completed they would go after the bond and get in the
measures of protecting adjoining property into place. Staff pointed out that it would not return a
project to its original condition, but it would protect adjoining property owners.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 18
Commissioner Blockley inquired into the amount of proposed grading, and asked what the average
deep cut fill balance is on this project. Bob Kapral, representing Canyons LLC, responded that the
project is proposing on-site and off-site grading, explaining that there is roughly 755 acres of land
between the two improvement zones for the entire project. He further explained that there is a total
of about 8.5 million yards of dirt, and if that is divided out, it is roughly 11,258 cubic yards per acre,
which is roughly 6.9 feet deep. Mr. Kapral made a comparison on a recent project approved by the
Planning Commission two years ago, referencing Sky Development which is two miles south of this
current project across Highway 178, explaining that project had a 600 acre footprint, as well as an
EIR proposing around 1458 units (which is 100 units more they this current project proposes) and
indicating that it was moving 6,600,000 yards of dirt, which is 11,000 cubic yards per acre, or
roughly about 6.7 feet average on that piece of property. Mr. Kapral pointed out that the Sky
Development project is not in the Hillside zone and it is right up against a scenic highway. Mr.
Kapral clarified that this project is pretty much similar to a project that the Planning Commission
approved two years with regard to the area except that this project is in a Hillside zone where the
other was not. He further stated that this project is visually isolated in the development area, and
the other is not.
Commissioner Blockley commented that the number seems higher than the amount you would find
on a flat site where the typical soils report would require over excavation, re-compaction and fill
and Public Works would require drainage studies so there would not be puddles. Commissioner
Blockley commented that on average this might not be an excessive amount of grading, but he
hopes that it does not all come off one hill and go into one big hole in the ground.
Commissioner McGinnis commented that this project has come a long way. He further stated that
everyone that has been opposed to this project is someone who is a recreational trespasser
violating somebody's private property rights. He stated that with regard to building, Mr. Kapral and
company have millions of dollars invested in this project and they all know the nature of the present
real estate market therefore, they are not going to go out and build homes knowing the nature of
the economy. He pointed out that he thinks the developer has more to lose then "we" do and it is
their prerogative whether they will build or not.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired what the recourse would be in reality if the view shed were
violated. Staff responded that the practical answer is that it would depend on how far along the
development is. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks this is a 100% win-win situation,
and he will support the project.
Commissioner Stanley disclosed that he did meet with the applicant to review this project. He
commented that with regard to the Williamson Act issue, staff's recommendation is an acceptable
solution. With respect to the grading issue, Commissioner Stanley commented that he has heard
this comparison previously and he inquired if it is an accurate portrayal of the grading. Staff
responded that they do not recall the exact quantities on the other project to make a comment.
Commissioner Stanley stated that he does not think the grading is an issue to disqualify this
project. He further commented that one of his key issues is whether or not this project meets the
Hillside Ordinance and this project does that.
Commissioner Stanley commented that with regard to the property rights issue, the thing that
strikes him is when people come up and talk about taking away property and their access, when
the subject property currently has zero acres of open space and trails that are legally accessible.
He explained that this project would expand it massively to something that is going to be a legal
access for open space, trails, and parks, which is a great community benefit.
Commissioner Tragish acknowledged Mr. Nipp's comments, pointing out that he does disagree
with the opinions of the applicant regarding the quality of the air and the greenhouse emissions.
He stated that he is in agreement with Staff's recommendation regarding the Williamson Act
Contract situation. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the Resolution was done in 1977 and
the language in the Resolution, contrary to what was said this evening, states "This Board hereby
determines to require payment in full of the cancellation fee prior to the cancellation becoming
effective. Said cancellation fee shall be paid, in full, not later than 60 days after the date of this
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 19
Resolution, or within such further period as this Board may provide by order for good cause shown,
not exceeding an additional 60 days and if not deposited with the County Treasury within that time,
the approved cancellation shall be lapse, be rescinded, and this Resolution thereafter shall have
no force and effect. Said cancellation shall not be effective until such time as the said cancellation
fees have been paid in full." Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not really know what the
effect of it is and if it has an impact on the EIR not being complete. However, based on Staff's
comments, this appears to be an inadvertent type thing and doesn't really require the applicant
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to address this inadvertent situation. Staff responded
that they do need to clarify the situation because they do not know exactly what happened. Staff
indicated that this issue can be cleared up before it gets to City Council and thereafter an
appropriate condition can be written at that time to submit to City Council. Commissioner Tragish
stated that he would be okay with this.
Commissioner Tragish pointed out that he met with some of the applicant's representatives some
time ago.
Commissioner Tragish referenced Commissioner Blockley's question about the cut and fill and
indicated that he thinks it was answered by the applicant's representatives. He asked if the
applicant could clarify the compaction issues given the soil in this area. Dean Alexander, the Geo
Technical/Soil Engineer for this project, as well as in the northeast Bakersfield area, stated that he
is familiar with the soil conditions. He explained that the problems with northeast Bakersfield is
associated with improper compaction and fill material a long time ago when it was originally
developed. Mr. Alexander stated that on this project they will be compacting according to
International Building Code there should not be issues regarding the soil as long as the old
material is taken out and recompacted with the new material, according to City standards and
guidelines.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is depth that the pads are compacted in for this type of soil.
Mr. Alexander responded by stating that the majority of the site is sand and gravel with some clay,
but it is compacted with six and 12 inch lifts and is benched into the hillside. He further clarified
that there is an inspector out on the site observing the compaction and taking tests. He pointed out
that when you have a highly controlled fill placement it is safe and stable.
Commissioner Tragish inquired what the standard is for compaction in some of the areas on the
project. Mr. Alexander responded that Building Code standards is 90% maximum density when you
place fill. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they ever exceed that standard when there are certain
elements in the soil such as sand and clay composition. Mr. Alexander responded that in
roadways CalTrans will specify a 95% maximum compaction, but typically you don't go below 90%.
Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the anticipated phasing of this project. Staff responded that
there is phasing on the map. Robert Kapral, representing Canyons LLC, responded that the
business plan for this project is to put in all the backbone infrastructure, which includes the public
streets around these gated communities which contain all of the sewer, storm drain, utilities, trails.
He further explained that the intent is to masquerade the entire project and put in all the backbone
infrastructure off-site and on-site. Thereafter, when the parcel map is recorded it breaks out all of
the private gated communities and even creates phasing lines within those. Mr. Kapral explained
that they plan to market this to merchant builders therefore, there are opportunities for many
different builders to buy portions of this project and develop. Mr. Kapral further explained that once
this project is approved tonight, there are two or three years of engineering and plan checking then
to even grade this project out there is two years of grading. Therefore, time wise it will be five-six
years down the road before the first house is seen.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if at some point after all the plan checks are done and the grading
permits are pulled, if the applicant wants to grade the project in total and put in all of the off-sites
and then market the property. Mr. Kapral responded in the affirmative, explaining that they would
bring in a large variety of different sized home builders with different product types. He pointed out
that this works out better from a marketing concept because there are a lot more people spending
smaller amounts on marketing dollars that generates more traffic into the project. Commissioner
Tragish stated that he is okay with this.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 20
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant comes in and wants to pull grading permits all at
once, if they have to post a bond. Staff responded in the affirmative, confirming that the bond
would provide a shield if in the event the project was graded and is not protected against the
elements and subsequently causes damages to the surrounding projects.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he met with Mr. Kapral and Tracy Leach. He stated that the
applicant is going to take an area that is really just a bunch of scrub brush that is not very attractive
with a lot of dirt and sand and put a lot of greenery which will be the CO2 eating kind.
Commissioner Tkac further commented with regard to the setbacks that he has a lot of respect for
the developer coming in and taking a look at this and doing what they have to do to obey this rule
and law that has come to pass over the years. He further stated that the applicant has been
generous with the open space and usable space for the public. Commissioner Tkac also said that
most of his comments have already been made by other commissioners. He concluded by stating
that so many people who are not familiar with this project are so worried about what it is going to
do, however he provided that they will be lucky if they can see this project, because you actually
have to find it in order to see it. Commissioner Tkac stated that he intends to vote for this project.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the applicant could provide a snapshot of the design standards
that the individual builders on the project will build. Mr. Kapral responded that this is a master
planned community with a theme, however he did not bring in the theme boards because he
thought since it was a land use change and zone change it might be too early in the process. Mr.
Kapral commented that they have put in a lot of time creating a theme, even for the trail system,
the walk work on the project and the incorporation of the walls. He further stated that they will be
utilizing the river rock that is available on the property in a lot of the homes and walls, as well as
crushing the rock for the base material for the trail system. He explained that their intention is to
set out architectural guidelines for each of the gated communities and there will be an architectural
committee that goes along with the homeowner's association, that would review the building plans
from each of the builders.
Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the bonding and ensuring that tracts do what they are
suppose to do. Staff responded that there are several bonds that are placed throughout the
project, and the first bond that comes into play is the bond for grading, which specifically gets the
project to a safe stage should grading come to a halt during grading operations. In addition, other
bonds come into place for the street construction. Specifically, each tract phase has requirements
and improvements therefore, when a developer records a map, they have to have their
improvement plans approved and they have to enter into an improvement agreement which goes
to the Council, which contains both performance and labor material bonds based on the nearest
estimates for the improvements that are required for that tract. Staff indicated that in some
instances improvements are started ahead of recording the map as it is not a requirement that you
wait until you are ready to record the map to start the improvements, but when that occurs security
is obtained for the work that is being done in existing public right-of-way. If it is all being done on
private property the City does not get security for that. Staff pointed out that since it has been an
issue for a few tracks in the last couple of months they currently have a staff Ad Hoc Committee to
address how to handle that.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Ad Hoc Committee is looking at things such as violation of
CC&Rs, etc., to which Staff responded that the City is in the "definition of the problem" stage and
have not gotten to the point to say what they will do under these circumstances.
Commissioner Johnson referenced Ms. Shaw's letter dated December 17, 2008 regarding two
questions brought up at the Planning Commission hearing, which reads to the effect, `The City's
Water Resources Department maintains the sumps for the City of Bakersfield. The primary
purpose for these facilities is to either detain or retain run off water, which requires certain design
features that conflict with landscaping the area interior to the fence. Grass and other landscaping
material inhibits the purpose of the sumps and would be cost prohibitive to maintain. It is a City
standard to require landscaping on the exterior of the fence, street side adjacent sumps with
frontage on arterial or collector streets." Commissioner Johnson commented that it is getting to the
point where he thinks they need to be able to do things a little bit better than we do them now and
stated he is curious in reading this he hears it is too expensive to maintain, but there's ways we
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 21
can dress our community up a little bit more. For example, he used Patriot's Park near West High
School, which has what some people call a landscape sump, because it has a grassy area which
retains water, but it is also recreational use. He further stated that he thinks there are opportunities
with the way the slope protection areas are in this project, that more of an amenity can be created
with the drainage areas, such as providing rock streams, dressing them up with a little bit of
landscaping and making it appear that it is more than just a hole in the ground with slated fencing.
Commissioner Johnson inquired what thoughts Staff might have on this other than what is in the
record. Staff responded that storm water drainage and the disposal thereof is a many splendor
thing as there are a number of different situations in Metropolitan Bakersfield where the west side
is primarily flat and where the majority of the holes in the ground with the slated fences will be
found. She pointed out in the west side there is no where else for the water to go. Staff went on
to clarify that in this specific project area, because of the grade they would expect to see a higher
percentage of detention basins where it contains the water for a while, retards the flow, then lets it
go down a channel. Staff explained that those are the types of basins that can be adapted to a
landscaped area however, when you get a terminal basin, if you put too much stuff in the basin, it
defeats the purpose of letting the water percolate into the ground and it would take a lot of
research to determine something that would make it look prettier and an amenity that could be
used. Staff pointed out that they have not looked at this in the past.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if this project could be conditioned to deal with the retention
basins, to which Staff conferred and advised that in talking with the applicant, the applicant has
actually planned to do something very much different then the terminal basins seen now and are
actually planning to use those. Staff pointed out that on the tract drawings the basins are not the
typical size and are more shaped with the channel that is out there. Staff further pointed out that
the displays and graphics were going to be presented with the subdivision map.
Mr. Kapral explained that there are two retention basins on the project, which he pointed out, along
with a greenbelt area where they planned three soccer fields, leading down into a more defined
basin which has an outlet. Mr. Kapral pointed out that they do not retain water, although they trap
the water for oils and pollutants, but it gets metered out. He further explained that the plans for
those areas is to look like a natural wetlands area. Mr. Kapral pointed out another basin and
explained that they have drainage from the project coming down into a storm drain and then also
down the natural channel. Likewise, he explained that the they were designing it to have a natural
wetland look, which would probably have a low height wall with the river walk and rod iron.
Commissioner Johnson referred to bio swells in other communities and encouraged staff that if it
can't be done on terminal basins and looking at the retention basins alone, they ought to look for
opportunities where they can make bio swells or landscaped retention basis.
Commissioner Johnson inquired how the Planning Commission can be assured that the water
basin issue gets addressed at the tract map stage without a condition tonight. Staff responded that
they will propose a condition tonight that will require that they propose those plans at the tentative
tract stage.
Staff provided the following conditional wording: "The drainage system for the tentative tract shall
include best management practices per the national pollution discharge elimination system,
including bio swells and other more natural appearing mitigation features, including necessary
safety items, such as fencing." Commissioner Johnson stated that this adequately addresses his
concerns.
Commissioner Johnson further inquired about the provided map by Will Winn, dated December 18,
2008, showing this area being prime agricutlural land and in the Power Point presentation by the
EIR consultant, comments were mentioned from the Department of Conservation, however reading
through the response to comments in the EIR he did not see a letter from the Department of
Conservation. Staff responded they will have the consultant check into this.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he would hate to send a project on to Council without
something that they may need to add onto it, and given this scenario, he inquired if it is appropriate
to word a condition that says, "should land be under Williamson Act protection, then the following
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 22
mitigation would apply." Staff responded that they would not advise the Planning Commission to
add any condition with regard to this, because it is about cleaning up a bookkeeping issue and they
add conditions all the time before they go to Council.
Michael Hulllahan, with MBA, responded to the Department of Conservation letter inquiry pointing
out that the comment was from Joyce Szwarski from the Department of Conservation of Oil & Gas,
but not related to farm lands.
Commissioner Johnson inquired how Clear Water Canyon will go out towards Morning Drive and
meet up with Morning Drive and how it plays into the circulation element, and specifically the traffic
that could end up going towards Alfred Harrell Highway. Staff pointed out where Clear Water
Canyon intersects the Morning Drive alignment. With regard to the number of trips that will be
effecting Hart Park, Staff responded that the traffic distribution for this area is primarily to the south,
south-west, and to the east. Approximately 10% is estimated to go north, which means about
1,500 cars a day would go north, which could eventually end up on Alfred Harrell Highway, and of
those 1,500 cars, the split at Alfred Harrell Highway would be approximately 1/3 to the west and
2/3 to the east. Staff pointed out that during the peak hour period, there would be a total of nine
cars an hour going towards Hart Park and 11 cars an hour coming away from Hart Park going to
the development, which totals 20 cars in one hour, or one every three minutes.
Commissioner Johnson inquired what justification was used to say that the majority of the traffic is
heading east on Alfred Harrell, to which Staff responded that it is based on the modeling that is
done through the Kern Cog Transportation model showing the location of attracters and
generators. Staff further explained that most of the attracters were people wanting to go south,
south-west and to the east from this particular area because that's where the jobs and the markets
are. In addition, there are very limited attracters to the north because to the north is Hart Park,
Lake Ming and a few other amenities in the area. Staff also commented that 10% is a very
generous estimate to go to the north.
Commissioner Johnson again asked how the 2/3 and 1/3 figures were derived. Staff again replied
that it is the model attracters of where the traffic is going to, pointing out that there are very little
attraction to go to the west, whereas to the east there is more connectivity to the other areas,
including Lake Ming, other developments, and eventually goes around down towards Miramonte.
Commissioner Johnson stated his concern is that when you live and drive in the area, sometimes it
is easier to get to areas of the northern metro area of Bakersfield by taking Alfred Harrell then it is
to go all the way through Highway 178. He stated that encouraging traffic to go down towards
Alfred Harrell is okay, but he is concerned with how adequately they are addressing the impacts to
Hart Park specifically when there are not a lot of cross walks and not a lot of shoulders. He stated
his concern for mitigating these impacts.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he met with representatives of the applicant last week. With
regard to Clear Water Canyon, the rendering is a little shocking because there are trees where
there are none now, and is Morning Drive with Clear Water Canyon tapping into it, and therefore
Morning Drive is not part of this project.
Commissioner Tragish inquired why there can not be a PUD on it because it seems to be one way
to make it come back for the Planning Commission to look at it and have some input as to the
elevation of the various builders to make sure there is continuity. Staff responded that the
previous comments were with regard to the bio swell of which some of it is in OS and you can't put
a PUD on an OS zone. However, if the Planning Commission desires, a PUD can be placed on
the R-1 and the R-2 portion that does not have a PUD. Commissioner Tragish stated that he
would like to do this. Staff explained that it could be stated that the "residential zone shall all have
PUDs.
Commissioner Tragish inquired how the potential for more traffic will impact the canyon road, if at
all. Eon Parks, with Rutgers and Shuler, did the traffic study for the project and responded that the
scope of their project ended at Comanche and Highway 178 therefore, nothing was studied further
to the east. Mr. Parks responded that their threshold is 50 peak hour trips and that they have less
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 23
than 50 peak hour trips in the p.m. peak hour coming to and from the canyon. Mr. Parks explained
that this is based on modeling information that they receive from Kern Council of Governments,
and they take the information and put it into peak hour trips and show the distribution of the project.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant was required to study the canyon road as part of
the EIR, to which Staff responded that the scope of the traffic study is a predetermined formula
through the City of Bakersfield and Cal Trans using adopted models locally. Staff elaborated that
Mr. Parks was indicating that the Kern River Canyon road that goes up there did not even trip the
thresholds to look at it any further.
Commissioner Tragish clarified that the improvements to Morning Drive will not be directly
improved by the applicant, to which Staff responded that the applicant will have to build part of
Morning Drive. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the applicant will be required to do for
improvements on Morning Drive, to which Staff responded the applicant will be responsible to put
in Morning Drive through the various phases for access, however the City essentially requires two
lanes plus shoulders, as well as a Class I bike path. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the
applicant will be responsible for putting Morning Drive to connect with Alfred Harrell Highway, to
which Staff responded in the affirmative, pointing out that it is done in three pieces.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if there would be a way to include a condition that there be some
kind of calming device for the people coming down Morning Drive so the traffic can only turn to the
east and not to the west. Staff responded in the negative because it is a full access arterial to
arterial connection.
Commissioner Tragish then inquired if there is any way to address the issue raised by
Commissioner Johnson regarding his concerns of the traffic going west along Alfred Harrell
through Hart Park. Staff responded that the traffic engineer has presented evidence that the effect
is not as significant as Chairman Johnson was concerned with.
Commissioner Stanley inquired about the initial recommendation not including a PUD and why it
was not required in the recommendation. Staff responded that typically unless an applicant
proposes a PUD or a PCD Staff, unless they feel there is an overriding reason to add a PUD or
PCD, does not normally recommend it. Staff explained in this particular project the applicant has
to abide by the Hillside standards for landscaping and the major core centers that people will be
walking to in their highest density residential does have a PUD. Staff further explained that typically
on single family residential they do not encourage PUDs.
Commissioner Stanley inquired of the applicant how a PUD would impact this project, to which Mr.
Kapral responded that his first reaction is to object to it because it is over regulation, because this
is a subdivision of single family residential units. Mr. Kapral commented that if this is a trend then it
should be applied city wide. He further stated that he does not think they are doing anything
different on this project. With respect to the commercial and condominiums that have PUDs they
were planning on coming back with separate plans for those because they are more of small lots
where the amenities were not defined. Mr. Kapral reiterated that on single family residential lots
that are typically in the 8,000- 15,000 square foot range, you don't come back through public
hearings to review building elevations. He commented that that would be adding another layer of
government that is unnecessary.
Commissioner Stanley stated that he tends to agree with the applicant on this issue, because he
believes that there is a lot of control that has been put in place on this project already. He inquired
what other levels of control, aside from a PUD, can be used for review and approval. Staff
responded that for R-1 development it is basically the ordinance requirements regarding setbacks
and elevations that are the controls. Staff pointed out that the City of Bakersfield historically has let
the R-1 zones go without PUDs in the past and it would be somewhat unusual to have PUDs over
R-1 projects unless the developer proposes it themselves in order to make sure the theme is
carried out throughout the project.
Commissioner Stanley stated that he views this as a very quality neighborhood and that a PUD
would just be an unnecessary layer and not a benefit to the community. He stated that he is in
support of this project and would not support a PUD. With regard to the traffic onto Alfred Harrell,
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 24
he defers to the experts and their modeling and trust the fact that there will not be a significant
impact on Hart Park. He pointed out that the County has had an opportunity to express concern
with Hart Park and there has not been a presentation by the County. Commissioner Stanley stated
that he is not in support of conditioning any mitigation for Hart Park.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agrees with Commissioner Stanley and can't see putting a
PUD designation on a R-1 subdivision because there are so many guidelines already.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that when staff came forward and talked about the attracters that
draw people to drive one direction or drive another direction, it could be argued that the North Kern
Oilfield could be an attracter for employees going to and from work. He stated that while he does
think the numbers may not be absolutely correct with the traffic study, a simply mitigation
requesting the applicant to meet in good faith with the County Parks Department and to address
traffic as it travels through Hart Park with the potential for mitigation and compliance with the
Special Events Plan. Commissioner Johnson referenced an event last spring where an article
came out about the roadway through Hart Park actually closing and therefore, he would like to see
a small condition requesting the applicant to meet in good faith with the County Parks Department
to address traffic and attempt to mitigate it as it goes through Hart Park.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he would not support a PUD designation on the project. He
further commented that west of Hart Park is a four-lane freeway and Level Service A says that can
handle 45,000 trips a day and that Hart Park is something that the freeway dead ends into and it's
something less than a two-lane collector, which can handle 9,000 trips per day. He pointed out
that this is the problem and that it has nothing to do with the this project but how the freeway ends
at Hart Park. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that is out of their hands since it is a county park
at that point. He stated that he is in support of the project without the PUD.
Commissioner Stanley responded to Commissioner Johnson's request by stating that it would be
reasonable to encourage the applicant to continue to work with County Parks to address any
concerns that may pop up, but it does not seem a specific condition with regard to that would
necessarily achieve anything. Commissioner Stanley inquired if there would even be any binding
element to such discussions between the applicant and the county. Commissioner Johnson
responded that it just would be a required good faith effort. Staff pointed out that the City could not
enforce that.
Commissioner Stanley commented that it is the Planning Commission's hope that the applicant
would in good faith talk with the county for any potential mitigation with regard to Hart Park.
Commissioner Tragish commented that he does agree with the request for a condition concerning
county parks in cooperation with the applicant and that he does think that Alfred Harrell Highway,
along Hart Park is going to be a problem as it is a recreational area, and it does not allow much for
much room for traffic. He further commented that with regard to the PCD, this is a unique
development, and there have been developers who did not come through with their promises. He
further stated that he does not feel confident that the consistency of the motif will be observed by
other developers.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to a condition that would
require the applicant to work in good faith with the County to mitigate traffic that goes through Hart
Park and address the Special Events issue with the possible closing of the entrance and exit of
Hart Park. Mr. Kapral responded that they met with the County's Ted James a week ago, as well
as with one of the department heads over traffic engineering and they were satisfied that because
of the traffic study that was produced to them that there were no impacts to the park. Mr. Kapral
mentioned that they had responses, and Bob Larouge appeared before the Planning Commission
in February 2008 at the adequacy hearing on the EIR, and brought up concerns over traffic onto
Alfred Harrell Highway and impacts on Hart Park. Those comments were responded to in the re-
circulated draft, and there have been no further responses from Parks and Recreation regarding
the responses that were made in the re-circulated draft which would indicate that they do not have
a problem. Mr. Kapral pointed out that he does not see Parks and Recreation present at this
hearing and he has already met with County officials and left that meeting with the understanding
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 25
that their concerns went away, he believes that he has already made the efforts to meet with the
County and they've had plenty of opportunity to rebut any comments on the re-circulated draft. In
addition, the traffic study for the project does not show that there are any impacts. Therefore, there
is nothing in the record provided by the County itself that there is a problem, other than what the
commission is bringing up. Mr. Kapral stated that he doesn't understand there to be a problem, it
was not brought up during the adequacy hearings, and he does not see any proof of anything. Mr.
Kapral stated that he cannot agree to this.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if in the discussions with County staff if the special events closure
was ever discussed, to which Mr. Kapral responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson
pointed out that there is the potential for special events with extreme situations very minimally
throughout the year, however it would be nice if the applicant would agree to at least address the
special events portion where they do close off Alfred Harrell end of Hart Park.
Commissioner Johnson referenced Mr. Parks to impact table 2.1-1 and on page 2-92 of the EIR
provided with the staff report, which addresses mitigation for Morning Drive and Alfred Harrell
Highway by installing a signal and one westbound lane, and inquired what was looked at in the
traffic study as the analysis went on through Hart Park. Mr. Parks responded that they didn't look at
traffic through Hart Park. He clarified that they look at facilities which have a minimum of 50 trips in
the peak hour, and to the west of Morning Drive and Alfred Harrell Highway, there are less than 50
trips in the peak hour. He further clarified that the fact that there is an impact at Morning Drive
does not correlate directly to something to the west. Mr. Parks further stated that it does not lend
him to believe that there is any sort of impact to the west because there is an added signal and a
westbound lane.
Commissioner Johnson stated that since it has been repeatedly stated that the impacts are
minimal and the county is silent on this issue he will back down on this issue.
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"A", making CEQA findings sections 15091 and 15903 of the State CEQA Guidelines, approving
mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program, and recommending certification of the Re-
circulated Final EIR for GPA ZC number 03-0337, to the City Council, referencing the December
17, 2008 Public Works memo, and the December 18, 2008 memo, and adding the condition that
the drainage system for the tentative tract shall include best management practices per the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, including bio swells and other more natural
appearing mitigation features, including necessary safety items, such as fencing.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"B", making findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land
use map designations as depicted in Exhibit "B-2" and the circulation element as depicted in
Exhibit "B-3" with conditions of approval adopting the mitigation monitoring program, and
recommending the same to City Council and referencing the previously mentioned memos and
condition.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"C", making findings and approving the requested amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan
for Northeast Bakersfield, to change the plan map as depicted in Exhibit "C-2" with conditions of
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 26
approval, and adopting the mitigation monitoring program, and recommending the same to City
Council referencing the previously mentioned memos and condition.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"D", making findings and approving the requested zone change as depicted in Exhibit D-3" and
further described in Exhibit "134' with conditions of approval, and adopting the mitigation
monitoring program, and recommending the same to City Council referencing the previously
mentioned memos and condition.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Stanley
NOES: Commissioners Johnson, Tragish
Commissioner Tragish stated that he voted no against this motion item for the reasons previously
stated, that this project is a unique project in the hills and bluffs of Bakersfield and is not the usual
single family resident project found in Bakersfield. Furthermore, there are no assurances from the
past history of projects that come through the Commission, that do not have a specific plan or
development plan or CC&R's or HOA's, that these homes can be built by the builders, except for
the existing ordinances, with any kind of elevation that they desire. I would like to see some control
over this project because comments have been made that the applicant has allegedly engaged all
types of acrobats to meet the requirements of the ordinances and have purportedly met the city
half way however without the control of a PUD over the project there is no way to ensure the
continuity of this project and it's strict compliance with it's requirements.
Commissioner Johnson stated that his decent on this motion item is because PUDs have been
placed on projects with a lot less concern than the concerns raised with this project. He stated
that he did not think it would be excessive to have a PUD on this project.
5.4a Rio Bravo Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA / ZC 06-1722 (McIntosh &
Associates for Nickel Family, LLC)
5.4b General Plan Amendment 06-1722(McIntosh & Associates for Nickel Family, LLC)
5.4c Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield (McIntosh &
Associates for Nickel Family, LLC)
5.4d Zone Change 06-1722 (McIntosh &Associates for Nickel Family, LLC)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Gordon Nipp representing the Sierra Club, stated
that they are pleased that the City has pulled back from Option D for the farmland conversion
mitigation condition, which would have let the developer replace the prime farmland with a
Williamson Act Contract. Now the developer will have to come up with a permanent conservation
easement or the equivalent on an equal amount of prime farmland. Mr. Nipp discussed the global
warming issues, pointing out that the EIR global warming analysis for this project is almost the
same as that for the Canyon's project since the same consultant wrote it. Mr. Nipp submitted the
same article that he submitted for the Canyon's project describing the seriousness of the climate
change issue. Mr. Nipp stated that the project's adverse impact on global warming should be
considered significant, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project total
approximately 5 million tons per year and should also be considered significant and appropriate
mitigation measures should be required. Mr. Nipp commented that suggested mitigation measures
have been submitted in their written comments.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 27
Mr. Nipp sees disagreement among the issues and it has to do with the numbers. He explained
that the consultant compares project per capita greenhouse gas emission minimized at 4.8 tons
per year with a 9.67 tons per year average per capita California resident figure needed to attain AB
32 goals. He stated that these two numbers are not comparable because they do not measure the
same quantity. Mr. Nipp went on to explain that the 9.67 tons figure contains many state-wide
emissions not computed into project emission per person figure. He also stated that the EIR is
grossly deficient in this regard. Mr. Nipp pointed to another error in the EIR by commenting that
the electricity used in this project will be generated at a power plant that emits large amounts of
greenhouse gases and primarily carbon dioxide. He explained that in order to determine this
project's greenhouse gas emissions associated with its electricity use, you have to estimate the
average annual single family residential electricity usage. He stated that 7000 kwh/year is a pretty
conservative estimate and even with a 10% reduction for energy efficient building, which is
consistent with California energy consistent data, the average single family residence in this project
will use at least 6,300 kwh/per year, however, the EIR estimates electricity usage for the average
single family residence in this project to be 1,642 kwh/year, which is about 1/4 of the normal usage.
Mr. Nipp further comments that the EIR says that this number is so much smaller than normal
because the residences in this project are going to be energy efficient and he thinks this is too
good to be true. In fact, the 1,642 kwh/year value that the EIR uses comes from a California
Energy Commission document, which only includes electricity usage for lighting for a typical single
family home and does not include other major home electricity usage such as air conditioning,
computer, and t.v. Therefore, Mr. Nipp states that the EIR vastly understates actual electricity
usage and hence vastly understates greenhouse gas emissions for the project. Mr. Nipp stated
that you do not do the community a favor by accepting seemingly preordained conclusions based
on such inaccurate and unsubstantiated data. He suggested that this be sent back to the planners
requiring objectivity and accuracy from the consultants.
Deborah Dishington stated she lives in Kernville, California and has been an environmentalist for
40 years. She stated that the Rio Bravo project is right at the mouth of where she lives and she is
concerned about that for the last 30 years that she's been fighting City Hall, losing 90% of it,
because the issue over and over again is private property rights and land, open space,
preservation; the way it is. She stated that private property rights over 40 years ago made more
sense, but now because there is such a huge population, and literally America is becoming more
and more developed, there is nothing left of agricultural land and visual open space, which is
almost going to be as rare as gold.
Ms. Dishington also referenced the news about the disappearance of the honey bee and stated
that because the farmland is disappearing the bees are leaving. She stated that no matter how
much money is involved with the project we cannot be so quick to get rid of the agricultural land.
She reiterated that if Bakersfield continues to trade up the land, Bakersfield will be morphed into
another L.A. The loss of agricultural land is a loss of overall bio diversity and the more vegetation
that is destroyed the more we will be threatening ourselves in the future. Ms. Dishington concluded
by stating that the General Plan admits that "further development of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan planning area will occur and most likely on "prime" agricultural soils that exist on the
valley floor and that the General Plan concludes that conversion of prime agricultural land to urban
uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered a significant
adverse impact." She read further that "...the General Plan has determined that the cumulative
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses is considered significant."
Mr. Dishington concluded by stating that the concerns are visual, agricultural, open space and
balance. She commented that in the future precious agricultural land will be rare and thus more
valuable to the masses then any more short-sighted projects involving building overkill.
Roger McIntosh, representing the Nickel Family LLC, went through the concept of this application
pointing out that the when the Nickel Family came to him they reviewed the existing land use
designations and found that the land uses were low density residential, suburban residential,
estate residential with some commercial mixed in. He stated that it was reviewed in conjunction
with the available infrastructure and specifically sewer which has been extended up to the
northeast gives service to about the junction of Rancheria Road and Highway 178. Mr. McIntosh
explained that they wanted to create more of a master planned community so they came up with
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 28
the plan before the commission, which is to spread out the densities over the entire area such that
the low density residential will be in the brown area, the commercial area is the ranch headquarters
and they added more of a town center general commercial area at the intersection of Rancheria
Road and 178. He further pointed out that there was an opportunity for a small commercial site
along the river. In addition, Mr. McIntosh stated that they wanted to spread out some higher density
residential uses, but they did not go over the existing already entitled densities of around 4688
units.
Mr. McIntosh went on to state that the current application is a revision to the circulation element, as
the current circulation has Old Walker Pass Road alignment designated as a collector and
Rancheria Road is an arterial, with two additional collector streets. He explained that the alignment
for their respective collectors are not topographically feasible and therefore they added a collector
along another alignment that takes the place of the two collectors. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that
the traffic study indicates that the traffic can be handled with the changes. He furthermore stated
that the alignment of Old Walker Pass Road was an idea that was proposed by the City of
Bakersfield and this is intended to be the connection to the new Highway 178 freeway that will end
at Alfred Harrell Highway and then reconnect back to existing Highway 178. Mr. McIntosh
indicated that this is an option and this particular alignment can be connected either to Highway
178 in the interim until the freeway gets put in, or it can be connected back to Rancheria Road.
Mr. McIntosh commented that they also wanted to look at the existing park and trail plan for the
northeast, and pointed out that this is the approved plan for the northeast park and trail and it does
go out to about Rancheria Road. He stated that they wanted to expand it approximately two miles
to the east and take the trail plan all the way to the mouth of the canyon. In addition, they added
and expanded multi-purpose trails extended up into the open space area, which connect to either
Highway 178 or even down into the river itself and connects to foot trails that are designated along
the river through the Kern Rive Plan Element.
Mr. McIntosh indicated that they studied the topography of the area and they are not building on
any bluffs. He pointed out the slope areas. He pointed out the existing HD overlays and are not
asking to change of that. Furthermore, he stated they will comply with the Hillside Development
Ordinance. Mr. McIntosh stated that there are two Class II visual areas and they do not intend on
developing near those areas.
Mr. McIntosh stated that another issue before the Planning Commission is an amendment to the
Kern River Element which depicts the changes to the Kern River Plan Element, which is consistent
with the General Plan. He also prepared an Exhibit that outlines the flood plane primary, which is
directly from the Board of Reclamation Maps that designate the flood plane primary. He pointed
out that there will be no changes to that flood plane primary and no development within those
areas.
With regard to the multi-purpose trail, he explained that it is eight feet of unpaved surface to be
used for multi-purposes uses within a 20' right-of-way.
Mr. McIntosh stated that he and the Nickel family went up to the Kern River Valley and met with the
Chamber of Commerce to discuss concerns from the residents up there. He believes that they
answered most of the questions and some agreed with the project and some did not, but in the end
there was no position taken by the Kern River Valley people. Mr. McIntosh stated that one of the
issues discussed was the visual aspect of the road and so he presented a before and after picture
pointing out that the only difference is that the two-lane road is still a two-lane road, however the
shoulder is the second lane of a four-lane facility and then there would be shoulder beyond there.
Mr. McIntosh displayed a rendering of what the intersection of Rancheria Road and Highway 178
might be, pointing out that the traffic study shows that four lanes can handle the traffic all the way
to Miramonte and therefore the six lanes depicted may be four lanes to ultimately be built out to six
lanes. He pointed out landscape strips on both sides of the road, with Class II bike lanes along
Highway 178 and then the houses on both sides and beyond.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 29
Mr. McIntosh commented that they looked at the existing traffic at the mouth of the canyon and the
Kern Cog model shows that there is less than 5,000 cars per day that go up and down the canyon.
Furthermore that in the year 2030 there will be around 11,000 cars per day going through the
canyon without the project and approximately 15,000 cars per day near the canyon at the last
entrance. He explained that he cannot say that the 15,000 cars will be going up into the mouth of
the canyon because the model distributes the traffic back towards Bakersfield and they expect that
most of the traffic from this project will go back towards Bakersfield.
Mr. McIntosh stated that they looked at the impacts on Hart Park and currently there are
approximately 600 trips per day existing and this project would add about 700 trips per day which
can easily be handled within a two-lane facility that goes through Hart Park. He pointed out that
the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program has a project to build a four-lane expressway all
the way through Hart Park back to Manor. He pointed out that this is fully funded and they will be
paying their fair share of that.
Mr. McIntosh responded to earlier discussion about best management practices and using the bio
swells within the drainage areas, stating that they are concerned about the safety of those and as
long as the city agrees to take the liability for both the maintenance and the safety of those types of
facility, barring any kind of a standard adopted by the City, he cautioned his client not to accept that
condition. He stated that they will try to work with the drainage facilities and although he is not
familiar with the Canyons project, the topography on this particular project is a little steeper than
most then he is use to. He explained that he has worked in areas where they have developed off-
line detention basins and turned them into recreation facilities, but they have to be done in such a
way that they only take off the peak storm water in a major event and allows for the nuisance water
to continue to pass on through. Mr. McIntosh went on to state that they become attractive
nuisances and kids and people don't necessarily stay out of them.
Mr. McIntosh stated that they have reviewed the Staff report and concur with it and the subsequent
memos issued by Public Works and Planning and ask for the Planning Commission's approval.
Mary Jane Wilson entered her written comments into the record. She stated that she has analyzed
the project in the context of AB 32 and the developing regs and particularly on a project that goes
in its development through 2030, the net energy zero for residential in 20/20 was taken into
account, as well as the progress towards net energy zero for commercial.
Roger McIntosh stated that there was a comment letter submitted two days ago by CalTrans and
they have submitted a response thereto.
Jim Nickel, the president and part owner of Nickel Family LLC, stated that his father purchased the
Rio Bravo Ranch in the mid 60s with the intent of donating a portion of it for the establishment of
Cal State Bakersfield. However, when Cal State Bakersfield was located to the west of town, he
began developing the property and initiated the annexation of the property into the city in the mid
1970s and built the Rio Bravo Tennis Club and the Rio Bravo Golf Course. Mr. Nickel also stated
that his father built a small subdivision along the Kern River at Rancheria Road. Mr. Nickel went
on to state that this process is the next step in fulfilling his vision of this property and they feel that
this process has been good planning. Mr. Nickel also explained that their family is basically farmers
with operations in Merced and Fresno Counties, as well as at the Rio Bravo Ranch. Mr. Nickel
stated that they do not want to change the property, but rather want to have a development that
complements a unique character and beauty of the property. He pointed out that over 40% of the
1800 acres will be open space, and only 12% of the total Rio Bravo Ranch acreage is involved in
this development. Mr. Nickel respectfully requested certification of the EIR.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Stanley disclosed that he has met with the applicant to review this application. He
inquired how many units the applicant is currently entitled to versus what is under this proposal.
Mr. McIntosh responded that 5,067 is what is currently available and under the proposal it is 4688.
Commissioner Stanley confirmed that the current entitlements allow for more units then what is
being proposed and therefore this is a development that by right can put up to 5067 units.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 30
Commissioner Stanley commented that he really likes the open space and the integration of the
trails and the balancing of the different zones to have a project that is much more of a master plan
type community.
Commissioner Stanley inquired what type of activity would eventually trigger a widening
improvement inside the canyon. Staff responded that it would be in the hands of CalTrans.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he liked the EIR because it was easy to go through. He further
stated that he was concerned about the density of this project and it actually appears that the
single family is four units per acre, which is anywhere from 10-12,000 square foot per house. He
also pointed out that the suburban residential is about three houses per acre and the low-medium
residential appears to be some type of multi-family, or seven to an acre which is in itself still
relatively low.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he did meet with Mr. McIntosh and the applicant previously. He
further noted that contrary to popular opinion about single family residence, that this applicant has
allowed a PUD zoning on all the single family residents and so it's not something that is really
isolated in these types of developments, it does give him reassurance and supports their credibility
that they want to develop this in a consistent fashion.
Commissioner Tragish commented that with regard to the small commercial piece along the river
and the single family residence that has been there for many, many years, it is his understanding
that the applicant was going to use it as either a museum or for a restaurant that dovetails into their
recreational activities in that area. Specifically, Commissioner Tragish inquired what is planned for
the small commercial area. Mr. McIntosh responded that it is general commercial designation C2
zoning and the items that could be constructed there include a farmer's market, a museum with the
ranch house where there could be a gift store, or a hotel with restaurants and bar. Commissioner
Tragish stated that his concern with the proposed zoning is that it is the middle of a residential
area, right on the lip of the river and seems to be somewhat incompatible. He explained that he
would like to limit it to some kind of area of activity that would be put there. Mr. McIntosh
responded that other activities might involve sporting activities, rafting, and tubing. Mr. McIntosh
stated that they would not want to limit that at this time, and with the PCD overlay they will have to
come back to show the Planning Commission what the development will be.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant comes back for this small commercial strip and they
want to put a McDonald's in or a hotel, what can the Planning Commission do to prevent this from
happening. Staff responded that it would be difficult to regulate the use if a C-2 PCD is given.
Commissioner Tragish commented that in the past it has been his concern that the PCDs or PUDs
are not a panacea for everything and specifically not for the use.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he supports the project and has not met with the applicant. He
noted the quietness of this project in comparison to others
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about Rancheria Road being an arterial, to which Mr. McIntosh
confirmed is on the circulation element. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Wilson to respond to
Mr. Nipp's comment in regard to the kwh in the EIR. Mr. Wilson responded to that by stating that
the way they do the analysis for the global climate change emissions in calculating those from the
electricity they looked at the AB 32 goals and the CPUC mandates that all new residential by 2020
will be net zero energy and they are starting on that progress in 2009. Therefore, they have already
taken some of those steps toward that net energy zero. Furthermore, Ms. Wilson explained that
commercial has to be net energy zero by 2030 and they are also taking those steps as this project
builds out. Ms. Wilson stated that while Dr. Nipp may have calculated what he believes the
electricity usage is, it is not calculated exactly the way he thinks.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he does like the project and he will be supporting it this
evening.
Commissioner Johnson commented that with regard to Commissioner Tragish's concerns with the
commercial piece down by the river, based on just initially where it is at and the access, it probably
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 31
is not in the best location where it would deter a fast food-type restaurant and therefore would not
meet the highest best use. Commissioner Johnson commented that he thinks it would be better
suited for a steak house or sushi place.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the condition for the bio swells previously discussed with
Mr. McIntosh and the release of liability suggested by Mr. McIntosh. Staff responded that issue
cannot be addressed at this moment due to lack of information. Commissioner Johnson stated that
the comment on the record on the issue that the applicant made and the comment in the EIR was
that they would look at it during the tract map stage given the scenario.
Commissioner Stanley inquired as to Mr. Nickel's perspective of putting a fast food restaurant in on
the commercial piece along the river, to which Mr. Nickel's responded that they have no intention of
putting a McDonald's there, however they don't really know what it would be. He stated that the
house could be like a visitor's center or a museum for Indian artifacts that they have collected on
the property. Mr. Nickel stated that the idea for something commercial or there would be maybe a
Starbucks coffee shop or a cafe, or quaint steak house. Mr. Nickel agreed that it would be out of
character to put a fast food restaurant there.
Commissioner Stanley pointed out that with the willingness to put on the PUD/PCD, there is a level
of trust to know the applicant is willing to have an extra layer of control and furthermore knowing
the family and how much good they've wanted to do with this property, as well as hearing
personally the view or image of the commercial from the owner, he feels that he has a personal
assurance that there is not an extra layer of restriction that needs to be put in place to ensure that
a fast food will not pop up.
Commissioner Tragish commented that with regard to the C-2, it's not just McDonalds that they are
talking about, but that C-2 also allows for adult entertainment, apparel accessory stores, appliance
stores, refrigerators, washer and dryers, automobile accessories, bowling alleys, camera shops,
card rooms, carpet and upholstery, cleaners, farmers market, floor covering, and even funeral
services are available. Furthermore, with regard to trust, Commissioner Tragish stated that
promises are not binding and he thinks that having a condition is one way to ensure that you get
the result you want. Notwithstanding, he conceded that at this point he is willing to go with the
project as designed.
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"A" making CEQA findings sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines approving
mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program and recommending certification of the Final
EIR for GPA ZC number 06-1722 to the City Council, referring to memo from Public Works dated
December 17, 2008 and a memo from Planning dated December 18, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"B" making findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use
map designations as depicted in Exhibit T-2", the Circulation Element as depicted in Exhibit T-3",
and Kern River Plan Element designations as depicted in Exhibit "134", with conditions of approval
adopting a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program and
recommending the same to City Council, referring to memo from Public Works dated December
17, 2008 and a memo from Planning dated December 18, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-December 18, 2008 Page 32
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"C" making findings and approving the requested Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan
for Northeast Bakersfield to change the plan map as depicted in Exhibit "C-2", with conditions of
approval adopting a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program and
recommending the same to City Council, referring to memo from Public Works dated December
17, 2008 and a memo from Planning dated December 18, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit
"D" making findings and approving the requested Zone Change as depicted in Exhibit "D-3", and
further described in Exhibit "D-4" with conditions of approval adopting a statement of overriding
considerations and mitigation monitoring program and recommending the same to City Council,
referring to memo from Public Works dated December 17, 2008 and a memo from Planning dated
December 18, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
6. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
Planned Development Review 08-1340(Inland Architects)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's
recommendation. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he wanted this item reviewed because the little out piece directly to the
west was addressed by Ms. Shaw in her memo, but the question that remains is how much of that out
piece is actually going to be a portion of the Cal Trans right of way for the additional right turn lane. He
stated that the condition that he would like to add on to this project would be something to the effect that
pending review by staff regarding the placement of the road Cal Trans easement on the little out piece, if
a remainder should exist the applicant will be asked to submit a revised landscaping plan so they have
some way to address this ugly little out shoot that currently exists.
Commissioner Tragish stated he would agree to this condition. Staff responded that the condition could
read that, "all open area west of the church that is not encumbered by road easement shall be landscaped
similar to the proposed project, subject to approval of the planning director.
Commissioners Johnson and Stanley agreed that this language would be appropriate.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt the attached Resolution with
all findings and conditions approving Planned Development Review number 08-1340 as depicted in the
project design, incorporating the previous condition language as stated by staff.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley
NOES: None
7, COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff advised that the next meeting is January 15, 2008. Furthermore, staff advised that this is Mr.
Walker's last night as consultant on traffic affairs for the City of Bakersfield.
Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—December 18, 2008 Page 33
8.. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Gauthier is going to come back for his gold watch. He further
wished Mr. Walker good luck and thanked him for his contributions. Commissioner Blockley echoed
Commissioner Tragish's sentiments. Commissioner McGinnis thanked Mr. Walker for his comments and
direction.
9.. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:32 a.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
MES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
January 12, 2009