The Northwest Voice

All > News
Fighting City Hall: Residents win battle to block 150-unit a
Topics:
Posted by nwv_admin Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:07:00 PST
Viewed 162 times
0 responses 0 comments When the county planning commission voted unanimously to turn down a controversial 150-unit apartment complex proposed for the northwest corner of Rosedale Highway and Jewetta Road, the nearly 50 Northwest residents present who opposed the proposal broke into wide smiles and let out sighs of relief.

The fight isn't over yet -- the decision will ultimately be made by the county Board of Supervisors on Dec. 7. But the victory was sweet, because local residents with little experience in the ways of the bureaucracy successfully made the case for why the project would affect quality of life in the area by contributing to school overcrowding, increasing the risk of vandalism, creating dangerous intersections and lowering property values.

City planners had recommended that the project be approved, citing the need to provide a greater variety of housing in an area dominated by single family homes and also offer affordable housing in the Northwest, where homes typically cost $200,000 and up.

Critics might consider the residents to be just another special interest group opposed to growth and focused on their own property values. But after listening to the pros and cons, the Planning Commission rejected the recommendation of city planners and sided with the residents.

"I went in with the mindset that their minds were already made up," said Aimee Way resident Rhonda Bassett of the Planning Commission. "But they listened carefully to the points we raised and seemed to value our opinions. I think we made a huge difference. I came out thinking, ‘Local government can work.'"

Are you unhappy with a development in the works in your neighborhood? Here are some tips from residents for how to make your voice heard and make a difference.

Keep an eye on your mailbox

Residents first learned of this project a few weeks ago when the city sent a notice of a proposed change in the General Plan, the blueprint for local land development that defines what can be built where. The proposal was to change the zoning on 14 acres intended for a trailer park and single-family homes on quarter-acre lots to make way for 150 multi-family residential units, including a mix of duplex, triplex and fourplex units, to be built by West Star Construction.

The city is required to notify residents by mail of proposed amendments to the General Plan at least 10 days in advance of the hearing, but notices only go to those who live within 500 feet of the project, said Ted James of the county planning department.

"I got mine in the mail, but it's my understanding that not everyone in the neighborhood received a letter," said Bassett, who's lived in the area for more than a decade.

It's best to keep your eyes and ears open and communicate with your neighbors on a frequent basis to avoid being left in the dark about projects in the works.

Do your research

Even before you receive notice of a proposed change -- and ideally even before you purchase a home -- it's a good idea to research the General Plan for the area.

"I was aware that it was zoned for quarter-acres lots with a little section designated for a mobile home park, like the one on the other side of the highway," said Bassett.

But others relied on what they were told by real estate agents, who did not always provide accurate or complete information.

"When I bought my home in 1993, it was my intention to retire," said Lewis Ranch resident Rita Evans. Lewis Ranch residents had to establish a homeowners association recently to maintain their green strip of land and now pay for tennis courts, a park and other maintenance.

"I asked what the plan for the area in question was -- and was told quarter-acre homes. Four of the eight homes on my street belong to retirees, and I believe they had the same expectations," she said.

Charlene Meyers of Dee Dee Court was also surprised by the multi-family housing push.

"I moved from the Southwest and I understand growth. But I always saw the area as a place for single-family homes --- that's what I was told when I bought my home," said Meyers.

The bottom line? Don't assume that because the homes in the area are on one-acre and quarter-acre parcels that the empty lot on the corner is designated for the same. Planners and developers often strive for diversity, and things can always change.

Updated copies of the General Plan can be found on the city and county Web sites.

Organize your neighbors and be prepared

"When I first received the letter from the planning department informing us of the proposed amendment and the public hearing date, I didn't pay that much attention," said Sylvia Houston, who lives on Enger Street across the highway from the proposed development. "I thought, ‘I have plenty of time,' put the letter away and marked the hearing date on my calendar."

A few days prior to the hearing, Houston realized time was running out and started making calls to neighbors urging them to attend the meeting. "Most of them didn't come, but I felt that I had tried," said Houston.

Bassett drafted a petition and walked door-to-door to get people to sign. "Initially, I was really worried. I didn't know what I could do, but I knew I had to do something," she said. "Most people said, ‘Oh, I'm so glad you're doing something,' and were eager to sign," said Bassett, who gathered dozens of signatures to present to commissioners.

It wasn't until later that Bassett discovered anyone over age 18 can sign a petition -- not just homeowners.

Lewis Ranch resident Simone Payne got in touch with nearby neighbors and Dee Dee Court residents and volunteered her services. "I said, ‘I'm a stay-at-home mom, let me know what I can do,'" said Payne.

She and others put their heads together, talked to real estate management companies, looked over the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) document, contacted the Bakersfield Association of Realtors to find out how long median-priced homes were staying on the market, contacted major apartment management companies to inquire about vacancy rates and looked over the General Plan to quote excerpts.

The residents came to the Planning Commission meeting armed with quotes to support their position that single-family homes would be better suited for the area than multi-family housing, such as, "A $200,000 home spends an average of only 14 days on the market" and "The apartments at the corner of Jewetta and Hageman have 138 available units and there are approximately 400 more available units within a two-mile span."

When conducting research, residents say it's best to be honest and open about what you're doing, and people will likely be willing to talk. In this case, apartment managers were more than happy to fight the prospective competition.

Resident Brian Sloan of Chuckwagon Street also met with land developer Gary Guillet of West Star Construction.

"He came to my house, showed me maps of the proposed development and pictures of what the single-and two-story complexes would look like, and tried to address my concerns," said Sloan, who was not swayed by Guillet's arguments.

Prior to the meeting, the commission received three calls and eight letters in opposition to the project.

Strength in numbers

While many Northwest residents headed to the Condors game across the street at Centennial Gardens on Nov. 11, some 50 professionals, blue-collar workers, homemakers, young couples and retirees entered the county administrative center at 1115 Truxtun Ave. and took their seats.

When Planning Commission Chairman Chris Babcock asked, "How many of you oppose the amendment of the Western Rosedale Specific Plan?" even he seemed surprised by the show of hands. "There are a lot of you here," he remarked.

Some residents sat together, generally grouped by streets, while others sat alone and didn't seem aware of an organized effort. Either way, their presence counted.

"That's pretty much a packed house. That's more than what we normally get," said James.

Support for the project

At planning meetings, a member of the department gives a summary of the proposal and offers a recommendation. In this case, the duty fell to Dave Rickels of the planning operations division.

He noted that approximately half of the 14-acre property had been designated for a mobile home park since 1977. Rickels pointed out that the zoning change would permit the developers to build up to 224 units, but they opted to propose just 150 units.

Rickels was greeted with laughter when he said the impact on traffic would be "less than significant" and that the existing streets have the capacity to accommodate it. Still, he defended the department's recommendation, saying the apartments would be "an appropriate use of property."

"This speaks to the need to provide a range of housing types throughout the metropolitan area, and alternate types as advocated by the General Plan Housing Element and the state," said Rickels.

He ended his report with this recommendation: "The staff believes this is a logical expansion in accordance with ongoing urbanization."

Don Turkal, of the Kern County roads department, reported to the commission that traffic studies had judged the intersection and streets in question safe, and added that in five years only five accidents had been reported, and none had been reported in the last two years along the western stretch of Rosedale Highway.

His remarks were in sharp contrast to those of residents, who spoke of dangerous intersections like Aimee Way and Jewetta Avenue and reported seeing numerous accidents from their homes.

Developer Guillet made the point that he was a 15-year resident of Rosedale and cared about quality of life in the community. "You're just like me," he said to the residents.

He said West Star would make the apartments look almost like single-family residences.

"This is an infield parcel, which makes it unlikely that developers will want to put single-family housing there. And these aren't the typical rentals; they're like the ones we're constructing in Visalia - separate parcels in a spread-out scheme. They'd be owned and then rented out by individuals - like teachers and other professionals - who wanted to make an investment," said Guillet.

Residents speak out

Many of the Rosedale residents present had never been to a planning meeting before and were somewhat awkward in the unfamiiliar environment, sometimes speaking out of turn, often laughing and clapping, and earning reprimands from the board.

At one point, Babcock said, "No more outbursts from the audience of any kind."

However, when it was their turn to come up to the microphone and address the commission, the residents were serious and respectful. Residents made a variety of arguments against the project.

"We have farm animals and we enjoy their aroma. I doubt the people in the apartments will like the smell," said Sue Davis.

Houston said, "I've been a GET bus driver for 29 years. I know traffic, and I know adding apartments and more drivers will be dangerous."

Meyers added, "Adding apartments means an extreme impact on schools as children go in and out. As an educator, I know this ‘revolving door' has an impact on students."

Some speakers also prepared suggestions for how to improve the project plan, in case the proposal was approved. "I'd like to have input into landscaping and where the trash cans and postal boxes are positioned," said Evans.

The vote and the next chapter

After the presentations concluded, Commissioner Kay Pitts said, "There are too many questions, and I'm just not satisfied with the answers."

Commissioners Babcock and Vernon Strong joined Pitts in rejecting the proposal.

"The reason the commission exists, in my opinion, is to give the public another chance to have input," said Pitt. "They came out and spoke and gave cogent reasons for not having the development there. Some residents suggested mitigations to the plan should it go through. To me, that's a voice of reason rather than a voice of pure emotion."

Pitts also noted that the development is not encouraged by the Rosedale Specific Plan and incompatible with current zoning, as well as unfair to current homeowners.

Multi-family housing is encouraged at connecter streets, but this is a local street and not designed for a heavy amount of traffic, she said.

"Sometimes you feel like people in those positions just aren't up-to-date, but they seemed to know what we were saying and made their decision based on the meeting," Payne said of the commission. "It didn't seem like the result was pre-determined."

Guillet said he was "surprised" by the commissioners' decision.

"I wouldn't have pursued this if I didn't think it was a possibility. But no one likes multi-housing, and they'll find any means to shoot it down," he said.

Guillet said he will meet with the planning department before the Board of Supervisors meeting to find ways to better address the traffic concerns raised by residents. He will also meet with the Lewis Ranch Homeowners Association on Nov. 30.

The planning department will present the Planning Commission recommendation to supervisors at the Dec. 7 meeting - meaning they will recommend rejecting the project.

"For the residents who attend both meetings it may look like we're reversing our stance, but it's standard procedure that we uphold the commission's decision," said Rickels, who said than other than that proceedings should be similar to the Nov. 11 meeting.

In the meantime, residents aren't backing down. "We're passing out fliers, and I'm trying to get pre-paid postcards printed that say why we oppose the zone change so residents can just sign them and send them to the supervisors," said Payne.




The proposal
General Plan Amendment #8, Map #101-24, Zone change case #35, Map #101-24 - (a) Amend the Western Rosedale Specific Plan from map code SR (Suburban Residential -- Less than or equal to four dwelling units/net acre) to map code HMR (High Medium Density Residential -- less than 17.42 dwelling units/net acre) or a more restrictive map code designation on an approximately seven-acre portion of the proposed site; (b) A change in zone classification from E (1/4) CL (Estate -- 1/4 acre -- Cluster Combining) to R-2 (medium-density residential) or a more restrictive district on the approximate 14-acre site; the applicant anticipates the development of 150 multifamily residential units, including a mix of duplex, triplex and fourplex unites -- Northwest corner of Jewetta Avenue and Rosedale Highway, northeast corner of Burlington North Sante Fe Railroad, Bakersfield.

Staff recommendation: advise Board of Supervisors to approve -- CEQA Guideline: Negative Declaration (MMMP) -- (SD#4) -- West Star Construction by ProjectDesign Consultants (PP05205).

What this means: Developer West Star Construction wants to build duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes on 14 acres at the northwest corner of Rosedale Highway and Jewetta Avenue. County planners recommend approval of the project.

Terms and processes

General plan: California law requires each county and city in the state to develop and adopt a general plan, which consists of a statement of development policies and includes a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles and plan proposals. It is a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development of the county or city; a "blueprint" for development.

General plan amendments: the legislative body of the county or city can amend any mandatory element of the general plan four times a year. The planning department staff schedules four "windows" per year for the Board of Supervisors to consider amendments. Applications to amend the general plan may be obtained from the planning department counter or mailed on request.

The application has two parts: the "Notice of Intent" (NOI), which requires a complete legal description of the property and statement of objectives, and the Pre-Application Review Committee (PARC) meeting, where the applicant is informed of the nature of reports that must be formally filed within the department to constitute a formal application.

After the application is accepted as complete, work beings on determining the appropriate type of environmental document for the project, an Initial Study is performed and the document is prepared. Upon its completion, the request is set for the public hearing.

Public hearing: the Kern County Planning Commission is not affected by the "windows" provision and may consider a proposed amendment at any time. One or more public hearings will be held to maximize public input. A staff report is prepared prior to the hearing that contains information on the proposed project, an analysis of the proposal in relation to surrounding properties and land uses, and a staff recommendation. On conclusion of these hearings, the planning commission will forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final consideration.

CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires that an environmental study be prepared for some types of projects. The environmental study can take the form of a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. Most general plan amendments require some form of environmental study.

For more copies of the general plan and for more information on county and city agendas, go to www.co.kern.ca.us. or www.ci.bakersfield.ca.us, or call Ted James of the planning department at 862-8600.

You can watch planning meetings live on KGOV, the county's local cable television station. Lists of available channels can be found at www.co.kern.ca.us/gsd/KGOV.

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation