Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, April 4, 1996, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate Absent: DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Gail Anderson spoke regarding the painting of the curb on Chilibry Street which she' felt was based upon complaints of one resident. She was concerned about the vagueness of Ordinance No. 10.32.020 allowing the Public Works Department to paint this curb red. She asked that the Commission review the ordinance in question. Chairman Andrew stated this may be taken up during the C. 0mmission comments section of the agenda. Commissioners Brady and Tavorn stated they had not attended the pre-meeting, however were able to review a copy of the tape from this meeting and would be participating at this meeting. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as. set forth on the agenda. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 2 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item #9A. - General Plan Consistency Finding - vacation of public street right-of-way of Garland Avenue, east of Wible Road. Agenda Item #9B. - General Plan Consistency Finding - vacation of the pedestrian way between Lakeview Avenue and South Haley Street, east of the East 3rd Street intersection, in Tract No. 1286. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve consent agenda: Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to approve minutes of the regular meeting held February 15, 1996. Motion carried. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10118 Chairman Andrew abstained on Agenda Item #'s 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and Item #7.1 because he is currently representing the applicant and owner of the property. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to appoint Commissioner Hersh as Chair. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the applicant. He submitted a revision to Condition #5. He stated the purpose of the parcel map is to create 2, five acre parcels to be grant deeded to the Kern River Access Committee and Kern River Corridor. He Stated they also requested that improvements on Stockdale Highway frontage be deferred until development of adjacent property to the east. He stated agreement with all conditions. He also requested that the responsibility of maintenance of the non-buildable covenant be amended so that whoever owns the property would be responsible for maintenance. Responding to question by Commissioner Ortiz, Mr. Grady explained the vesting process. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 3 Responding to question by Commissioner Dhanens, Ms. Marino said Mr. McIntosh's proposed change to condition #5 would be acceptable to their office. Mr. LaRochelle stated his general agreement with proposed change to Condition #5 with addition of the following language to the end of the condition: "such deferral shall be evidenced by a recorded covenant on said adjacent property acceptable to the City." Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10118, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A," with the following addition to the end of Condition #5 of Exhibit "such deferral shall be evidenced by a recorded covenant on said adjacent property acceptable to the City." Motion carried. 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10263 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Roger Mclntosh represented the applicant submitting a proposed change to Condition #2. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. LaRochelle stated his agreement with Mr. McIntosh's proposed change. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10263 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A," with modification to Condition #2 of Exhibit "A" to read as follows: The area of the Kern River Freeway right-of-way as shown on the adopted specific plan line map (whether the current City/County alignment shall be reserved between Calloway Drive and Allen Road). Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 4 6.1 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSIONS OF TIME - REVISED TENTATIVE 6.2 TRACT 5436 Commissioner Dhanens stated he would abstain on Agenda Item #'s 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 because his wife is currently employed by the subdivider. Staff report on Agenda Item #'s 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 were given. Public portions of the hearings were opened. Bonnie Godfrey represented the property owner. She gave history of their progress on the property. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady indicated if the commission approves these extensions of time without applying the conditions of approval CEQA laws would be violated. Lee Jamison, Jaco Oil Company stated he is an owner of an adjacent property stating his opinion that if the development agreement is not in place, staff is correct in recommending denial, however if it is in place the commission can vote in favor of these extensions. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making finding that the approval of the map would not be consistent with the specific plan because traffic impacts would not be mitigated and requirements for public facilities would not be met, and to deny the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5436 Revised. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSIONS OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5478 6.3 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making finding that the approval of the map would not be consistent with the specific plan because traffic impacts would not be mitigated and requirements for public facilities would not be met, and to deny the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5478. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSIONS OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5479 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making finding that the approval of the map would not be consistent with the specific plan because traffic impacts would not be mitigated and requirements for public facilities would not be met, and to deny the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5479. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 5 7.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5426 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh represented the applicant. He stated a variance to the minimum block length had been requested in order to match the existing tract to the south. They are within 5 percent exceeding the block length. Mr. LaRochelle stated he was amenable to Mr. McIntosh's request. Mr. McIntosh stated he did not agree with turning lots 11 and 12, however would agree with Lot 1 of Phase D and Lots 26 and 27. Commissioner Boyle asked if there were other areas in the city in which block length exceptions have been made. Mr. LaRochelle gave an example of this stating for the most part subdivisions are well within the limits. The city's experience with placing stop signs other than for right-of-way control in these situations is that it creates a worse problem. Commissioner Boyle did not feel that the additional 45 feet of block length is adding to the problem. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady concerning an April 4, 1996 memo from the Fire Department, Mr. Turk stated this is a new condition to be placed on this tract. Commissioner Brady stated that in order for the street as requested to be approved, he would have to delete Finding #14 and Condition #4 of Exhibit "A." Mr. Grady suggested that the word "not" be taken out of the sentence for Finding # 14. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Dhanens to adopt resolution, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5426 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A," with the exception that Finding #14 will be modified such that it will read as follows: 14. There is adequate justification to approve block length in excess of ordinance requirements on this project. Condition #4 of Exhibit "A" to be deleted. Addition of condition as set forth in the Fire Department memo dated April 4, 1996. Addition of modifications Set forth by memorandum dated April 4, 1996 from the Planning Director, eliminating the numbers 11 and 12 of Condition #16. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 5433 Page 6 Commissioner Andrew took the chair. Chairman Andrew stated for the record he had received a letter from Castle and Cooke regarding Riverlakes item which he submitted for the record. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Matt Vovilla, Porter-Robertson Engineering, represented the applicant. He stated they had no objection to the staff report or conditions. Responding to question by Commissioner Dhanens, Mr. Grady said a requirement for reduction in lot size is that additional modifications cannot be obtained for side and front yard setbacks. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed .Revised Tentative Tract 5433, and modifications as recommended in the staff report, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "A," incorporating the changes shown in the Planning Director's memo dated March 29, 1996. Motion carried. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 15 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. THE PURPOSE OF THE FEE IS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THOSE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN. Staff report was given identifying funding and facilities list and recommending to the Council first reading of the proposed amendments to the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 7 Lee Jamison, Jaco Oil Company asked the Commission to consider how improvements are done. He felt increasing fees on commercial and industrial projects will have a negative effect on jobs and growth. New construction cannot compete because of the cost of fees. He encouraged the commission not to raise fees on commercial and industrial. Barbara Martin represented the Building Industry Association of Kern County. She stated the information before the Commission is a culmination of an extensive analysis by city, county and BIA. She cited a nexus between the fee amount and improvements needed. BIA has been supportive of the "one fee pays all" concept and feel the predictability of the set amount is very positive. BIA has concerns regarding the growth scenario appearing high and felt it warrants further study. They request that the supplemental list of collectors not be included in the impact fee and that it be locked in for 8 years at the maximum with a proviso which would allow for reduction in fees if warranted. They feel the fee structure for commercial/industrial is a detriment to local businesses. She stated they felt particular items should not be on the project list such as Casa Loma Drive between Cottonwood Road and Mt. Vernon, Mt. Vernon from Casa Loma to Belle Terrace and all projects west of Buena Vista Road and south of Stockdale Highway. Roger McIntosh stated he has been working with staff on this fee structure. He stated currently a Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy report s being prepared for GET, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern COG, California Department of Transportation and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. It will (1) provide the most appropriate transportation response to the growth that is projected in the Metropolitan area (2) it will maintain and possibly improve the ability to get through the heavily congested, central portion of the Bakersfield Metropolitan area (3) it will limit and possibly reduce air pollution from transportation sources (4) as traffic grows it will ensure future mobility between major destinations (5) it will maximize the opportunities for multi-modal or inter-modal connection. He was concerned about the model projecting the traffic flow at the Year 2020 in that some of the arterials are only projected to need 2 or 4 lanes instead of the 6 lane full buildout. The developer would still be required to provide funding for half width of 6 lanes, however would only receive credit for the two lanes on the list. He was also very concerned about increase in fee for commercial/industrial development. He felt this is a defendable transportation impact fee; anything above it could not be supported by a nexus. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 8 Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Shaw stated the current fee program funds big ticket items such as river bridges, grade separation, canal crossings at 50 percent. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. LaRochelle stated the vast majority of credit will be for those projects fronting on arterials. In order to figure credit staff has tried to estimate the lane miles of arterial which are actually built within a given year. The present 10 percent of this fee for the Kern River Freeway is adequate because the State would provide the additional 90 percent. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. LaRochelle anticipated this proposed fee program would much better address the situation in which roads begin wide and then are narrower, then wide again. The fee program includes present problem areas only to the extent that new traffic would have an effect on these areas. Discussion continued regarding high traffic areas. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Shaw stated when developing the fee proposal staff was instructed by the Urban Development Committee of the Council to keep the industrial and office commercial rates at their current levels, therefore cost of development was distributed to the other uses which are residential and retail commercial. Mr. Mclntosh stated approximately 20 percent of the fees comes from industrial/commercial with 80 percent from residential. Commissioner Brady was not in favor of raising residential fees because it would raise the prices of housing for first time home buyers. He stated he would not support a fee higher than that which is proposed by staff. Responding to questions by Commissioner Dhanens, Ms. Shaw stated the projected growth rate referred to by Ms. Martin was obtained from Kern COG. It was a weighted average for growth and would be looked at every 3 years. The area outlined in the 2010 Plan is that which would be subject to these fees. Mr. LaRochelle explained gas tax funding. Ms. Shaw explained the projected addition of trips to the system. There is flexibility in removing projects from the facilities list if this is what the City Council directs. Commissioner Dhanens stated generally he felt the logic behind the fee seems to be sound, however he would want to look at ways to reduce some of the retail fees. He stated his support of the fee being sent to the City Council. Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Chairman Andrew, saying funding for future freeway or widening would not be paid out of this proposed fee but was identified through CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program) funding through ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act). Money is aggressively being placed in here for funding rights-of-way and some money is earmarked for highways. Chairman Andrew felt it did not feel right that all fees are placed on new development and that possibly fees should be calculated based on square footage. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 9 In response to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. LaRochelle said $521,000,000 worth of improvements are projected to be constructed over the next 20 years unless growth slows down. Discussion continued regarding items listed in the facilities list and fees to be collected. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Shaw said any portion of land that it not included in the general plan would require traffic studies. Responding to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. McIntosh explained the model set up being based on projected growth rates. Commissioner Boyle commented on the suggestion that this fee be locked in for a period of 8 years, saying he did not feel this was in the best interest of the city. He felt a 3-year review is reasonable. Responding to questions by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. LaRochelle felt the ~average of all intersections within the city would be a Level of Service B. He felt levels of service are somewhat degraded, however for the most part intersections allow for a very good traffic flow. He felt that with the traffic impact fee and local mitigation that were put in place would mitigate areas that have degraded below a Level of Service C. For those intersections which are worse than level of service C the ordinance states that they cannot be degraded any worse than they already are. Commissioner Tavorn felt the model needs to be revisited because the arteries were not projected correctly because the growth rate has been larger than expected particularly in the southwest portion of the city. Ms. Shaw stated the city cannot be totally proactive on these situations. Mr. LaRochelle said money is being collected to take care of some past problems. Responding to question by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. LaRochelle stated he felt the proposed fee program is adequate to deal with the new traffic growth. Commissioner Hersh felt this impact fee has and continues to be "too little, too late." He stated he could not support this new fee structure because he did not feel it goes far enough~ .to meet the needs of this aggressive, healthy community, the length between review periods is too long and reaction time is too long. Chairman Andrew did not feel past problems could be made the responsibility of new development. Commissioner Brady felt Commissioners Tavorn and Hersh have identified the problem but are not proposing an approprmte solution. A c~ty-w~de funding source needs to be found to repair ex~st~ng problems because the law states there must be a relationship between funding and traffic impacts. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 10 Commissioner Boyle felt the city is betting its future on the fact that freeway funding will come from the State within the next 20 years, however if it does not this fee is woefully short. Commissioner Dhanens felt infrastructure and home construction must go hand- in-hand. Alternate forms of transportation can alleviate some traffic problems. He stated he would support this fee program and expressed concerns about the impact of the fee on office and retail. Commissioner Brady felt if the State does not provide funding the city needs to come up with an alternative funding source such that the residents of this community would equally share in the burden of building freeways that benefit everyone. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to recommend to the City Council that Council have first reading of the proposed amendments to the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Hersh, Tavorn 9.A GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - VACATION OF PUBLIC 9.B STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GARLAND AVENUE, EAST OF WIBLE ROAD. Approved as consent agenda item. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - VACATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN WAY BETWEEN LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND SOUTH HALEY STREET, EAST OF THE EAST 3RD STREET INTERSECTION, IN 10. TRACT NO. 1286. Approved as consent agenda item. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal Mr. Grady stated Jeffrey Tkac was appointed to the vacating seat on the Commission. He stated the first meeting in May was set for election of chairperson. Minutes, PC, 4/4/96 Page 11 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Marino stated she was not aware of any restructuring of the site plan review process. Commissioner Boyle commented on the statement made by Ms. Gail Anderson under the public statements section, asking if staff could provide some type of report at the next meeting as to whether this ordinance is designed to allow red curbs in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Grady stated it would be placed on the next agenda. A. Committees 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 13. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady reviewed the list of the next meeting's agenda items with the commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to cancel the pre-meeting of April 15, 1996. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director Secretary