Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 17, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of September 16 and 19, 2002. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of property on P Street, 13th Steet and California Avenue. (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Motion was made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract 6124 (Delmarter Engineering) (Ward 7) Hearing opened for public comment. No one spoke for or against the items. & Deifel Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map No. 10895 (Frank Slinkard) (Ward 7) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to the staff report. Paul Andre, applicant, stated he is in agreement with the staff report except for two Public Works conditions. Item No. 2 requires dedication and construction of a right turn lane on Wible Road at Auto Mall Drive. At this time they are offering a dedication of this property for a future right turn lane but they feel that it is unnecessary to construct these improvements and it is a burden to the overall subdivision they are trying to create at this time. The second item they object to is Item No. 7 that requires landscaping along Wible Road which would be covering the two parcels on the westerly side of the map. As there is no plan for development at this time, this would be an isolated island landscape strip that is both going to be on city property and private property and they feel it would be better to have it become part of a site plan review as all of the other parcels have done running north and south on Wible Road at the Auto Mall. It would also defer the city getting involved in maintenance on that land until development should occur. Mr. Andre said that Public Works stated this week that they want the landscaping done so that all of the parcels on Wible Road would have landscaping and Mr. Andre pointed out two other parcels that do not have landscaping at this time. He asked that the landscaping be deferred. No one spoke in opposition of the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked staff to reply to Mr. Andre. Mr. Grady said that with regard to the landscaping their only concern was to make sure that all three of the parcels west of the proposed new road would be receiving some kind of notice that when any one of the three develop they would be required to put the landscaping in on Wible. The city has experienced that when something like this is not made a condition, someone goes to develop a piece and then are surprised that they are responsible for a lot more landscaping than they had anticipated. Staff will agree to the deferral as long as it is assigned to the three parcels west of the proposed street and that the first parcel that goes in does the entire landscaping. Commissioner Sprague asked if there are other parcels along the street that are landscaped? Staff said there is landscaping along the street and it has been required before. Ms. Shaw said the right turn lane is a requirement because of the amount of traffic expected along Auto Mall Drive. To require one parcel to put it in creates a problem because they have had difficulty along this same street trying to get a right turn lane put in in other locations. Right now, there is an eight acre parcel map and they feel it is appropriate to make it a condition of development of the parcel map and the cost would be spread to all six parcels if necessary. Mr. Andre is proposing to put the burden entirely on one parcel. Ms. Shaw said the Public Works Department has been consistent in asking for these types of improvements with the parcel map or with the tract map and not with an individual development. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, if there is a safety issue prolonging it to a later date? Mr. Walker said it is consistent to request it now. They are trying to plan for the increase in traffic due to development and in their opinion, this would be appropriate at this time. Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Sprague asked if the drain water off the lots in the cul-de-sac will be graded to the street or is there a sump existing down the street? Ms. Shaw said she would have to double check but she thinks it will drain to the street. Commissioner Sprague said that Item 24 states "this does not allow truck delivery or trash pickup" and wondered where the trash receptacles will be. Mr. Grady said the location will be determined upon site plan review. Commissioner Sprague said that his recommendation would be to require the right hand turn lane for safety issues and as long as the landscaping is divulged in the preliminary title report to a new buyer of the property, he could see deferring it and asked Mr. Grady if that would be a trigger to make this happen. Mr. Grady said that that would be sufficient for a potential buyer of any one of three parcels that they would be required to put the landscaping in along Wible. Mr. Andre said he only has two parcels on Wible and asked about the third one Mr. Grady mentioned which is on Auto Mall and covered in condition number six. Mr. Grady said that the condition is related to the timing of the improvement and they want it to be triggered by either of the three parcels whether it fronts Wible Road or not. It is the three parcels closest to Wible Road that will be used as a trigger for when the landscaping is put in. Mr. Grady said it is parcel number one, two and five that whichever one would develop first would be responsible for putting in the landscaping on Wible. Commissioner Gay said he concurs with staff on the landscaping and he thinks the right turn lane should be deferred until the first parcel is constructed in the subdivision. Mr. Andre, in a response to Commissioner Tragish's question regarding the decal lane, said that if the decel lane primarily impacts parcel one and it was recorded on the title as a requirement that that would be reflected in the negotiation and transfer of that parcel as far as a party buying the parcel. They would know that that it is a requirement for development of the site. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Andre if the proposal from staff is agreeable to him? Mr. Andre said yes. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Map 10895 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution A and to incorporate the changes that landscaping shall be deferred until the first lot (being lot 1, 2 or 5) is to develop and provide landscaping required on Wible Road and this shall be identified through a deed restriction. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6124 (Delmarter & Deifel Engineering) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 4 6.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6139 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff said the applicant has requested this item be continued until November 7 as the City Council won't hear the general plan amendment until November 6, 2002. Public hearing open and item continued until November 7, 2002. 6.3a&b) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6140 (Phased) and Development Plan for Sinqle Family Residential (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 1) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, stated they concur with the Public Works Department memo dated October 11, 2002 which deals with access waiver of direct access rights to Oswell and the memo from Mr. Grady dated October 15 except for his analysis of park land credit. They have withdrawn their request for park land credit. They do concur with the other provisions to the changes to the conditions and the memorandum dated October 17 concerning the roll up doors. They request the Commission consider revising two of the conditions. Specifically, conditions number 10 and 11 having to deal with the drainage basin that is along Oswell. This basin is designed to take water off of public streets as well as off the commercial and private area. They do not agree with the requirement that the city will not maintain that basin. It is unusual to have the homeowners setup to maintain the basin. A homeowners association should not have to take on that responsibility. The city is in the business of maintaining public facilities even to the extent that their subdivision design manual requires maintenance of drainage facilities to be "maintained by an entity with taxing powers." Homeowners associations do not have taxing powers and do not have the ability to impose that tax. The subdivision design manual requires that the right-of-way required for retention basins shall be deeded in fee to the city. The fact that it has to be deeded and granted to the city should facilitate the requirement for the city to maintain that basin. The basin does take private water off of the private areas and the property owners do pay property taxes and those property owners will take care of the maintenance of the streets within the entire subdivision so that cost is not imposed on the city. The city will also get a direct benefit from the significant increase in tax revenues on the commercial area and those monies should be adequate to take care of the maintenance of that facility. They request the Commission delete the requirement that an entity be formed to maintain the drainage basin off of those two conditions. He stated he is here to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public hearing was closed. Ms. Shaw said this is not the first time they have made it a requirement that a sump be maintained privately. The only public water that this sump will accept is the frontage of the tract and the commercial area. She asked the Commission to compare that with the area of the public streets with the area of the remainder of the tract. Most of the water going into that sump is generated by the private streets. A very small portion of the water comes from the public street which fronts the private tract. It is not the desire of the Public Works Department to maintain the sump for a private development. They have made this request to other private developments. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Walker if they have any concerns about the request for reduced streets? Mr. Walker said that the homeowners association usually takes care of the problem and it is consistent with what they have done in the past and he is not concerned at this time about that standard. Commissioner Gay said he does not have a problem with keeping the sump private. Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker if three accesses were enough for the tract and where was the emergency access? Mr. Walker said three access points for 300 lots is common and they don't have a problem with that. If there is additional access needed for emergency access they defer to those conditions that may be approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Walker said that they look at the number of lots not necessarily the size of the lots. You would have a similar number of volume of traffic and activity in an apartment complex. Commissioner Tragish asked that since this is a phased project, would there be sufficient access as it develops? Mr. Walker said they require access in a temporary nature (if it is phased) so that they would also have at least the minimum number of access points. Commissioner Tragish asked if we have required other homeowner associations to maintain sumps? Ms. Shaw said yes because it is a private tract. Commissioner Tragish asked if there are private tracts where the city does service the sumps? Ms. Shaw said she believes there are some within the City of Bakersfield that have publicly maintained sumps. Commissioner Tragish asked what determines whether the homeowners association is or is not responsible for the sump? Ms. Shaw said that for the last four or five years any private tract that takes primarily private water, Public Works has required it to be privately maintained. If it takes any public water, they will require a flowage easement over the private tract for the public water. Commissioner Tragish asked if where the city maintains the sump for a private tract, the homeowners association has to pay any fees, other than taxes? Ms. Shaw said no. Commissioner McGinnis asked Dave Weirather, Fire Plans Examiner, if he saw a problem with emergency access? He said no he did not. Commissioner Sprague said that the sump costs for maintenance will be minor upon the affect of the homeowners fees. He would support the homeowners association maintaining the sump for the drain water that comes off of the subdivision. Commissioner Sprague expressed some concern over the condition requiring roll up garage doors in the 20-foot setback if a homeowner replaced the door eventually with a flip up door. Mr. Weirather said the Fire crews have means of accessing garage doors. Normally, Fire Department operations would not normally open the door, they would use an indirect attack method. Commissioner Sprague recommended some type of disclosure to the purchasers of these properties to have a disclosure (possibly in the CC&Rs) that says that any replacement of garage doors shall be roll up. Commissioner Sprague also suggested adding a covenant to either the CC&Rs or to the Title Report that says the property is adjacent to agriculture, commercial and heavy industrial zoning which may affect health and quality of life and in addition, that the City of Bakersfield sewer plant and spreading area is located nearby and may cause smell, flies and/or health conditions? Commissioner Gay said he concurs with the comments requiring disclosure of the zoning of nearby properties. Commissioner Tragish asked Roger Mclntosh if they had an idea about the amount of the additional cost for the homeowners association to pay for maintenance of the sump? Mr. Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 6 Mclntosh said he did not know but that Ms. Shaw probably does. Ms. Shaw said it is the Water Department and she has no idea how much is spent annually to maintain a sump. It requires about one trip per year. Commissioner Tragish said he thinks it is a good suggestion that the nearby zoning would be placed in the Title Report. Also, advising there is a sewage treatment plant located nearby. He feels Chairman Sprague's comments are well taken he just wants to make sure they are carefully inserted. He doesn't want to scare away potential buyers, just make them aware that certain things are there. ,As far as the sump goes, he doesn't know how they can get around that but would welcome Mr. Mclntosh's comments on coming up with some kind of compromise so that the developer doesn't have to be saddled with the additional cost. Roger Mclntosh said he can't think of a project that he has done that isn't maintained by the city. He always tries to put the sump adjacent to a city street or grant the city access through the private area so that they can do their maintenance. He feels that what it comes down to it does the city want a homeowners association responsible for the maintenance of a facility that has to do with flood and storm waters? They are not used to doing it and are not setup to do it. The city has special trucks that go around and people who do this all the time. It doesn't make sense to have a private homeowners association take care of that type of facility. It is more of a health and safety issue. Commissioner Ellison said that he doesn't want to burden the project with further disclosure, however, he would support any type of disclosure mechanisms that the Commission could come up. He would have to support the city's recommendation regarding the sump that the homeowners take care of it. Commissioner Gay asked if the city took over the sump would having the applicant put in a block wall around the sump help long term maintenance by the city? Also, if staff would be willing to work with the applicant to come up with language regarding the disclosure statement? Ms. Shaw said she doesn't know whether a block wall would help the city maintain the sump. There are a couple things regarding the sump that she cannot answer if it becomes a public sump. The Water Department would have to answer those questions. Mr. Grady said he has a concern with the whole concept of the disclosure. It is not policy based. It is done case-by-case and we are picking without any criteria which kinds of things we want to give people notices of. For staff it is a bigger issue that deserves more consideration because there could be implications for all projects, not just this project. The Commission hasn't had formal discussions regarding putting these on projects. Staff would not be in a position outside of this hearing to assist the Commission with coming up with language the Commission would want. Commissioner Gay said he withdraws his request. Commissioner Sprague said he agrees with Commissioner Tragish in putting a disclosure in stating there is a Bakersfield City sewer plant and spreading area located nearby and that the property is adjacent to agriculture, commercial and heavy industrial zoning. This would not scare people away just let them know that there are these around. Commissioner Gay said he appreciates the comment but wordage wise he might start with the commercial and industrial. Since the sewer plant is part of the industrial, it wouldn't be the first thing that hit them and the commercial is the nearest property. Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Mclntosh said he feels it is totally inappropriate to get into disclosure issues about facilities that are quite a ways away. The sewer farm is over ¼ mile away. He has received a letter from the Health Department stating there is not a health concern. There may be some odors but that is all disclosed in a report from the Department of Real Estate along with the commercial, the agriculture, the freeway, solid waste facilities, green waste facilities, airports, etc. Everything that may be a nuisance or that will affect this property and the ability to make the logical decision to buy here or not is disclosed in that report. He feels that it is inappropriate to go beyond that disclosure and start requesting/requiring the applicant to add things to the CC&Rs. If this happens, then it should be applied to every project in the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Sprague said that as far as the items of disclosure, they are in the public report as long as there is a white slip from the Department of Real Estate that discloses these items. But, many people do not read the public report so he is looking for something that states in bold print some disclosures. Commissioner Sprague asked if there was some way to make it in bold print in the public report? Mr. Mclntosh said that it is his understanding that the buyer of a home has to read and sign and acknowledge the disclosure statement in the public report. Commissioner Sprague asked that it be put in bold print. Mr. Mclntosh said that he is not aware that the Department of Real Estate will allow that to happen. They do not have control about what is put in the reports. They give them information on what is around the property. Tom Hardt, the applicant, said they provide information to a consultant they hire who submits a pre-typed report as far as the nuisance items go that surrounds the project. The Department of Real Estate then prepares the public report. That report is a standard report in format and his company does not have the ability to change the ability to prepare that report. They can only provide the information. They cannot sell a lot or take a reservation for a lot without the public report. That document has to be signed by they buyer prior to signing a contract to purchase a home. To go beyond that is not necessary. They have already disclosed everything of concern to the Commission and then some. Commissioner Sprague asked if the public report would include the sewer plant and the commercial and industrial zoning? Mr. Hardt said that the project across the freeway that he built has a disclosure regarding the sewer plant which is a mile away in the public report. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Mclntosh if the project across the freeway that Mr. Hardt built has a sump? Mr. Mclntosh said no that all of the private waters that go off of that project go to a county maintained facility. Ms. Shaw said that is because it is in a Planned Drainage Area. Ms. Shaw said that the department who would be maintaining the sump, if it is a public sump, is not here tonight and she cannot speak for them. She recommended that the project be continued until input from the Water Department can be made or the other option is to approve it as is and then the parties involved can talk about it before it gets to the City Council where it can be resolved at that point. Commissioner Sprague said he thought it was a good idea to approve it as is and then let the parties involved work it out prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioners Tkac and Blockley stated their agreement that the disclosure statement is very important. Mr. Hardt said they go beyond the title report. They have a homeowners association with bylaws and one of the requirements in order to sign escrow instructions on any future purchaser, is that you must sign a receipt saying you have received the CC&Rs and bylaws of the Homeowners Association. He doesn't have a problem with also including a copy of the public report so that the information that is available to the first purchaser would be available to any additional purchaser. Commissioner Sprague said that he would be happy if the CC&Rs contain the disclosure Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 8 statements so that future residents will be notified what is nearby. Commissioner Gay said he would support the project as submitted with the amendments attached by staff including the fact that it is a private sump allowing for the developer to go back to the city to try to work out getting the city to take it on. Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Gennaro if there is a way they can require the CC&Rs contain the public report? Ms. Gennaro said her recommendation is that they make a requirement of the applicant to make the public report part of the CC&Rs. The title company needs an instrument to record with each of the lots. Commissioner Sprague said he would like to see some tot facilities put into the park. Mr. Hardt said they have withdrawn their request for park credit but if more facilities are required, they would like park credit. What they have found that with 250 homes, they are not used at all. They have decided to eliminate the tot facilities and not ask for park credit. Commissioner Tragish said he would rather have the disclosure statement made simple. Having to have to record the public report seems a lot of unnecessary paper work to go through. Ms. Gennaro said that as long as there is an instrument to be recorded, it didn't matter in what form it took. Commissioner Tragish said he agrees with Commissioner Gay that the conditions be approved tonight but with the hope it can be worked out with staff later. Commissioner Sprague asked if there is a way to give partial park fee credit for the tot lot installation? Mr. Grady said that is what they asked for and that was what was provided for them on the project to the north which required the tot lot equipment. Commissioner Gay asked if there is a requirement for a park in this development? Mr. Grady said there is a requirement that a PUD contain some type of amenity and this park would be it for this development. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve Vesting Tentative Map 6140 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporating the memo dated October 11 by Marian Shaw, the Planning Director's memo dated October 15 deleting from that memorandum the park land credit request and the Planning Director's memorandum dated October 17 and revising the conditions that the applicant will state in the CC&Rs that adjacent to or contiguous to this project are commercial and industrial related projects and uses that may have an impact on the homeowner including that the wastewater treatment plant is nearby. Motion seconded by Commissioner McGinnis Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the proposed development plan for zone change 02-0291 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution incorporating the memo dated October 11 by Marian Shaw, the Planning Director's memo dated October 15 deleting from that memorandum the park land credit request Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 9 and the Planning Director's memorandum dated October 17 and revising the conditions that the applicant will state in the CC&Rs that adjacent to or contiguous to this project are commercial and industrial related projects and uses that may have an impact on the homeowner including that the wastewater treatment plant is nearby as attached in Exhibit A and recommend the same to City Council, Exhibit B. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None A five minute recess was taken. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P02-0623 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. Vice-Chairman Tkac took over the Chairman's duties for this hearing. Mr. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, gave and update on the project. They have met with the applicant and the engineer numerous times and they are in agreement with the staff report to deny the deletion of Masterson Street as an arterial but they do recognize there are development challenges in the area. They have some recommendations that they ask the Commission to recommend to the City Council. The continued public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh gave a little background of the project and then said that the cost to develop Masterson as an arterial would be very expensive and probably preclude development in this area. He went on to explain some of the difficulties involved which included Masterson being a very steep street. A traffic study was conducted which found that when built out the entire area would generate just 8,000 trips per day which could be handled on a two lane road. With that information and the topography, they do not feel that an arterial would need to go through. They came to an agreement with the Fire Department that there should be some kind of a roadway through the Masterson alignment but they didn't feel they needed an arterial either. From Solitaire Street south the city is still requesting an arterial be built. The developer has agreed to dedicate a 110 foot arterial right-of-way all the way through his property and has agreed to build a two lane road with bike lanes on both sides and a graded shoulder on both sides. Mr. Mclntosh said that because of the expense to build an arterial to arterial standards, they are requesting the Commission consider item number three on Mr. Walker's memo to be rewritten to read - Masterson Street shall be built to arterial road standards in the non-hillside area (south of Solitaire Street) and the developer has agreed to give up the right-of-way for an arterial if the city ever wants to come back and build an arterial but only build the two lanes from Solitaire north to their property line. Mr. Mclntosh said that the original staff report had that as an option. There was a condition of approval that recommended denial of the application but number four under Mitigation/Negative Declaration it is stated that a modified collector or arterial section would be acceptable for replacement of a full arterial. They are looking for something less than a full arterial standard on that southerly % mile. Public hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Walker had any objections to changing item number three Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 10 per Mr. Mclntosh's request? Mr. Walker said the Public Works Director is requesting that arterial road standards be provided. It is not that long of a distance. One of the problems you have with going through this as a collector is you need to have right turn lanes for Solitaire Street and for the first 700 or 800 feet from the intersection of Paladino and Masterson it needs to line up with the arterial standard to the south. If it was going to be built out to that distance anyway, there recommendation is to stay with arterial standards up to the Solitaire Street intersection. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Mclntosh if he had any estimate for the increased cost between a collector versus the arterial per condition number three? Mr. Mclntosh said there are a number of factors that have to go into answering that question but off the top of his head he would have to go with it being another 50 percent more for an arterial. Mr. Mclntosh said that a collector would probably cost some $225 to $250 per linear foot and an arterial would probably cost $270 or more depending on the soils type. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Mclntosh what his response is to Mr. Walker's comments regarding condition number three? Mr. Mclntosh said they have had many discussions over this the past two weeks and they understand Public Works position but the applicant does not agree with that extensive of a cost. They are giving up the right-of-way and if the city ever needs to come back and build an arterial, it is there. They don't have to condemn anything. Commissioner Tragish said he tends to agree with Mr. Mclntosh. It appears that if it is collector in this particular segment, it would be sufficient even in the future. Mr. Walker is looking down the road to see that the city has adequate resources for that particular street, but he is very interested in providing opportunities to developers out there and to ensure they have the resources to build out there. Commissioner Tragish said his inclination is to agree with Mr. Mclntosh and to change it from an arterial to a collector. Commissioner Blockley said he is in agreement with staff's recommendation because they have seen time and again that eliminating arterials does not seem to be a good idea. In this area there are few ways around. He can see that there would be considerable cost savings but just given the overall circulation of the city and the plan they have set up for that circulation, he does not see any great benefit in degrading it. Commissioner Gay said he commends the city for maintaining the arterial. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Walker if the graded shoulder goes over to the edge of the right-of-way or will there be some natural grasses between the property line and the paved area? Mr. Walker said the two lane road with bike lanes and graded shoulders would be north of Solitaire down to the connection with the existing stub out of Lake Ming Road at Alfred Harrell Highway. As a graded shoulder it would not have grass cover. It would be bladed off and kept as a drivable area. In the southern section down to Paladino, it would need to have the standard curb, gutter and sidewalk if it would go down to a collector status. Commissioner Gay asked that since we are maintaining the arterial designation, will the two lane street have to be built to arterial depths and standards? Mr. Walker said it would be built to a collector type standard. Public Works is asking for collector type curbs. It would be substantial for heavy fire truck traffic. These are designed based on traffic indexes. Traffic indexes are based on the soil type and the volume of traffic. Commissioner Gay said he would like to have the following added to the comments: that areas of the roadway not constructed to arterial or at least collector status should have restricted access so they won't have streets accessing it. That way the developer cannot have streets accessing it if he doesn't build an adequate roadway. Commissioner McGinnis said he would like to commend both the applicant and staff for working Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 11 out what appears to be a reasonable solution. He concurs with Mr. Mclntosh that the cost of putting a roadside in the hillside area would be anything but typical. Let alone an arterial. He said he would support the motion. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Walker if the argument is correct that said that one of the arguments for item 3 going to a collector on the non-hillside area was that the reduction would mean we wouldn't have to go through eminent domain or condemnation process for right-of-way near the homes that are developed? Mr. Walker said the properties on the west side are existing residential and there are no plans for development at this time, however, we are anticipating a need for the future, a possibility of great expansion that is why we want to retain the arterial access. We anticipate that some time in the future the property owners may want to divide up their property, change the zoning and develop something and at that time, the additional right-of-way and development requirements would be imposed. The Public Works Director has requested that the non-hillside area be constructed to full arterial standards. We are compensating for the fact that we will only be building a two lane road for the remainder down to Alfred Harrell Highway. That is part of the consideration. Commissioner Ellison asked if it was to be built as an arterial, the right-of-way would have to be acquired through eminent domain? Mr. Walker said yes if it was not done by development itself. Commissioner Ellison asked if the property owners west of Masterson received notification of this project? Ms. Gennaro said yes that they are within the 300 feet radius of the project so they would have received a notice. Commissioner Ellison said that he agrees with the October 17 memorandum from Mr. Walker. He agrees with number three being built to arterial. Commissioner Blockley asked where the road is developed to collector standards, are the arterial or collector standards in terms of driveways and streets going to be enforced? Mr. Walker said since we retain arterial classification on the road and the right-of-way requirements, arterial standards for access would still be imposed. Mr. Mclntosh, in response to an earlier question from Commissioner Tragish, said the median fee is $40 per linear foot on top of the other costs he stated earlier. The median does not get built until the adjacent properties to the west pay their half of the median fee as well. One of their big concerns is the $80,000 that they pay to the City to sit there and do nothing is a major cost and that's the reason they are asking for it to go to a collector. Collectors do not require medians. If they build it to an arterial standard, they will probably ask for a waiver of the median fee since it will probably never get built. Commissioner Blockley asked if the City would entertain a waiver of those fees? Mr. Walker said the Public Works Director stands firm in recommending retention of the median fee for the future. Commissioner Tragish asked what the justification is for characterizing Masterson Street as an arterial? Mr. Walker said we wish to obtain the description of an arterial status street for the future. By retaining the arterial designation for this route, we leave open the possibility for future development. Commissioner Tragish asked why we need to retain this as arterial if the traffic studies indicate the collector would be adequate and do we have any studies to the contrary? Mr. Walker said the reason is to retain what we already have. It may in the future be needed. The available modeling for volume of traffic in this area shows it may not be needed. The developer is not asking for elimination of the arterial. They are in agreement that they provide the arterial right- Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 12 of-way. Its just a question of what is built at this point in time to satisfy the needs of circulation in this area. This still leaves open for the future for expansion. If this area goes crazy with development, we will have the right-of-way. We won't have to go seek and pay for it. Commissioner Tragish asked what would be required in 10 or 15 years when it may be needed to build the roadway with the arterial status already there? Mr. Walker said it would be a paving project. The complication of having to gain additional right-of-way is eliminated by keeping the arterial status now. Mr. Mclntosh wanted to make it clear that they are not opposing going away from the arterial. They have agreed to allow the arterial status to stay on the general plan circulation element and they have agreed to give up 110 feet of right-of-way. All they are asking for is the portion from Paladino to Solitaire to be built to collector standard in both width and section. It would still be considered an arterial on the general plan but they are looking for some relief on the median fee as well as the standard of construction. Commissioner Tragish said he thinks it is a substantial imposition on the developer of this project to put the road in. He would support changing number three to show that it will be built to collector road standards. Commissioner Gay said he supports staff in having the arterials on section lines. It will give us the ability to grow and he would accept restricted access for those roads that are not built to collector status. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested general plan amendment to amend the circulation element by deleting the segment of Masterson Street generally located between Lake Ming Road and Bella Drive in northeast Bakersfield incorporating the memorandum dated October 17 by Traffic Engineer, Steve Walker, with the modification to item number 3 to be built to a collector standard and adding item number six in which areas of the roadway not constructed to a full collector standard shall be restricted to additional access and recommend the same to City Council Commissioner Tragish asked if item number six is saying that any streets that intersect into Masterson have to be restricted unless they are at the least a collector status? Commissioner Gay said that is his understanding. Mr. Walker said that as he understands it, he believes the condition of point six is really not necessary. Retaining the classification as an arterial street will make all of the restrictions on access and road connection types be the same as it is in the current standards so whether the physical paving area is built to collector standards or something less would not affect those access requirements. Commissioner Blockley said he has trouble with the substitution with the entire construction from arterial to collector based on maintenance, in terms of depth of the pavement section and the problems we have with roads deteriorating over time. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 13 ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague Chairman Sprague resumed his duties. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady reminded the Commissioners the meeting is coming up with the County Commissioners concerning the general plan update on October 28. The response to comments document was handed out to the Commission tonight. 9. ~:OMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner McGinnis said that several weeks ago he requested that someone from Golden Empire Transit come and address the Planning Commission in regard to any proposed expansion of their facilities in Bakersfield. Mr. Grady said that he has Mr. Moland, from GET, scheduled to speak to the Commission at their pre-meeting of November 4, 2002, to talk about transit planning. Commissioner Tragish asked if maybe a workshop should be conducted regarding Public Works projects and traffic issues. There seems to be a lot of public comment that Public Works is not addressing traffic issues in the city. Commissioner Sprague asked if perhaps a committee should be appointed to review the Wal Mart projects prior to the December 19 hearings? Mr. Grady said you cannot meet prior to a case coming up for hearing without taking public comments. Ms. Gennaro suggested that an overview of some current and future projects that Public Works has in regard to traffic may or may not help during the upcoming hearings. Ms. Gennaro suggested Mr. Walker provide the Commission with a workshop at one of the upcoming pre- meetings prior to December 19 to help answer some of Commissioner Tragish's questions. Mr. Walker said that a workshop of this type would be more than just traffic situations. He thinks the Commission would like to know what is happening to Highway 99, to various interchanges, other development plans, beltways, etc., what developments will affect what's happening within the area of concern. Mr. Walker said that it would be giving an overview of what is coming in the future and what is being planned in the south part of Bakersfield and it would have to include someone other than himself but that it could be possible. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady to arrange this. Commissioner Gay said he would be interested in knowing how the traffic impact fees go and how when they see an EIR how they know where the dollars are going to go and how do they know the money will go to rectify traffic problems? Commissioner Sprague asked that the workshop give the Commission some input as to how the circulation element in the Rio Bravo area relate back to Highway 178 and how do we as a planning group look at the development and how they can properly plan that the circulation issues will be there and in place. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if we should treat the disclosure policies on zonings Minutes, PC, October 17, 2002 Page 14 that were different adjacent to residential communities on a case-by-case basis? Mr. Grady said they need to go through a process similar to tonight except they need to decide how they want to apply it in a more broader sense to other projects. Mr. Grady suggested a committee be formed, to come up with some policy and get some basis for judging what kinds of things the Commission wants to require special notices for. Commissioner Sprague said they will discuss it and at a future meeting maybe come up with some committee appointments and some ideas about how the Commission can approach that and any other items that they might want to be added to that scope. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided that there would be a pre-meeting on November 4, 2002. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary November 12, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director