The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-16-09 MINUTES AK PLANNING COMMISSION °R MINUTES Regular Meeting April 16, 2009 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Strong 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pledge of Allegiance led by Bob Sherfy. 3., PUBLIC STATEMENTS No speaker cards were presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission Regular Meetings of March 5, 2009 & March 19, 2009. 4.1 b Approve amendment to previously adopted Planning Commission minutes for the December 18, 2008 meeting based on scrivener errors. 4.1c Adopt Resolution of the Planning Commission Rescinding Resolution No. 160-08 Recommending Certification of the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report, Rescinding Resolution No. 161-08 Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 03-0337, Rescinding Resolution No. 162-08 Recommending Approval of Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield (No. 03-0337) and Rescinding Resolution No. 163-08 Recommending Approval of Concurrent Zone Change No. 03-0337 for the Canyons Project. Commissioner Tragish stated he did not want to make a motion but wanted to make corrections to the March 5th minutes. NOTE: The corrections referred to in Commissioner Tragish's comments are actually reflective of the March 19th minutes and the corrections are made thereto. Commissioner Tragish referred to page 3, 3`d paragraph down the last sentence where it states "he stated that he does not know where he gets the percentages from and asked for clarification"and he wants it to read "he stated that he does not know where the preparer gets the percentages from and asked for clarification." • Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 2 The next correction is in paragraph 4, right below the last one, the 1st sentence should read "Commissioner Tragish commented that the EIR..." not ERI. The next correction would be on the 5th paragraph, the first sentence should read "Commissioner Tragish also referenced the urban decay section pointing out that it uses as an source of urban decay study the Townsendale Group Inc. January 2009 study." The next change is paragraph 6, the 1St sentence should read "Commissioner Tragish references the conclusion on page 5.13.21 which reaches a conclusion about the retail aspects of the urban decay analysis" in the same paragraph the last sentence "Commissioner Tragish stated that this analysis does not take in consideration the present economic situation which seems to fly in the face of that statement and further does not take into consideration, in his opinion, past history of blips in economics situations which can contradict the analysis" instead of using the word dovetail. Those are my comments. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the Non-Public Hearing Items as amended by Commissioner Tragish. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Continuance to May 7, 2009 meeting for Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan Review No. 09-0112 (Castle & Cooke Commercial-CA) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11894(Sikand Engineering) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7190(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7191 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7192(SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, item 4.2a is continued to the May 7th meeting. Commissioner Tragish recused from item 4.2a. Commissioner Blockley also declared a conflict on item 4.2a. The public hearing is closed with the exception of item 4.2a. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the public hearing items on the Consent Calendar as stated. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis,Tkac, Blockley,Tragish, Stanley, Strong RECUSE: Commissioner Tragish, Blockley(Item 4.2A Only) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC PARKS AND TRAILS PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 5.1a Canyons Project Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) GPA2C 03-0337 (Robert Kapral, Canyons, LLC) 5.1b General Plan Amendment 03-0337(Robert Kapral, Canyons LLC) 5.1c Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield 03-0337(Robert Kapral, Canyons LLC) Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 3 5.1 d Zone Change 03-0337(Robert Kapral, Canyons LLC) The public hearing is opened, staff report given using a slide presentation. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner, stated the goal of this hearing is to provide the Planning Commission and the public with an overview of the Canyons project, an overview of the Final EIR, environmental issues addressed, comments received, our conclusions and recommend certification of the Final EIR and related projects to the City Council. The general location is in northeast Bakersfield, south of Hart Memorial Park, it encompasses approximately 890 acres located in the bluff area of the City of Bakersfield. The proposed actions of the project include certification of the Final EIR, a general plan amendment on the land use element and the circulation element, an amendment to the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan, a zone change and future subdivision maps. The Canyons project description includes 890 acres, several gated communities, 1214 single family homes, 120 multiple family residences, 65,000 square feet of general commercial on 8 acres, 5.2 acres of private recreational, 17.33 gross acres of public park, 11 miles of trails, open space and common areas. The existing zoning districts include mostly R-1-Hillside Development. The Canyons project provides a variety of zoning including R-1-Hillside Development, R-2-Hillside Development, R-2-PUD-Hillside Development, C-2 zoning with a PCD overlay and OS-Hillside Development zone. Also included in the project description is a circulation element and a bike path amendment. The project description includes an amendment to the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails to relocate a park in the east, central portion of the site and to relocate trails. There are 16 environmental issues studied in the EIR and 5 alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA. During the December 18, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, testimony was submitted that a portion of the Canyons project was affected by the Williamson Act contract and agricultural preserve. In order to provide adequate and additional public review of the environmental analysis we prepared an agricultural resources study, that also includes an Errata, which makes all the documents internally consistent. The agricultural preserve covers 243 acres of the Canyons site and 201 acres, of the 243 acres, is under the Williamson Act contract. That contract was entered into prior to the area being annexed and the City inherited implementation of the contract. Condition 31 requires removal of the property from the agricultural preserve and cancellation of the Williamson Act contract prior to subdivision of the property and the City has receive applications for both of these actions and is currently in process. During the public review of the agricultural resources study that was circulated to state agencies and interested parties, the City received no comments. The Department of Conservation, who administers the Williamson Act contract, had no comment. As an overview of the EIR conclusions, it resulted in 4 environmental issues that are less than significant without mitigation measures, 13 environmental issues that are less than significant with mitigation measures and zero environmental issues that result in significant or unavoidable impacts. This is not different from the environmental conclusion that was presented on December 18, 2008. There have been 6 public hearings, including tonight's, where 2 are common for this type of project, there have been 165 days for public comment, usually there are 75 days. In the northeast portion of the project there is a required park site and the applicant has agreed to eliminate 27 homes and expand the park site to approximately 21 acres. Those 27 homes would be integrated into the rest of the Canyons project site so there would be no net loss of homes for the project applicant. In the southwest corner of the project site, staff has recommended elimination of a 2 acre park reservation, there is an offsite park adjacent to the Canyons but the benefit of expanding the park in the northeast allowed a withdrawal our request for reservation dedication in the southwest. The major change is in the northeast portion of the project where the park has been expanded and open space zoning would be designated for that expanded area. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 4 The existing circulation element shows no bike paths within the project site and the applicant is proposing to provide a class 1 bike path through the project that has connections to offsite facilities, in the east/west alignment, in the southern portion of the project. The trail alignments are generally shown in the specific plan along historical trails and the trails plan allows the developer to change these alignments to integrate them into their development project. The Canyons is proposing to provide the trail alignments generally along the perimeter of the gated communities that are being proposed. When visual resource criteria is applied as required by the Hillside Ordinance, the red lines, in the EIR, are class 1 visual resource areas, the yellow line includes class 2 visual resource areas and the gold shows in 3 locations, the west side, the northeast portion and the southeast portion. These gold areas would be inconsistent with the hillside criteria unless building height and setback limitations are applied and there are mitigation measures in the EIR that address those locations. In the southeast corner of the project there is a slope protection area in which 5 lots are affected. The applicant is agreeable to relocating those 5 lots out of this area and they would be integrated into the remainder of the Canyons project which is mitigation measure#79. The geological study that was prepared for the EIR identifies setbacks from the ridgelines. The red/orange line is a 100 foot setback; the blue line 70 foot setback; and the green line a 40 foot setback. In the lower right hand corner are the 5 lots that have been eliminated from that area and relocated. Staff is recommending a hybrid plan to approve the proposed project with the following revisions: enlarge the public park in the northeast portion of the project site; remove the requirement for the 2 acre land dedication of park in the southwest portion; extend Clearwater Canyon Parkway to Morning Drive that includes the class 1 bike path; it removes the Goodmanville Road access in the northwest portion of the site and allows lots that don't meet the Hillside Ordinance criteria to be redistributed internally to the Canyons project. Staff is recommending that resolutions be approved to certify the Recirculated Final EIR, approve the hybrid plan, which includes the general plan amendment, the trails plan amendment and the zone change. There are 2 memo's recommending minor changes to the conditions of approval and should be mentioned in the motions, one is dated April 15th, from the Public Works Department, the other is dated April 16th from the Planning Director. Dr. Gordon Nipp, with the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the project. Dr. Nipp stated the California Air Resources Boards recommendation for satisfying AB32, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals pertaining to carbs, as far as the Canyons project is concerned, were not applied or not being required of this project. This project will emit approximately 40,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year nevertheless, the environmental impact report concludes that this sprawling project would "assist in the attainment of AB32 objectives,"which are the objectives that would reduce California green house gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Dr. Nipp stated that the consultant made an error by comparing 2 numbers that do not measure the same quantity or comparable, and based on this, the EIR concludes that the project greenhouse gas emissions are not significant. Dr. Nipp requested the project be sent back to the planners and consultants. A zero net emissions is not required of the project and irrelevant. He further stated that adverse impact cumulative impact on global warming should be considered significant and appropriate mitigation measure should be required. Craig Smith, with the Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee, made a presentation with a slide show. He stated that the Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee wants this project to be built. Michelle Beck has been working for 10 years and aims to have the project built on accurate facts. Implementation of the plan is important. Mr. Smith explained that he wants to be sure that the project that is passed today by the Planning Commission and the City Council is not changed in the future and will remain secure. Mr. Smith expressed a concern with builders selling off the property in the future. What happens when the builders stop building and walk away? When it is partially built? Right now, this project is dead on arrival due to foreclosed projects to the south, the required infrastructure and increased cost basis. What is being presented tonight is not Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 5 guaranteed and is only best guesses. Why are infrastructure subdivisions not being required to be built, at least the portions that endanger monies from the city and the public. Mr. Smith stated that the EIR is deficient in two ways: traffic and endangered species. Traffic is deficient due to the foreclosed projects and the analyses on Alfred Harrell Highway especially through Hart Park and the accumulation of that onto Morning Drive and most traffic will go through the park. This was the major change before it was going down to Goodmanville Road and bypass Hart Park but now with it connecting to Morning Drive, most traffic from this project and those around it will use this to get to 99 and Rosedale. The EIR concludes that all runoff, including toxic, will be contained with periodic cleaning of the washout with no proof that this works or examples provided. What are inconclusive includes absorption, and the effect it will have of the Bakersfield Cactus Preserve. The EIR states that hard surfaces, buildings and pavement above the canyon will increase the amount and duration of the water coming down and the Bakersfield cactus will rot. There is cactus on site. The proposal is that certain ones will be moved and some will stay and it is haphazard as to which ones will be moved. The fertilized lawns and piles of dirt that will be loosened in construction, the water runoff will be of poor quality and the Bakersfield cactus both on site and further to the north, which is part of the 300 acre preserve, will be affected by this. Insufficient analysis regarding impact of filling in the canyons, reshaping the canyons and altering the drainage has been done. The original development was planned as if on flat ground with the promise of bringing in an new idea with the hillside. Twelve houses will be built above and all to the right is sheared off of that cliff and crumbling ground. I've been through this area hundreds of times and that is what you see and you've seen that for the last fifteen years. There is nothing in the canyon that will shore up even with the twelve houses scheduled to be built up. In the past history of the canyons, there have been projects built many times based on a hand shake and a word. Those days are long gone. But for your consideration, and City Council consideration, look at who the proponent is and so far it is zero for ten years. How many projects had so many problems getting to just where we are right now? You have been forewarned. Part of your job here is to protect the users; the people that will be living there; people that will be going to those parks using those trails; review it; put in those conditions that if the project is approved will do what you say is going to happen and you have to think of it in three different ways. As it is now, as it will be during the construction phase and that is where the EIR is also lacking. What will happen to those endangered species, to the traffic during that phase because it won't be a period of months. Will the buildout be six years, will it be twenty years, will it only be half and then they walk away? So conditions should be in place to accommodate all that. As I stated in the first slide Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee wants this project to be completed but to be completed with what you approve, with what City Council approves and not to be altered or modified based on future events that we know will happen when they can't sell the homes in the first phase, or in the first and second phase, and they have to wait five years. Thank you. Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Smith. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to staff's recommendation? Seeing none, at this time we are going to take a brief break. As Commissioners and staff, we all come from work and are having dinner here tonight so we are going to take a quick fifteen minute break and then we will be right back out. Thank you. Break taken. Chair Johnson reconvened the meeting of the Planning Commission. We just concluded the comments and opposition to staff's recommendation. However, I believe we need to address one other item. Mr. Movius stated an email from Mr. Will Winn was submitted to the Commission on this project. He also is in opposition with certain points listed in the email. Thank you. Chairman Johnson asked if there is anyone who wishes to speak in favor of staff's recommendation, or the applicant, please come forward at this time and as a reminder please state your name and speak clearly for the record. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 6 Chairman Johnson my name is Mary Jane Wilson, I am the president of WZI, and as you know we did the air quality and global climate change analysis for this project, I would like to direct your attention that none of the comments made by Dr. Nipp this evening were anything new, they were answered in the responses to comments and sections 4.2jj, 4.2kk and 4.3i and they are in the documents before you tonight. What I would like to do is go through a brief discussion on global climate change and the way the analysis are required to be done so that you may better understand the analysis when you read. I would have done it in power point electronically for you tonight but unfortunately I didn't know I was going to have to do this, but I brought it just in case in paper copy. So I would like to start off with, 'What is Global Climate Change." Global climate change is a change in the climate of the earth as a whole. It is very different than criteria pollutants which you've heard me speak about before where a car driving down the street emits something and then we model it right in that localize area. Global climate change gases affect the entire world kind of at the same time, so something that is emitted in China is equally as detrimental as anything emitted anywhere else. The gases that trap the heat in the atmosphere are called the global climate change gases or green house gases. Some of the gases that create climate change are more persistent than others. The main climate change gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and there are some fluorinated hydra carbons and sulfur hexafluoride and things like that, there are other naturally occurring gases such as water vapor that all contribute to global climate change. We measure them and quantify them as CO2 metric ton equivalents which means when we calculate them in the United States generally we start with regular tons, such as you and I would know, that are the same as criteria pollutant tons and then we convert them to metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The two most significant gases are carbon dioxide and methane of which carbon dioxide, or CO2, is the most abundant but methane is more reactive as far as global climate change is concerned but we convert all of the gases no matter what they are into CO2 metric tons equivalent. These are just a few of the main things that are being done by 2010. The GHG, or the climate change gases, have to be reduced to year 2000 levels by 2020 overall for California. They are supposed to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2050. They are supposed to be reduced to 80% below the 1990 levels and this was by executive order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, our governor. AB32 was enacted to implement his executive order and it requires that the California Air Resources Board design and implement measures to limit the emissions and to reach these goals that were mandated by his executive order. You might wonder what agencies have gotten into the whole scheme of things, well EPA of course has, and that was because they were sued for not doing it, the California Air Resources Board because AB32 mandated that they had to. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Cal APA, which has many agencies under it, are actively involved, the Office of Planning and Research, which does CEQA threshold, is actively involved, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the California Public Utilities Commission and is in fact the one that mandated the net zero residential housing by 2020, as far as electricity is concerned, and that was enacted in September of 2008. In addition there are a bunch of other agencies that are involved and eventually even the city will be involved, in fact in their new general plan they will have climate action plans and they will have a new air quality element that incorporates global climate change initiatives. Ms. Wilson explained there were several different bases of analyses that were determined to be important in global climate change and this was put out primarily by CAPCOA, which includes all of air pollution control officers in the state, and they decide how to deal with certain issues. One of them was one that you could choose to do, is a zero threshold an that is and absolute determinant that any increase issignificant if you chose that zero threshold. It wasn't recommended in the guidance documents then any project would have to go through an EIR. If you did, one house would have to go through an EIR because you would have to make a significant determination that it was significant and unavoidable. That was determined on a technical basis to not be very practical. Another methodology was the no presumption technology. You didn't judge a project until you analyzed its actual global climate change impacts. This is the one that WZI chose for the Canyons Project. We also chose to do it on a per capita basis because when you analyze something on a per capita basis, you can then compare the project itself with the state goals, national and the global situation because you are looking on it as per capita basis. It allows you to compare a large project with a small project on an equal footing. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — April 16, 2009 Page 7 The Office of Planning and Research has drafted CEQA criteria which addresses if the project generates green house gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment based on any applicable threshold of significance and will the project conflict with any applicable plan policy, or regulation of an agency adopted, for the purpose of reducing the emissions of green house gases. In order to answer those questions we put forth three general technical criteria: 1) will the project GHG emissions interfere with the attainment of the AB32 objectives. 2) does the project have a greater per capita emissions that the plan area or the state average and 3) does the project reduce or eliminate climate change gas sinks, and gas sinks are things that suck CO2 out of the air and use it like trees. So if you eliminated a bunch of trees and didn't plant others in compensation that would be elimination of a green house gas. When your making policy about green house gases or global climate change you need to remember that there is a certain amount of data that is available and the ability to quantify, in order to allow you to make decisions, those have to be weighed into it. You have to weigh the economic factors and I tell you why a project built in China is much more polluting, because it has much less regulation than a project built in the State of California and all of those numbers are in the Canyons analysis for you to review. You have to look at the progress in attaining the goals. What is a project going to do that will help attain the goals of AB32? In the Canyons, we do a multitier analysis when we look at the project, we look at the state, we look at the nation and the implication of the project on the state and the nation, then we look at it in a global perspective. The base line that we used for the analysis is the California Air Resources Board Business as Usual in which they made the projections from which we have to attain the goals, we then look at forecasting between 2020 and 2030 because those are the goals that the California Air Resources Board has already put into place and they have mandates on how people are suppose to comply and get into compliance with them. On the project level, we do a per capita local analysis. We compare the new project with the goals set by the state and we compare the new construction. We reflect the reduction in emissions from vehicle miles traveled and reductions in those efficiency improvements that are being mandated right now by the CPUC. The renewable portfolio you've heard a lot about, the wind turbines that are going up in eastern Kern, the big solar project that's all part of it as well as new solar on older homes things of that nature and you've heard about the cap in trade program which may be federal but I can tell you because of the regulatory issues that are going on with California Air Resources Board, we are already submitting inventory's for a cap in trade program and that program is being extensively workshopped every couple of weeks. We are participating in that and keeping abreast of that as well as watching the low carbon fuels which is the Padley Act and is already mandated. The California Air Resource Board has already reduced the amount of green house gases that are going to be in your new consumer products so when you buy hairspray it will be different next year than it was this year as well as your shampoos and everything else. What tools do we use. We use a multitude of tools because green house gases are emitted from many different places, we use urbemis which you've heard a lot about for criteria pollutants for the transportation portions of it, and for the natural gas consumption, but we have to back calculate the N20 and the CH4, which is methane and nitrogen oxide, because they are not back calculated by the urbemis program. We use the carb consumer data and the California Energy Commission data for electorkilig usage by region for this very area, we use the carb scoping plan and the appendices in that plan for the methodology and how to predict those emissions, we use CEC Title 24 updates and their staff reports using local government standards. Many of your standards in your general plan do already reduce green house gasses even though they weren't intended for that. We use the traffic data from the traffic engineer for the VMT's and we use the climate action registry protocols. Very similar tools were used for the state level analysis and for the national analysis. We make a brief change from the sState goals to the Nationals goals. The State goals are much lower in greenhouse gas emissions per capita than the National goals and on a global level we actually look at the GDP because you cannot get good per capita numbers anywhere but in the US and the Department of Energy. The UN and EPA have done emissions calculations on other countries in which we rely giving a perspective of the total. One of the important concepts for greenhouse gasses or global climate change is the word `leakage." Leakage is when you push a project out to a different state or push a project over to a foreign country. Dr. Nipp was correct in saying that new in California is better than new anywhere else in the nation, or world, because we produce less GAG's per gross state product or per capita than Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 8 any of those people. If there are any questions about this project and what has been done I will be glad to answer them. Robert Kapral, representing Canyons LLC, stated that because of the 4 hour hearing previously he will not make a formal presentation tonight as the theme of their presentation was made clear. He has several of the project consultants here this evening, so if you have questions you can call on them. Mr. Kapral stated he wanted to address some comments made by Mr. Smith who is representing the Bakersfield Bluff and Trails Committee. Mr. Kapral states that Mr. Smith believes the EIR is deficient because of foreclosed projects and under analyzed impacts on Alfred Harrell Highway, especially Hart Park. It appears that Mr. Smith has not read the EIR response to comments with regard to his letter of February 12, 2008 which is located in section 12 of the EIR, Response to Comments, J-1 through 15 on pages 12-69 through 72. It also appears Mr. Smith has not read their EIR response comments with regard to his presentation to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2008, which is located in the EIR chapter 3 "Response to Comments" pages 4.3-3 through pages 4.3-4. Mr. Smith states that the EIR's traffic analysis is deficient due to foreclosed projects. He fails to identify how the traffic impact and analysis in the EIR are deficient in this regard. We don't know what projects are foreclosed. These are broad statements. Mr. Smith commented the need for subdivision improvements and bonding. There were comments like that raised at the December 18th hearing. There were comment letters written and they were responded to in chapter 3. Subdivision improvement agreements and improvement securities are required of every development before construction begins. These agreements and securities provide a mechanism in funds for the city to complete improvements where a breach of the improvement agreement occurs. This is a requirement on all development projects, the Canyons included, and it will be also on our tentative map. This shouldn't be construed as a new impact that was not previously studied. Mr. Smith states the EIR is deficient due to an unanalyzed impact of Alfred Harrell Highway, especially Hart Park. He fails to identify how the EIR is deficient in his analysis and has not identified it's specific impact. During the December 18, 2008 Planning Commission hearing there was an exhaustive discussion of traffic on Alfred Harrell Highway and through the park. The City Traffic Engineer and the project engineer described to the Planning Commission how and why the increased traffic through Hart Park was determined to be insignificant. Mr. Ian Parks of Ruttgers and Schuler, the Project Traffic Engineer, is going to expand on this topic once again and present some more information to the Commission. As indicated in the Administrative Record, the County of Kern Traffic Engineering Road Department and the County Traffic Engineers identified in the Kern County Road Department Resource Management Agency letters dated January 31St, 2008 and February 7, 2008 was adequately addressed in the Draft EIR Section 12 pages 12-51 and 12-55 through 57. Mr. Barry Nienke, County Traffic Engineer, letters of November 25, 2008 was adequately addressed in chapter 2 page 191. There have been no further comments from the Kern County Road Department with regard to traffic impacts to Alfred Harrell Highway and Hart Park. Craig Smith states that the EIR is deficient because of impact on endangered species and alludes to inadequate analysis. He states that the EIR concludes all runoff, including toxic hazards runoff, will be contained with periodic cleaning of washouts of the toxic hazards materials and stating that no proof has been provided. He states that hardened surface of buildings and pavement above the canyon will increase the amount of water and duration coming down the canyon causing the Bakersfield cactus to rot. He further states that fertilized lawns and piles of dirt that will be loosened during construction and the water will be of poor quality. He then states the canyons will be filled in provided appropriate water, both in quantity and quality, is supplied to the Bakersfield cactus on the property. He goes on to say that there is insufficient analysis regarding the impact of filling in the Canyons, reshaping Canyons and altering drainage both as to quality and quantity of water to the endangered species. It appears Mr. Smith has not read the EIR response to comments with regard to his letter of February 12, 2008 located in section 12 of the EIR response to comments, J1 through 15 on pages 12-69 through 72, and the EIR response to comments with regard to his oral testimony on December 18, 2008 located in EIR chapter 3 response to comments, 4.3.d-1 through d-5 on pages 4.3-3 through 4. The concerns he raises this evening mirror his concerns raised on February 28, 2008 and December 18, 2008. He has failed to identify how or why the response to comments are inadequate. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Smith asked Ian Parks to address some issues with Hart Park. Good evening, Ian Parks, with Ruttegers and Schuler Civil Engineering, we prepared the traffic study. I have a letter that I'd like to submit. The purpose for the letter basically was to revisit the Hart Park issue Mr. Kapral asked me to look at. What we did was look at the impacts. We didn't include the level of service in the study for the area in Hart Park and the reason we didn't do this was that area did not meet the threshold value for including an analysis level of service in the report. The threshold is 50 or more peak hour trips in a facility. The facility in Hart Park has less than 50 trips and the way we determine this is by looking at the distribution of the project traffic. We have Kern Cog run an analysis that shows us on the street system where our project traffic would go. From that, from our technical knowledge of the areas, and land uses, it appears that there is less than 50 trips in the area. We had extensive discussions with Steve Walker and Barry Nienke, Kern County Traffic Engineer. Everyone was satisfied with our assumptions. However, we show in this letter that we did look at the existing 80T volumes, there is existing 2008 published counts and those can be found in the Kern Cog publications. There is approximately 930 daily trips that go through Hart Park currently or that was counted in 2008. We look at what is that going to be in 2030 using growth rates similar to what we used on Alfred Harrell in our study. We come up with about 2500 to 2800 trips in 2030, that would travel through Hart Park, and as side note I think that's a conservative look. The Kern Cog model shows about 900 trips that would go through. We used 2800 as a conservative estimate the project will add less than 500 trips to this portion of Alfred Harrell Highway. We added 500 as a conservative estimate so we come up with around 3200 daily trips. A road way such as this, going through Hart Park, will generally accept a capacity of 15,000 daily trips, were talking about 3200. A level of service is based on the volume to capacity, the volume that we expect divided by this 15,000 number shows the capacity that the road can handle is generally at level service A and is below .6, the oversee we come up with is 2.1, significantly less than .6, you could almost triple the traffic and still be a level service A. It appears that had we put this in the study it would show a level service A. Level service A is considered free flow no delays. Additionally, I wanted to cover a comment about the Kern Cog model from Mr. Winn. Mr. Winn says the traffic study is outdated and incorrect based on old Kern Cog data. It's true we did use Kern Cog data from 2007 when we did the study. One thing to remember, with this Kern Cog model, is it is continually being updated and revised. They are currently updating the model due to changing conditions and everybody is aware of changing climate with building and economic. There is a committee with Kern Cog that meets regularly and they go over the assumptions, they use based on growth projects to include or percentage of projects to include in the model in the future year and the future year right now is 2035. When we ran our numbers we had a 2030 model, what we currently have with Kern Cog is a 2035 model, we pulled both models and I looked at them side by side and both are very close. I was very surprised that they were that close, and thinking now that we have got this 2035 model that is close to what we use as a 2030 model I would submit that our study would be a conservative representation of impacts as if to use the 2035 model that's out today and then backed that to 2030 the volumes would be lower, we would have to back those out and lower those so I would submit our traffic is a conservative representation of impacts. I don't think it is incorrect or outdated I think we can show it is conservative if anything, that is all I have. Thank you. Good evening my name is Ed Shaffer. I am an attorney representing the applicant and I would like to start by clarifying that when Mr. Parks refers to his traffic estimates as being conservative that means he's overstated the amount of congestion that is likely to occur erring on the side of caution. Sometime's people hear conservative and they think it means less than it should be at least that is how I hear it. I like to respond to a few details, CEQA does not allow endless repetitions of study and demands for updating studies because it realizes that it could go on forever and it is a favorite tactic of opponents to say you haven't plugged in the lasted data or this is 2 years old. In fact CEQA says you can cut it off at the notice of preparation stage and we have gone much later than the notice of preparation on this project. CEQA also requires that criticism of the EIR be specific as Mr. Kapral has pointed out. We have heard general complaints but not specific challenges to data, conclusions or response documents which address a lot of these concerns. In terms of the questioning about bonds and phasing, before the application of General Plan Amendment and rezoning, the maps will come later and those will have more specific conditions tied to phasing and bonding. As Mr. Kapral said this is bread and butter for the Commission and the city. Questions were raised about the cactus and the affect on the cactus. Cactus has been studied exhaustively and the Department of Fish and Game is satisfied with the Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 10 study and mitigation measures, the conditions and extra funding being donated by the applicant it shows the cactus are well cared for. Mr. Smith speculated about future homeowners putting fences up on the bluffs, planting landscaping on the bluffs or bluff areas being controlled by the homeowners association they will have common open space preserved with open space easements with wide set backs and the homeowners won't have access to those areas to start installing fences and landscaping. It is ironic to hear Mr. Smith, on this side, talk about ten years with nothing happening or eight years of application processing given that it's strident opposition and attempt by the trail users, and others, to keep this property an open space and that has contributed to the long delay in processing of this document. Finally I'd like to state in terms of Dr. Nipp's climate change analysis I think it's interesting to note that the Attorney General's office has not commented on this EIR, or criticized it, as you know they have taken a very aggressive stance toward this issue. Thank you. The public hearing is closed, moving on for Commission comments and discussion. Commissioner Stanley stated that it has been 4 months since the last presentation and he approved of it then and now with the addition of the Williamson Act land. He has no further questions about the EIR and is still in support of the re-circulated version here tonight. He thanked the proponents for the additional information and felt that Mary Jane Wilson's presentation on green house gases was very thorough. Commissioner Stanley stated he will be voting to approve this project again. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Ian Parks back to the podium. Commissioner McGinnis stated that Hart Park reaches its capacity many times a year and the highway patrol is forced to close the park to through traffic. How would that situation be mitigated if we had this project developed? Mr. Parks asked Commissioner McGinnis to rephrase the question to which Commissioner McGinnis stated that he, Mr. Parks, is counting the number of daily trips that travel the road through the park under normal circumstances, which would be a free flow of traffic. I am proposing a situation to you where you no longer have a free flow of traffic. You have the highway patrol stopping cars going in on the east and west ends. How would that accommodate the people from the Canyon's project if they want to exit their homes that way? Marian Shaw, Public Works Civil Engineer, interjected she lives in the project area and that it would be accommodated the same way as for anyone who currently resides in the area. You turn around and go another way. It only happens once or twice a year so it's not that significant. It is a very small percentile of the actual use of the roads. Commissioner McGinnis disagreed stating that he feels the closures happen on Easter weekend, 4th of July weekend, Memorial Day weekend and during boat races. Mr. Parks explained there are 50 cars during the peak hour: 25 one way, 25 the other. They would have to find a different route and those vehicles being rerouted would not significantly impact any other facilities and he doesn't see it as an issue. Commissioner McGinnis restated Mr. Parks' last statement as a situation where there really would be no mitigation measure and Mr. Parks agreed. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if there is any kind of a health and safety issue in this subdivision due to the fairly long streets with up to as many as 24 homes before there is a break. Staff responded that the fire department has taken a very thorough look at this project for many years because of the location of the project, limited access and topography. Where the Fire Department did find concerns secondary access has been provided and sprinklers are also required where that is not occurring, so they are satisfied that there is no health or safety hazard. Commissioner Strong stated he was not present at the December 18, 2008 meeting and referred to Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Tragish voting no on the motion approving the zone change and that they believed the PUD process overlay zone should be applied to the R-1 portions of this project. He wanted more information regarding the PUD. Staff explained that the Planned Unit Development is typically used when applicants want deviations from standards and it gives the Planning Commission design control of everything to make sure they follow through on their commitments and that the city is the beneficiary of the promises made at that time. The commercial portion and the multiple family portion of the project already have these design overlays on them but the single family portion does not. The Canyons is somewhat different than other parts of the city, first the general plan policy states that you do not do site plan reviews on Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 11 single family units and they are excluded from typical site plan review requirements. The Planning Commission would be looking at some private park areas for design attributes and publicly maintained landscaping with the PUD overlay. This area is special because of the hillside development ordinance overlay and it depicts what type of landscaping will occur. The Hillside Ordinance itself actually indicates what the landscape will look like, the tree selection, natural oaks, boulders and wildflower seeds so that is already established in this area. In addition, you have the trails plan which tells you exactly what type of wall will be along the trails and what the trails will look like so you have several layers of design criteria already in this area. Therefore the recommendation was that this is not a good candidate for a PUD because they are not asking for deviation of standards and there is already design criteria established. Commissioner Strong confirmed that there are 11 different single family gated communities in this development being built over a 10-15 year period, would staff be in agreement that there may be some public comment with regards to the development of those communities and that the public can comment now or when the subdivision goes through. Commissioner Strong expressed his concern that this is a pretty large development and as it's built out it will impact a sort of virgin territory and over the course of the build out years people and politics change, he is leaning in favor of a PUD overlay from that stand point because looking at all the development that is starting and stopping, we don't have a guarantee of when this project will be built and people will come back and comment. Staff responded that the state law defines when a developer is able to obtain certainty in a project and it is typically close to the vesting tentative tract stage and when you approve the subdivision, the developer has a certainty that if they develop under the laws and affect when you approve the map, they get a certain amount of time to do that and when that time runs out then it is a new ballgame. Mr. Movius stated a PUD allowing you to address those types of issues you just mentioned about development over a longer period of time because this area has more design control than any other part of the city, if you look at the PUD zone that is set up, it is not to allow a government agency to come back in over time and change things design wise, that's not what it is to be used for. Commissioner Strong's concern is the number of trails, easements and walkways that are publicly owned as those develop. What will the criteria for those developments that continue to build out be. Staff stated that the criteria they have to follow is the Specific Trails Plan in regard to the design of the trails. The PUD allows you to regulate design so this design is regulated. The Hillside Ordinance is another document that talks about the design of publicly owned landscaping. Staff's opinion would be that if the public decides that these documents are not good enough they should change the base documents; not take developments one at a time, within these areas, and try and change them. Commissioner Tragish stated he wants to follow-up and clarify Commissioner Strong's comments and address the comments by Dr. Nipp. Commissioner Tragish stated he has read the global warming statutes and they don't really provide any guideline that he can see today, they do have a lot of language for how to come up with the various criteria's which the WZI representative explained very well and he appreciates that. Commissioner Tragish stated that the thing he has always fought about this project is whether it is premature or whether it is something like a pile on and as far as he recollects comments from staff in the past over that over 40,000 lots have been approved for residential build out and he feels that the comments that Mr. Smith made and even to a certain extent Commissioner Strong comments, in the near term, is that we are really adding more and more housing in an area that is very environmentally and traffic wise. Given the comments that were made in the past by Mr. Karpal, according to my recollection, the intent of the developer was to build streets, curbs and gutters and sell the lots off within a few years The concern is given that the condition of the projects already in the northeast, and other portions of the city, are not being developed and there is one where the city is having to come in and finish the street. Commissioner Tragish stated that in regards to the comments by the applicants and various other representatives about the bonds, he agrees and the process has bonds and if you don't pay the premiums for the bonds, the bonds expire and loose your ability to proceed with the project. We are stuck with a project that has not been developed in this area and it could be catastrophic, my concern is with all these trails and streets that are supposed to be put in, and the other items, that have been mentioned in the EIR and testimony. If the project proceeds, as Mr. Karpal said, there is no control over who comes in, who builds it, when they will build it or what they will build there even though I've heard Mr. Movius very eloquently describe exactly what happens and I would agree with him as far as the ordinances and overlapping conditions there is no control over it and given the current economic condition it gives me pause to reflect on what it Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 12 is we are exactly approving this evening. I'm not going to go through all the other technical details that have been presented today for all the various categories and all the various impacts except I do want to do something with the letter from Mr. Parks. I see that as a real big problem and I think that in regards to comments about not being aware of any foreclosures, I think all you have to do is drive around that area, or any other developed areas in Bakersfield, and you'll see a lot of distressed areas that lawns aren't growing anymore, big spaces in the project or 2 or 3 houses on a block to get just of the fact that there is a real problem out there in the construction of new homes which is almost, in my opinion, to almost at a stand still compared to what is was a few years ago. I also think that the problem were having the 40,000 lot approval is that it makes it more and more difficult to bring more build out that which you already have. We have such an incredible backlog of inventory I don't know whether you want to throw anymore onto that area like this. How the impact of current stress projects are out there already and I presume this project has phases so some of the phases may be built out and some of them may not and again that may leave some problems in the future. Mr. Smith raised some concerns about drainage. I have to agree with the representatives from the applicant that it is very easy to throw out blank statements when you're dealing with the technical aspects of the project and I don't think Mr. Smith addressed correctly. It is interesting that we have an urban decay requirement when people bring on commercial property and then a situation like this adds to the current situation we have and I don't think it really improves it. I think an argument could have been made that this is a leap frog project because I notice the trunk line is a mile, or mile and half away, from this project but I do think I am aware that there is a parcel pretty close that has been approved to it so it's kind of adjacent to it, it's kind of in line of fire so I kind of put that aside. I would like to ask the chairman if he could call Mr. Parks back to the podium, I have a question for him myself and I want to clear up this thing about Hart Park a little bit. Mr. Parks as a reminder please state your name for the record. Ian Parks. Thank you Mr. Parks. Mr. Parks in reading your letter I was trying to understand it from a layman's point of view. Is your letter saying that as you have done your recent analysis, you have been able to statistically determine that there is about 933 daily trips through Hart Park, is that right? Mr. Parks stated yes, that is a published number, the county and city go out and put the strips on the road and they count and keep track. Does your letter basically indicate what the increase of the daily trips through the build out of the project, I guess what I am looking for is the different time lines that say 2010, 2012. Do you have any comment on that? What is the increase through Hart Park with the build out? Mr. Parks responded the total increase is not going to be more than 500 trips from the project; there will less than 500 trips through Hart Park. As far as building and phase out that is, I don't know. Commissioner Tragish responded he understands the comment that Commissioner McGinnis gave, traffic analysis is done in a very sterile fashion by using statistics and is the only way you can use it. It's understandable if we didn't follow statistics nothing would get built. But in any event what may be an increase of 100 trips for Hart Park while statistically may seem insignificant, given the design of that particular area, the constraints, traffic, how fast you can drive and the different times it may increase 100 trips a day and you may see them between 5 and 6 o'clock at night. Is there anything, where you are able to figure out when these different increases would occur or whether they are spread throughout the entire day? Mr. Parks stated peak hour, 4:30 to 5:30 or 5 to 6, is usually the highest hour of the day. There will not be more than 50 trips in that peak hour. Your second peak hour would be your morning commute and that is going to be less so there is going to be two peaks on either end and as the day goes through you know the traffic is disturbed through the day it is not uniform. There is more between daylight hours, less at night but that 500 trips will be distributed through the day. No more than 50 in a peak hour per statistics. Commissioner Tragish noted it seems most of the increase in traffic around Hart Park will probably be in the summer time so I guess I'm saying, as I just listened to Mr. McGinnis, and reading this and looking at the EIR, I have a problem with this whole analysis about Hart Park because it is such a unique area and I know that during summertime the traffic in the increases and it may throw off the mean or median. However else you analyze this thing the weekends may throw it off or the holidays may throw it off and while you may turn around on a isolated situation the question is, is this problem of increase in traffic through Hart Park something that is going to occur more frequently? Mr. Parks asked Commissioner Tragish to repeat the last part of that question? Commissioner Tragish restated the question, looking at your letter, I can not tell when the increases would occur at Hart Park; I can't tell if it is in the weekends, evenings or during the day. It seems from my experience out there that there is a great amount of variation Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 13 as to the traffic and the characterization of the traffic in Hart Park. The impact of 100 trips may be significant as of 500 or 700 only by a hundred so it is really difficult to quantitate that. Mr. Parks responded you are right, what we look at is a weekday peak hour. Are you asking the question: did we look at Hart Park in any other timeframe and look at what the project traffic would do? We did not look at weekends, we did not look at special events, we don't normally do that; that is not something that is normally required so, no, we didn't that is not in there. Commissioner Tragish said he has heard that this project is a better situation because the applicant can go out and build what they have already and I've looked at the table that we have, and our staff report, it appears that giving the existing proposed land use that they could build 5700 homes; verses what we have in this project. The only reason that I bring this up is that if the project is not approved and the applicant decides to go out and say we are just going build it out the way we have it, I still think there is going to be requirements for them to do a new EIR and according to the existing EIR when they had analyzed the project it went forward with the existing zoning it is pretty clear that it would be an enormous amount of significant impacts in that area. I don't think it's really an alternative. It's either this particular type of development at some point in time because I think if they go back and do it the other way, for the city and for themselves, it is going to substantially be burdensome and it is not really feasible. I just think the project is premature. The project worries me that over time it doesn't build out the way it is suppose to build out. I think there is an enormous inventory for single family residents today. I don't think this really adds anything to it. I think it may in some way make the current situation worse. Those are my comments. Chair Johnson thanked Commissioner Tragish and called on Commissioner Blockley. Commissioner Blockley thanked Chair Johnson. My comment is on the analysis of this surplus of lots, and through the chair, if I can ask staff a question. I understand that these parcel maps will expire after a certain amount of time and extension is 6 years and we have a 10 year supply of surplus lots, would it be reasonable to assume that if nothing else changes, 40% of these would expire? Mr. Movius responded through the chair, Commissioner Blockley, we do expect a lot of subdivisions to expire because this economy has basically imposed a moratorium on permits and people are just not getting permits. This developer is not going to go out and start in a market like this. How could you predict all the ramifications that are occurring on this and plan for this type of economic catastrophic event. We do expect an awful lot of the tentative tracts that are out there now to expire before the economy turns around and to really generate the demand for all those lots. Commissioner Blockley stated the map that is behind us depicts a lot of tracts may change without anybody making applications? Mr. Movius agreed it may change. The map is actually not before you tonight but we would expect it will follow shortly and it is very likely that before they can buildout it would change and be back before you. Commissioner Blockley finished by stating that answers his question and completes my loaded statement. I am prepared to accept the EIR as part of the deal. Thank you. Chair Johnson thanked Commissioner Blockley and recognized Commissioner Tkac. Commissioner Tkac thanked the Chairman. I have a few questions and certainly quiet a few comments. First and foremost I always love to be behind Commissioner Tragish because all those great comments are so thought out and then I get to piece them off and go in my own direction usually not making as much sense as he does but the only thing I can say is that I have a slight disagreement with Commissioner Tragish in that, it goes back to the old adage, "those that fail to plan, plan to fail." I've always been one to want to try to make development as orderly as we possibly can. Infrastructure moves outward from a city. The developer is not going out tomorrow especially in this market. Mr. Kapral, I know you are not going to push this thing and say let's get this thing going whether you intend to do it, get it sold. Nobody in their right mind is going to do this until things start to turn around and it doesn't matter who's doing the job so is this a good EIR or is this a bad EIR? I think it is a good EIR and I think Mr. Movius has stated how exhaustibly everything was researched on this project and reminds me of putting in a Wal-Mart somewhere here in this town, it is amazing how much it has taken. Like Commissioner Stanley stated earlier, I think it is well thought out, I think it well planned, I think it's taken into consideration so much public testimony over the years that if you mess with it anymore your going to put yourself in a bad position. I've been here the whole time to watch this, I remember going out to the site. Scott, you've taken me out there and run me through it in years past you know I forget how it goes, a Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — April 16, 2009 Page 14 horse built by a committee is a camel I thinks it's been messed with as much as it can be messed with. One of my other questions requires me to recognize Mary Jane Wilson but my big question from a pollution stand point, global warming or climate change, whichever, I have said before are two completely different things. It sounds to me that this project doesn't make a darn bit of difference when it is all said and done. I would go on to talk about Dr. Nipp's comments but if I talk about them to much then he'll know I'm talking about him and I certainly got them talking about me which is exactly what I wanted. I guess one of the other things that I'm going to go back and say from a development stand point, to develop this anytime soon until this market, especially the resale market, and the new market catch up they will not be doing anything. As for Mr. Smith's comments earlier, I found most of them unfounded. I want to try to pay attention to Mr. Kapral because I don't think Mr. Smith read through the exhaustive material that the rest of us read through. I also think one of the reasons that I think this is the right time, the right place and the right plan for this is because I think some might have failed to see and think the way I thought about it. It is this more of a destination spot this in it self its own little community that's why I was thinking it is so much of a leap frog piece here. Anyway, I am in support of it this evening as for the Bakersfield cactus issue too that is another one I wanted to talk about. No cactus in this world grows on good soil they all grow in terrible soil. So you almost can't hurt them and if you do want to fertilize them as they were talking about earlier,just use a good NPK of zero 1010 anyway I will leave it alone and those are my comments, thank you Mr. Chairman. Chair Johnson indicated it is already 8 pm and we have had a lot of testimony. I am going to try to keep it short and to the point. I want to address something to clarify it for the record. The project that is before us this evening is an EIR, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and an amendment to the Parks and Trials Plan. It is not just the portion dealing with the agriculture element correct? Mr. Billingsley, Associate Attorney for the City of Bakersfield, stated that is correct chairman, it is the entire project before you again. Chair Johnson said I may have won a convert with Commissioner McGinnis with my special events requirement or special events designation. Perhaps a special events plan could be conditioned on this project that it would be submitted and approved by the Planning Director to deal with special events that do occur at Hart Park and end up closing off the road way. I realize after we exhausted the topic at the last discussion and that I was the only one in favor so if someone else would be in favor of that maybe Commissioner McGinnis you may be a convert to coming around to my way of thinking on that item. There was a comment that was made in relationship to the testimony from the public and that comment was this is business as usual the stuff we are doing here is normal and I think the public deserves a better response than that given the recent projects publicized in the media lately. Some of the developments in northeast Bakersfield due to the economic situations that Mr. Movius alluded to are not business as usual. It is a different type of environment and I was hoping we could partake of either Ms. Shaw or Mr. Starbuck, can you give us an idea of what the public should expect in regards to the bonding issue and how these projects could potentially be phased and addressed with traffic issues. Also specifically, a question was asked about the trails, parks and roadways. Mr. Smith's comments dealt with trails that have not been built because a developer would come in and pull out or he would go bankrupt so trails were left unfinished, parks were left unfinished and infrastructure was left unfinished. Can you address those as they have been coming up in recent situations towards the city and how the protections that are in place or the opportunities are in place to ensure that we get full requirements under the Parks and Trails plan, under approved park elements and under agreements with the city? Ms. Shaw stated that for any particular subdivision that has improvements required and it contains a trail or a park when the developer has his improvement plans completed and wants to record a phase of the maps one of the requirements is a improvement agreement that has security and insurance. The security is the amount based on the engineer's estimate for the improvement that are required for that particular phase and the bonds are required to remain in place until they are released by the city. They are released by the city when the improvements have been completed. So if we get to the stage where we have a tract that is going to have a map recorded, we will have bonds in place. We are in the process of calling several of them on other projects on the other side of town. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -April 16, 2009 Page 15 Chair Johnson stated thank you. I am sure the public appreciates being reassured. I'd like to ask Mr. Starbuck to please come forward and address some questions I have regarding traffic and general use of the Kern Cog model and things of that nature, via this letter by Ian Parks, with Ruettgers and Schulers, he mentioned it's a changing model. Can you elaborate on that and can give us an example of what Kern Cog model was in place at the time the traffic study was done and your experiences of how Kern Cog has changed their model or what kind of different model we have out there? Ryan Starbuck, Public Works Traffic Engineer, stated the model used was the 2030 cumulative Kern Cog model which is always being updated as new land uses are identified or projects are identified they are added to the model or removed from the model so it is an on going process. When the traffic study is done it is basically taking a snap shot of the model of what is available at the time. It continually gets updated. There is the 2030 model that is out. Mr. Parks compared some of the numbers of the newer model that show a reduction in the AGT because the way things change and the way projects have dropped out or been added. Given the location the land use hasn't changed that much, or new projects, in that area they took the traffic model that had the best data at the time. Chair Johnson asked how familiar are you with the new Kern Gog model? Mr. Starbuck answered I am not that familiar with it, we are going to see more data when we get the model indications, we have seen though it is actually a reduction of a least the cumulative traffic compared to the previous model. Chair Johnson continued with his Kern Gog model questions. I think Mr. Parks initially felt that he could go ahead and do a letter to examine the use through Hart Park. He felt compelled enough to put it in writing given the old model but not for the new model and to me that raises a question of why didn't he. That is kind of an issue I'm still weighing. Commissioner Strong brought forth the PUD. I like the idea of a PUD and I support it this time. I will reference it from the last meeting. This commission has used a PUD on numerous occasions sometimes with support of staff, sometimes not. In some cases the Planning Commission wasn't comfortable with the project being submitted by the applicant and wanted to ensure it was going to come back with a second PUD. I will reference something that occurred at our meeting on December 18th and I'm quoting from the minutes on page 17, these comments are from Mr. Ed Shaffer. He commented that if there is a technically a payment of a fee required to implement the cancellation they will pay the fee. Mr. Shaffer said that this should not be a reason to deny the project or delay action. This had to do with the Williamson Act element. We were down playing the act yet we had to do a recirculation it was such an extensive thing. I am not saying we should re-circulate this EIR but what I am getting at is the need for a PUD in my mind still rings clear the need is there. I fully support it and will push for it. Commissioner Strong said it is a tough environment to develop anything. So I am in favor of the EIR. My concern is I want to be sensitive to an area that is sort of virgin to development to Bakersfield and I think staff talked about the legal challenges to the Hillside Ordinance and implementing it. There are concerns that the future and current residents might talk about a development that will take several or many years to build out. I am not in favor of putting a bunch of restrictions on a development, it is a tough deal to get done and it is expensive so I'm in favor of the EIR but the PUD allows the body to hear some comments from folks as each of those eleven communities are built out to come forward and say we like this trail here, or easement here or some green pathways here, so that is my concern I think staff may want to comment on that. That is my comment, thank you. Break taken. Commissioner McGinnis stated there have been a number of Commissioners discussing the PUD overlay on this project. I will call on Mr. Movius for some plus and minuses on the PUD. Mr. Movius stated thank you Mr. McGinnis. Through the chair, and since you called on me, I want to clarify one other item too. There was a statement made about downplaying the agricultural resource issue and we had to re-circulate the EIR staff has documented in the staff report and in the re-circulated document itself that the document and impacts triggered no threshold to re- circulate. We did this as a conscious choice in concert with the applicant because we fully expect to get sued on this project and we wanted to give an absolute maximum amount of public input to the process. I downplayed it and I didn't expect the impacts to change if there are any agricultural issues there and this showed there are no significant impacts they didn't change. Mr. Movius Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission —April 16, 2009 Page 16 continued regarding the PUD, I don't want to give the Planning Commission or public any expectations that aren't real, by that I mean there was discussion about people that may want easement of trails and green spaces when the map comes back to the Planning Commission. It will come back as a vesting tentative map; probably like something you see on the wall. Once that is approved, a PUD doesn't authorize the Planning Commission to change where the trail alignments will be. Its purely a micro management design vehicle where you could say you want landscaping to look like this, if there is a building in the open space you want it to look like this, but it doesn't give you the authority to start changing where those trail are and since trails are such a controversial part of project I want to make sure that you and the public understand that. Thank you. Chair Johnson recognized Commissioner Stanley who thanked the Chairman. First, regarding the Hart Park issue, through the chair to staff, I was kind of curious as far as special events with Hart Park or any other high use area, is there any precedent for having requirement on projects to try to anticipate those special events that would cause a traffic problem? Mr. Movius responded that Marian may want to add to this. Mr. Movius continued to say, the only project that I can remember that had special event regulation was Mesa Marin Raceway when they got use permit expansions or the zone change out at Mesa Marin Raceway. They had a huge amount of traffic coming out to the race and leaving at one time since there was a Caltrans facility on the southside they had to do some coordination with the City Police and Caltrans at that time to let them know that the event was taking place and help monitor in and out movements but that was from the people creating the special event not from other people living in the area. Mr. Movius continued to respond to the PUD issue talking about the types of decisions that could be made under the PUD process about landscaping and what are some of the other particular things that the PUD would have control over? Other than the landscaping you'd be primarily looking at if there were structures within open space areas that were going to be built, what would those structures look like because those are not single family dwellings. They would be recreational structures or club houses or something like that. Some of that area on this plan already has a PUD overlay on it in the central portion, but other than that there is not much you would be looking at. As mentioned before, we have had a few PUD's where they did put the single family structures before you and I can't recall when the Planning Commission has actually changed anything on those plans, you have had 4 or 5 1 can think of. You have subdivisions on areas zoned PUD tonight in the Old River Ranch plan which is an area that has a single family PUD on it. There is very little change in those areas and for those areas they are under control with the PUD, without the PUD who controls those, the developer who is going to make those decisions as far as which landscaping, which architectural design on those particular items? The architectural design is up to the applicant and builders as long as they meet our setback requirements, the structure can have its own architecture with regard to anything that is public and maintained, then that would be under the provisions of the ordinances I mentioned before, under city standards. Commissioner Stanley asked if having a PUD under the 11 different communities would it be possible for the Commission to review each one as it comes through, would there be more or less continuity with the Planning Commission reviewing those than having a developer that is wanting to have something like a coherent project? Mr. Movius responded yes, it is possible. Commissioner Stanley stated that is the direction I was thinking. Obviously I can understand a developer would want to have a product put forward that is going to be marketable, its going to want to look good, its going to want to look like a coherent project instead of having three things that are being slapped together so with these type of decisions, if it's landscaping, common area or architecture those types of things. I am very comfortable with the developer having that and obviously we have a lot different mitigations and expectations put upon this project and I am not seeing that as a very great public benefit to put that PUD on that portion. Commissioner Stanley called Mr. Parks to the podium. Commissioner Stanley asked Mr. Parks about the Kern COG model and if Mr. Parks had any more information about why the previous model was used, not the new model, and anything else he would like to say about that. Mr. Parks stated that the previous model was used because that was appropriate at the time of preparation. We take a snapshot of the time we start and that is the one that we use. The Kern COG model adds the cumulative model which includes projects that aren't approved yet but have a general plan application. Many of those have been taken out of that cumulative model. That is one of the reasons that you're going to see those volumes lower. The other reason is that 3 years ago our Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 17 project growth rate was much higher than it is currently, we were looking at tremendous growth. Kern COG takes that and pulled it back. That is why we are seeing lower numbers. Mr. Movius asked if he could add to Mr. Parks's comments to which Commissioner Stanley agreed. Mr. Movius stated that the model they used is the same one that the Rio Bravo general plan used and that you approved the same night that this came before you. The agricultural issue is what delayed this project. The Planning Commission haven't seen a project that uses the new model. We have 2 multi-million square foot commercial projects in congested areas that will be coming to you in the future. Those will be used in the new model but those projects started much later than both this and the Rio Bravo project and all the other EIR's you have seen. Commissioner Stanley asked if the model being used is the standard for any project we have seen. Mr. Movius stated that is correct, that started under the timelines of these projects. Commissioner Stanley requested the applicant to speak about the issue regarding the number of houses in the market and the talk about the over abundance in inventory in the Bakersfield area. Mr. Kapral, representing the Canyons LLC, was recognized by Commissioner Stanley. Commissioner Stanley asked that obviously there was some concern about having far to many houses here and how this is going to work into that, the timeline, could you address what your intentions are, as far as developing this and addressing the amount of houses in the Bakersfield area. Mr. Kapral stated that as he explained on December 18th to Commissioner Tragish our business plan, was to put in the back bone infrastructure for the project. Nothing different than what you have seen Tenneco West did decades ago. Castle and Cooke bought them out and they have been doing what other big developers have done elsewhere. The idea is to develop the site uniformly. There are guidelines in the Hillside Ordinance regarding the landscaping of open space areas; there are guidelines in the trails plan regarding the development of trails, so you are going to have a number of lots created in the project. Builders typically come in and buy inventory to hold their positions for anywhere from 2, 10 to 15 years. I don't expect the housing to be built out on this project instantly; it's going to be built out at a rate that the market dictates. Regarding conformity, in terms of development, as explained before, this project is no different than another master planned community and there are architectural committees set up for the project and what happens initially is the developer has CC&R's and architectural guidelines set up for every one of these communities. As buyers come in, homeowners, they now have people on those committees to make sure that the development occurs in a fashion that has been recorded for those developments, so they are self policing and that's what we envision on the residential portion of this project. All of this would happen over time, I couldn't tell you that our housing is going to be out there instantly. No one is going to build and put housing product out there when it isn't going to sell. This market will turn around, it's already starting to turn around. I was a witness to the devastation in the Antelope Valley in the early 90's. We were building 10,000 homes per year and it came to a screeching halt overnight. I had an engineering firm up there with 65 employees, we layed off half of them in one day. I have been through this, I have seen it happen, Bakersfield will recover and typically the market returns and building occurs at a rate that is equal to the demand and I don't see that any different here. Commissioner Stanley stated that was the direction he was going and he appreciates Mr. Kapral's comments. Commissioner Stanley stated he believes that as a commission and as a city we are looking to put specific requirements on a development that is going to be in the public's benefit. Once we get to that point the key, I believe, is to allow the developer and allow the private investors in this community to do what they do best and this is try and get this economy going, try to put the money in the places that are going to work and when it's time that you can get that house on the market and sell it you should be ready to go. Commissioner Stanley stated he appreciates talking about this and it isn't going to be an overnight thing but you want to be able to have things in place, done the right way so that your ready to go when it's available. Mr. Kapral responded that as he explained before, once this project is approved there are about 3 years of engineering work and plan check and there is at least 2 to 3 years of construction before you start seeing your first home; so we are talking about 6 years down the road, a lot will happen in 6 years. Mr. Kapral does not think any of us have a crystal ball to say how the market is going to be in 6 years but we will definitely be in an improved situation from where we are today otherwise the project won't be constructed at that time. Mr. Kapral states this project is zoned residential already; the entire property and it's in a visually isolated area, its an end destination. Rio Bravo Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission —April 16, 2009 Page 18 Ranch, which was Commission approved the same evening that we came before you on December 18'h, was twice the size of this project, all agricultural zoned property and the commission approved an EIR that had at least 3 statements of overriding consideration of environmental impact: conversion of agricultural land and residential and he was surprised at the hearing tonight about the discussion that the Canyons might be pre-mature, the inventory that we are adding, we are already zoned. This commission approved a project that converted agricultural land to thousands of residential units in the same night that we came before you. Commissioner Stanley stated that as a final point, talking about the existing entitlements on the land as it is currently zoned, through the chair if I can ask staff, what they are allowed to do with what is on that land as is? Mr. Movius responded that they could come in without doing a general plan amendment or zone change and file subdivision maps on that land; so it already has the ability to be subdivided. Commissioner Stanley asked if it would have to be within the rules of the Hillside Ordinance or other provisions of the city's requirements to which Mr. Movius responded that it could be developed and depending on the size, the environmental documents that they would have to do would be a negative declaration or an EIR but yes they have that ability under the map act, if the map they submit complies with all the ordinances in effect it would be difficult to disprove a map in that case according to state law. Commissioner Stanley thanked Mr. Movius and stated that is all he has. Commissioner Tkac stated that he agrees with Mr. Kapral and he is prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Johnson stated there are other lights to be called on before making a motion. Commissioner Tkac yielded the floor. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Shaw that with the bonds that are in place with the development agreements, are the bonds in effect for a certain period of time, in other words, if you ask for a bond, you get a bond that is in effect for 1 year, 2 years or does it have to be renewed, how do you usually work that? Ms. Shaw responded that the agreement is supposed to be in effect for a period of 1 year. The bonds are for the duration of the agreement but the bonds do not expire, the bonds have to be released by the city, so they are essentially supposed to be self renewing. Commissioner Tragish asked if you got a 3 year development agreement and someone has to post a bond to do it, in conjunction with agreements, does that bond have to stay in effect for 3 years? Ms. Shaw responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish went on to say that, in regards to Hart Park, the statistics or analysis that is being used is somewhat sterile and does not take into consideration the variation the traffic habits out and in Hart Park and I think Chairman Johnson made reference to a special event planned, I would probably support that and that would take care of my concern. Commissioner Tragish thanked Mr. Kapral for his testimony and confirming that they are going to put in structural lots and that they are going to be selling the lots off to builders but that is precisely his point. If you contrast that with the Rio Bravo project, the developer is also going to be the builder and he is also volunteered to put a PUD in there and is also a master planed community. There is a significant amount of distinctions between that project and the one we have in front of us right now. As far as the issue regarding the PUD, Commissioner Tragish thinks it would be worthwhile to have a PUD on this project and to have some control no matter how limited it is. Even if it is as to the landscaping, if it is as to the park areas and even if it has to with limited purposes regarding setbacks, Commissioner Tragish agrees with Mr. Strong that it is somewhat of a difficult area to build in; that's why we have had all this testimony, reports and analysis and hearings over and over again because it is such a difficult area. Commissioner Traish supports the PUD and other Commissioners. At this point he feels that it is of no importance because of the existing conditions and the practices and procedures of the Planning Department cover the contingencies. Commissioner Tragish also commented on parcel maps. He is confused that a project is in front of the Commissioner and, at what exists today, we can see in the future whether or not some of the permits will burn off and by some change when this project finally finds a way to start breaking ground whether or not the economic situation will be better is uncertain. Whether this is some kind of economic situation we haven't seen in over half a century or whether it is something that is Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 19 going to rebound like it did in the early 90, the late 90, in the 80's or in the 60's. Commissioner Tragish is not prepared to look ahead 5 years or even 2 years, if there is only going to be 20,000 inventories causes this and that burned out. A lot of people are still coming to this Commission to get their maps approved because they are waiting and inventorying and hoping that the market turns around but there is still a heck of a lot of inventory about there. Comments by Mr. Kapral raised my concern that structures are going to put in by the builders or whoever buys those lots, as Mr. Kapral said some of them may sit on those lots for a long time and some of them may not develop them. There's just no revisiting the situation and it needs to be done in this particular area. Commissioner Tragish asked for the opportunity to make a motion but recognized that Commissioner Tkac requested to make the motion first and will yield to him. Commissioner Johnson interjected that he would like to add a couple of points. His vote last time is how he is approaching it this time, the same project from the same view. He voted then that the PUD was needed and he still has the same opinion. He disagrees with the opinion of staff. There had been times that a PUD is applied and staff supported it; there's been times a PUD is put on that staff disagreed with it and that is ok. We don't always need to agree but the message that it sent to the public and the extra protection it provides is one that is needed at this time. This isn't business as usual; this is a different type of situation and it has been referenced over and over again with the state of affairs in the economy, so to keep coming back to that this isn't the same type of situation, this isn't a typical project, this is all very unique and that is why I think the PUD fits, given that, Commissioner Tkac has the floor. Commissioner Tkac 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 incorporating the Planning Director's memo dated April 16, 2009 and recommending the certification of the Re-circulated Final Environmental Impact Report for GPA/ZC 03-0337 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac, Strong Commissioner Tkac 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 B-2 in the Circulation Element as depicted in Exhibit B-3 with conditions of approval, adopting the mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the Public Works memo dated April 15, 2009 and the Planning Director's memo dated April 16, 2009 and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Tragish, Strong Commissioner Tkac 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 and adopting mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the Public Works memo dated April 15, 2009 and the Planning Director's memo dated April 16, 2009 and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac, Strong Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — April 16, 2009 Page 20 Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution Exhibit D making findings and approving the requested zone change as depicted in the attached Exhibit D- 3 and for the described in Exhibit D-4 with conditions of approval and adopting mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the Public Works memo dated April 15, 2009 and the Planning Director's memo dated April 16, 2009 and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Stanley, Blockley, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tragish, Strong Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution Exhibit D making findings and approving the requested zone change as depicted in the attached Exhibit D-3 and for the described Exhibit D-4 with conditions of approval and adopting mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the Public Works memo dated April 15, 2009 and the Planning Director's memo dated April 16, 2009 and provide that the applicant will submit to the Planning Director a special event traffic plan for approval and all zone classifications to be PUD. Amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tragish, Strong NOES: Commissioners Stanley, Blockley, Tkac Commissioner Johnson gave the Commissioners that voted no on the General Plan Amendment motion and also the zone change an opportunity to explain their votes. Commissioner Tragish stated he voted no on the motion for the requested general plan. He also voted no on the requested zone change but I did vote yes as the amended motion primarily or the same reasons as indicated through the course of this hearing. He has concerns with the Hart Park circulation on orderly development and concerns about the zone classification and would like to have an opportunity to re-visit the project even if it is on a minimal basis to ensure that it is done in an orderly development. He requested to incorporate his comments by this reference into his no vote. Commissioner Stanley stated he voted no on the proposed zone change adding the PUD and would like to reflect his comments from the December 181h meeting into tonight's meeting basically stating opposition to placing extra burdens upon this development that will not have a specific public benefit, and additionally the point that was made as far as for special events should definitely be looked at, the attraction versus the surrounding developments. Obviously Hart Park, in this situation, would be the one that would potentially be looked at for future mitigations, not future developments that happen in a certain radius around Hart Park. Commissioner Blockley stated he doesn't feel a PUD would accomplish much other than slow the process down and the applicant has not asked for any consideration from the city, and the city is not expecting anything that they haven't' already received, so he fails to see the value in it and voted against it for that reason. Commissioner Tkac stated it is not that he disagreed with fellow Commissioners. It's a varying degree of where it is an undue burden and nothing given nothing gained in the respect of the developer. He has gone over and above the call of duty for this project throughout the years and had he wanted, it or needed it he could have offered up as a mitigating circumstance so maybe he could get something else but it doesn't seem like this developer has done anything but be patient and try to go with the whims of the local society and try to do a good project. Commissioner Tkac stated he doesn't disagree wholeheartedly he just has a different view. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission - April 16, 2009 Page 21 6, PUBLIC HEARINGS-VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP/VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6.1 Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map 11894(Sikand Engineering) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7190 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7191 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7192 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Movius reminded the Commissioners about Monday's special Joint Meeting with the County Planning Commission, it's the first workshop where we really deal with such sensitive issues and challenges and we would be looking for input that night and hope you could attend. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tkac commented that the Bakersfield Californian was not represented and finds it very odd. There was a letter to the Editor in the Bakersfield Californian and thought this might be helpful to his fellow Commissioners and he paraphrased a portion of it. A gentleman by the name of Ray Stanford had written in and the title of the letter was "Cost of Green Energy May Surprise You." In our forward looking mind sets, it talked about the costs of different types of energy that are out there and I am going to scope in on solar energy which is being generated at $24.34 per amortized megawatt hour, wind power as $23.37 per megawatt hour, meanwhile natural gas is at 250 per megawatt hour, coal at 44o per megawatt hour, hydroelectric power at 670 per megawatt hour and nuclear power at $1.59 per megawatt hour. Again in hearing about green alternatives, with the state of the budget, the situation in Bakersfield California and the State of California spending money on things that aren't yet proven should be done responsibly and he wanted to read this because these things will be coming in the future. Commissioner McGinnis stated that tonight is Commissioner Johnson's last meeting and expressed his pleasure serving with him and in the years that he has spent on the Commission he can't recall a Commissioner or Chairman who has served with more empathy and understanding for the public and their needs and to get them more involved in our process. You have done a wonderful job in that aspect and I appreciate your detailed study of all the materials we have gone over, it's been fun and we are going to miss you. Commissioner Tkac thanked Commissioner Johnson and stated that he loved the sense of decorum he has brought back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson thanked all his colleges on the Commission, he stated he is proud of his service and thought it was fun, he enjoyed every minute and the taste of public service that he did receive is something he could see himself doing in the future. Commissioner Johnson also thanked Commissioner Tragish for the cake commemorating his last meeting. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — April 16, 2009 Page 22 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:16 pm. Recording Secretary, Robin Gessner r May 1,2009 JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director