Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, February 15, 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: ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1) Agenda Item #5. - Extension of Time - Tentative Tract 5656 Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve consent agenda. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve minutes of the regular meetings held January 2, and January 18, 1996. Motion carried. 5.' PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5656 o Approved as consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10118 A request for continuance had been received from the applicant. Presentation of the staff report was waived. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to continue this item to the regular meeting of March 21, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5386 (PHASED) Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. He requested the last sentence in Condition #7 of Exhibit "A" be stricken with regard to a placement of a note on the map restricting certificates of occupancy until all required improvements have been completed by the subdivider. He stated concurrence with remaining conditions of approval. Mr. LaRochelle stated his concurrence with requested change to Condition #7. Public portion of the hearing was dosed. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Mr. McIntosh stated Condition #11 requires the discrepancy with respect to the park site to be ironed out before the map is recorded. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Second Revision of Vesting Tentative Tract 5386 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A," with the following amendment: Condition #7, deletion of the last sentence. Motion carried. .Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE Page 3 Mr. LaRochelle gave a report on this issue. He cited the implementation measures of the 2010 Plan with respect to aiding circulation. He gave information concerning the Omni-Means study, stating it was never intended to be a traffic study, but was used to place a cost with a needs list. It also identified current sources of funding. It did not establish a traffic study or a level of service. He felt the fee program which has been in effect since 1992 was working very well. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Shaw explained the fee of $1,179. She gave a report of what is in place at this time and what is proposed. She stated the fee of $1,179 covers only 50 percent of the cost of items on the needs 1/st prepared for the transportation impact fee project. It does not include arterials. It only includes the big items such as bridges, interchanges, grade separations, canal culverts, canal relocations, etc. In addition to the regional fee there is a local mitigation fee which is determined by a traffic study prepared for all developments. The local mitigation fee is payment for a proportionate share of improvements which are impacted by a particular development. If these items are also on the regional list their local mitigation fee is reduced accordingly. Developers can receive credit for improvements constructed which are also on the facilities list. They can only receive credit up to the percentage that the fee is based on. She said total mitigation is collected explaining some is collected at the map stage and some is collected at the permit stage. This will only cover developments which are covered by the general plan as it exists at this time. She explained if there are any general plan amendments or zone changes the new fee structure is not set up to cover these types of developments because the basis of the fee structure is the traffic model which is based on the land uses in the general plan. She explained the process of providing credits. The current facilities list is based on a traffic model using a reality network developed by the technical advisory committee which has been meeting off and on since about 1990. She explained the growth project was based on realistic historic numbers rather than what was reflected in the 2010 Plan. It was assumed that a road network would be in place to realistically handle all of the predicted traffic at level of service C. The list includes arterials, bridges and grade separations, however it does not include funding for freeways; this is covered by a State source. Since the facilities in the list are collected at 100 percent no supplemental funding is needed. She said a major retail requirement was put in place by the Commission several years ago which requires an infrastructure study for larger developments which reach a certain threshold; the new fee structure is subordinate to that. The City Council will receive this proposal as a base fee of $2,197 with an alternate adding some additional lane models to cover some collectors which would change the fee to $2,218 per single family residence. This is because problems have been experienced with some collectors which have been Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 4 caused by new development off-site which causes a gap in collectors. It was felt it would be appropriate for the new development to pay their proportionate share for the completion of these collectors. She gave a comparison of the existing and proposed fees for a 100 unit subdivision, a commercial shopping center and a general manufacturing center; copies of which she submitted to the commission. Mr. LaRochelle clarified examples that Ms. Shaw gave included developments which were located on arterial roads which would have the benefit of having construction of these roads credited back to them. If there was an internal subdivision they would still pay the higher fee and not receive credits. He responded to Commissioner Hersh's question concerning the adequacy of the fee saying the basis for this is that the fee coupled with ordinances to construct arterials, local mitigation traffic studies and funding sources from the State for major facilities made the fee as it is proposed adequate. If it were not handled in this manner it would not meet CEQA guidelines. He said staff has aggressively used this money to refund gas tax monies which were used to purchase freeway right-of-way for the Kern River Freeway, construct traffic signals, fund a major study and design for the Panama Lane interchange widening project, construct Calloway Drive, Coffee Road grade separation, five canal bridges on the Arvin- Edison Canal, intersection widening projects, etc. Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Mr. LaRochelle indicated the study only covers big items and not arterials because developers are already funding these. The 2010 growth projections were much higher than reality has shown them to be. Future general plan amendments and zone changes would have to provide a major traffic study to show what impacts they have on the existing system and a proportionate share may have to be paid over and above the regional fee. The model is based on the current land use; any change in land use would have either a negative or positive effect on the model. Ms. Shaw gave information concerning the make-up of the technical advisory committee. Mr. LaRochelle responded to question stating the city is looking into alternatives in the fee program as an interim measure until the freeway is in place. Commissioner Hersh felt this fee is "too little, too late." He stated in reviewing the Omni-Means study he discovered a shortfall of $50 million of what is necessary and what is proposed to be collected with the $1,179 fee. He questioned the adequacy of the proposed impact fee. Commissioner Hersh stated he is bothered because the committee has been reviewing this issue for approximately 3 years and the commission has never been represented. Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 5 Mr. Mclntosh responded to Commissioner Hersh's comments concerning his review of the Omni-Means report stating they were using CalTrans costs from 1990 which are now lower. Costs of land; are also now much lower. He also stated the mass transit funding picture has changed with the Federal Program of Ice Tea. He said they looked at this issue again with today's costs anticipating a half cent sales tax. After this time they realized the 1/2 cent sales tax would probably not come to pass. New development does not increase the population at the same rate as natural population growth. Discussion continued regarding the requirements as set forth in the Omni-Means study. Mr. LaRochelle explained how the fee was reached. He said 3/4 of the needs list cost is for freeway construction. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. LaRochelle said they have looked at comparable cities with respect to fees, stating he could make this information available to the commission. Commissioner Boyle felt looking at fees from other cities may not be helpful unless they have the same needs list, dollar amount and a similar growth pattern. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. LaRochelle stated this fee program does not identify alternative forms of transportation. Ms. Shaw said the currently proposed fee program has a transit cost identified which is included in the fee basis. It also includes a transit cost which primarily is identified as funding for the GET bus system. Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Boyle that the first reading by the Council on this issue will be March 6, 1996. This being a joint fee program the county must also adopt it by the Board of Supervisors before it can become effective which they have slated for April. 'Ms. Shaw responded to question by Mr. Boyle saying she could provide copies of maps which would provide a visual comparison with respect to the needs list, proposed plan and existing program. Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Mr. Boyle, saying commercial is paying fees also; he gave information concerning rates which each type of commercial pays. He stated it appears that the fee amount for commercial seems low, however the trip generation impact is not very significant. The majority of the impact is caused by residential development. Mr. McIntosh said a goOd portion of residential trips are being attracted to business. The advisory committee was concerned that the businesses and industries not be overloaded because without jobs there will be no people buying homes. It was agreed the residential costs would be raised slightly so that the commercial fee could be kept at a minimum. Mr. LaRochelle clarified for Commissioner Brady that essentially there will be no difference in when the fee is paid; no portion of the fee being paid at time of recordation of the tract map. Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 6 Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Tavorn that the city is aggressively attacking some "hot spots" with respect to levels of service of traffic flow, giving information concerning what is being done in specific areas. Discussion continued between Ms. Marino and Commissioner Tavorn concerning previous traffic problems. Ms. Marino said the impact fee cannot be used to address problems which existed before its adoption. Mr. LaRochelle said planning decisions with regard to circulation have been made causing problems which the city has to live with. Discussion continued regarding levels of service for traffic. Commissioner Dhanens thanked staff and Mr. Mclntosh for the work they have done on this issue. Responding to a question by him, Ms. Marino stated these types of ordinances are not required to be reviewed by the commission. It would be at the council's discretion that the commission review it. Mr. Hardisty responded to question by Chairman Andrew saying this issue had come before the Commission for previous review. He stated the new policy does not void the facilities evaluation on a major project. This ordinance would stay in place and would require the traffic studies for large commercial projects. Responding to question by Commissioner Dhanens, Mr. LaRochelle said the major retail ordinance would still exist and would require traffic studies. Responding to request by Commissioner Dhanens, Ms. Shaw explained the supplemental mitigation fee. The new fee would provide for this without the need for a traffic study to be performed. She gave an estimate of $237 million for total of fee funding needs list. Commissioner Hersh stated he was not convinced that what is being done is adequate. He felt the city should be sure that the new impact fee is adequate because problems created now cannot be addressed in the future. The community infrastructure is not adequate. He was concerned that this impact fee was generated without a lot of public input. He stated he wanted to see a lot more public input and outside expertise. Commissioner Boyle stated if there have been no intersections that have degraded from C to levels D or F since imposition of the fee, however if some have been degrading there is an argument that the fee needs to be looked at with respect to adequacy. Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Boyle saying it has been a consideration of the city to pay a larger share of the crosstown freeway so that it could be built sooner; however in addressing these concerns with the State, it was indicated that the percentage would not matter with respect to the time frame. The city cannot build a smaller road with the State turning it into a freeway at a later date. He told the commission the city could begin construction but must meet CalTrans standards. This proposed fee provides a source of funding to construct this freeway. Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 7 Commissioner Brady felt if problems exist in portions of the city, the city as a whole should pay for them and not new development. He felt if opposition precludes a freeway along the river, future problems will arise. To avoid problems such as with Stockdale and California Avenue the city needs to ensure that freeways and expressways are built at this time. 9. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Andrew stated the commission had received a letter from DeWalt Corporation. It seems to be completely different than what the Commission was told by the City Attorney at the last meeting. He felt perhaps there needed to be a future item placed on the agenda in order to allow clarification, of the issues surrounding the future development of Riverlakes Ranch. Ms. Marino stated it was her understanding Ms. Skousen had written a response to Mr. DeWalt's letter and felt this could be provided to the commission. She stated she would pass this concern on to Ms. Skousen. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady stated he would follow up with the code enforcement section of the Building Department concerning possible maintenance and clean-up of oil pumping units in the southwest area. Commissioner Boyle stated the subdivision committee is continuing to work on the small lot issue and related ordinances and in order to make faster progress they have increased their meeting schedule to twice per month beginning in March. A. Committees Minutes, PC, 2/15/96 Page 8 11.DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 12. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady stated the meetings of March 4th and 7th would be canceled for lack of agenda items. He stated 4 items were scheduled for the meeting of March 21st. Commissioner Boyle stated it had been a long time since the commission has held a pre-meeting and he would prefer that it not be canceled. He asked that the information concerning the transportation impact fee be delivered to the commission since the next meetings would be canceled. Pre-meeting of March 18, 1996 was not canceled. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director