HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/90 MINUTES RA77
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Central
District Development Agency of the City of Bakersfield,
California, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501
Truxtun Avenue, at 3:00 p.m., February 5, 1990.
Paynter.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson
City Clerk Williams called the roll as follows:
Present:
Absent:
Agency Members Paynter, Kronenberg,
Watson, Araujo
Agency Member Killmer
Dunnt Rubin,
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Charles Drew, 1401 19th Street, President of the
Downtown Business Association, spoke regarding the Parking
Ordinance and stated that the Downtown Business Association
participated in the meetings to work out a compromise on that
Ordinance. They have reviewed all information and have no
problems with anything in the proposed parking Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent
Calendar:
(a)
Approval of Warrant Nos. 0192 to
0216, inclusive, in the amount of
$74,820.49.
(b) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
January 2, 1990, for approval.
(c)
Notice of Final Completion for
the Civic Auditorium Expansion
and Remodel.
(d)
Design Review Application
No. 90-1 submitted by Gay Thurber
of "The Daily Report" to approve
signage on the front door of the
business located at 1705 "K"
Street.
Agency Member Kronenberg asked staff to clarify
Warrant No. 0192 for 1085 19th Street. This is one of the
buildings on the Unreinforced Masonry List, and he questioned
why the City is spending facade money.
Economic Development Director Jake Wager responded
that a memo was issued to staff putting a hold on the facade
program until resolution of the URM issue. He stated a letter
of commitment was sent to the owners of the property in June of
1989 before the draft ordinance had been prepared, and Warrant
No. 0192 is a follow-up to the commitment.
Agency Member Kronenberg asked about Warrant
No. 0203, which is the asbestos abatement at the Civic
Auditorium Ticket Booth.
Staff stated that this Warrant is the final payment
of a contract. This is the 10 percent retention on the
contract.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 Page 2
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, Items a,
b, c, and d of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Agency Members Araujo, Dunn,
Rubin Watson
None
None
Agency Member Killmer
Kronenberg,
Paynter,
REPORTS
Agency Member Watson, Chairperson of the Development
Committee, read Report NO. 90-1 regarding Proposed City-Wide
and Central District Parking Ordinance as follows:
On January 5, 1990, the Development
Committee of the Central District
Development Agency completed its rather
extensive review of the proposed City-wide
and Central District Parking Ordinance.
This ordinance has been under development
for over two years and has been a combined
effort of the Planning Department and the
Economic Development Department with
assistance from the Downtown Business
Association, Chamber of Commerce, Board of
Realtors, Golden Empire Transit District
and various developers.
The proposed Parking Ordinance is intended
to be City-wide in scope and will amend
Chapter 17.58 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code. There are a number of significant
provisions directed at the "Central
District" within the proposed ordinance.
The following is a description of those
provisions and a comparison of the change
between the existing and the proposed
ordinance.
1. The in-lieu parking has been
removed from the Downtown.
e
A separate parking schedule for
each land use has been prepared
for the Downtown.
The proposed Downtown Ordinance
separates motels from hotels.
Hotels require 1 space per unit
plus 1/2 space per employee with
meeting and banquet rooms
requiring additional parking
based upon 1 space per 200 square
feet. Motels require 1 space per
unit plus one space for the
manager's dwelling, if any.
79
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 3
Vt
10.
The proposed Downtown Ordinance
separates churches, sports
centers and theaters. Churches
require 1 space for each 4 seats
in any assembly area; stadiums
and sports centers require 1
space for each 6 seats; and
theatres and auditoriums require
1 space for each 4 seats up to
1,000 seats, and 1 space for each
10 seats in excess of 1,000
seats.
There are two categories
established by the proposed
Downtown Ordinance that are not
referenced in our existing code.
They are: secondary and post
secondary schools in museums and
similar cultural centers.
The term "central district" in
the proposed Downtown Ordinance
means the "central traffic
district" as described in
Section 10.08.020(f) of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code. The
old central district boundary was
defined as the Redevelopment Plan
Study Area boundary.
Required off-street parking
spaces for all uses other than
dwellings can now be located
within a walking distance of
1 , 000 feet (New Downtown
Ordinance) as compared to 500
feet in the old ordinance.
Compact and tandem parking spaces
have been removed from the new
Downtown Ordinance and the
City-wide Ordinance, except where
they may be allowed by
modification through the Board of
Zoning Adjustment.
The full size parking space
dimension (Downtown and
City-wide) has been changed from
a minimum of 8-1 /2 feet by
20 feet to a minimum of 9 feet by
18 feet.
Provision has been added
(Downtown and City-wide) for
shared use parking where two or
more land uses may use the same
parking because the peak hours of
operation vary, thereby reducing
the overall parking requirements.
80
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 4
11.
Parking ratios (Downtown and
City-wide) will be determined on
a "gross floor area" instead of a
net floor area. The ratios have
been adjusted to take into
account the additional floor
space.
12.
The existing Downtown "core area"
and "extended core area"
provisions for reduced parking
are eliminated from the new
Downtown Ordinance.
In conclusion, it is the Development
Committee's recommendation that the Central
District Development Agency support this
ordinance and recommend its adoption to the
City Council.
Agency Member Watson made a motion to accept
Development Committee Report No. 90-1.
Agency Member Kronenberg read the following comments:
General Observations:
The current revision of the City's parking
ordinance is a good example of consensus
building. It represents a negotiated
position between City staff and local
business interests. It appears to provide
for adequate parking downtown.
This revision has served to clean up some
of the inconsistencies in the current
ordinance. Downtown requirements and
City-wide requirements by-in-large have
been brought into conformity.
The revision appears to implement the
parking goals and objectives of the current
general plan and the proposed 2010 General
Plan.
The revision appears to meet the
"workability" test that every ordinance
should be measured by. Staff has indicated
that this revision will be subject to
additional refinement after adoption by the
City Council.
The revision, however, does not address
parking availability as a factor in
generating vehicle trips and vehicle miles
traveled. While it reserves space in
Section 17.58.055 for transit offsets, the
contemplated rules do not cover the
spectrum of policy-making that can
significantly impact our worsening air
quality.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 5
Ordinances implement general plan goals,
objectives and policies. A review of the
2010 General Plan parking section shows
that the draft is silent on using parking
availability as a tool to improve air
quality. A review of the street
circulation and transit sections reveals a
similar silence. Only in the air quality
section of the Conservation component are
goals and objectives set, and these
generally just encourage improvement. If
Kern County, and Bakersfield by
implication, are to meet the California
Clean Air Act attainment goals, then
further thought needs to be given to using
all the planning tools available to local
government.
Specific Comments:
The ordinance needs a map or a description
of the "new" central district.
An administrative conflict is present
between the Board of Zoning Adjustment and
the Agency on the issue of compact parking
requests and review authority for central
district parking garages. It is unclear
which body has the final say on garage
compliance with ordinance criteria or can
issue a waiver. The impact on Agency
projects including parking structures is
unclear and needs to be clarified.
The "findings" to support a waiver from
garage criteria need defining.
The parking formula for bowling alleys is
understated; the formula for golf courses
is overstated; and the formula for medical
offices is overstated.
While government usually exempts itself
from its own regulations, I think that the
Agency should insist on an "advisory"
formula since one of the chief land use
designations in the project area is
government. There is no reason that
federal, state, city and county entities
should not plan for appropriate parking.
While the ordinance should move along, I
feel that the Agency's recommendation
should strongly encourage prompt technical
cleanup and air quality mitigations be
included.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Dunn, the
recommendations of Development Committee Report No. 90-1 and
the statements by Agency Member Kronenberg were implemented.
The motion by Agency Member Watson to accept
Development Committee Report No. 90-1 was approved.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 6
Agency Member Kronenberg, Chairperson of the Design
Review Committee, read Report No. 90-1 regarding an application
submitted by California Water Service for approval of new pump
house, site plan, architecture, landscaping, materials and
colors at 2116 "N" Street as follows:
On January 29, 1990, the Design Review
Committee reviewed an application by
California Water Service for approval of a
new pump house, site plan, architecture,
landscaping, materials, and colors.
Specifically, the project will consist of a
new pump house building, auxiliary
emergency generator, fence and landscaping
of the existing water well site. The slump
stone building will be painted an adobe
color. Landscaping will consist of grass
and variety of shrubs and various trees
situated on the front of the site facing
"N" Street. The final street landscaping
plan has been reserved until a decision on
how to reconfigure the sidewalks has been
made. Unless the site plan review
addresses the noise impact of the emergency
generator, California Water Service must
furnish a decibel profile. The company is
also required to coordinate testing times
with adjacent residents. City Public Works
Department, in cooperation with the
contractor, and the Design Review
Committee, will formulate a recommendation.
The Committee recommends that the Agency
approve this application.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, Design
Review Committee Report No. 90-1 was accepted.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Watson, the
recommendations of Design Review Committee Report No. 90-1 were
implemented.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 7
Agency Member Kronenberg, Chairperson of the Design
Review Committee, read Report No. 90-2 regarding an application
submitted by Truxtun Radiology for an addition to the building
located at 1817 Truxtun Avenue as follows:
The Design Review Committee on January 29,
1990, reviewed an application by Truxtun
Radiology for a building addition to a
structure located at 1817 Truxtun Avenue.
Specifically, the project will consist of a
1,260 square foot building addition to be
located directly south of the existing
medical building on Truxtun Avenue. The
architecture, materials, and color will be
identical to the existing building, which
is white in color. The Committee suggested
use of "off-white." The existing
landscaping, consisting of mature trees and
shrubs located on the perimeter of the rear
surface parking lot, will be retained. A
landscape plan and site elevations are
required as a condition of approval
including adequate night lighting for the
parking lot.
The Committee recommends approval by the
Agency including all conditions required in
Site Plan Review #1380 for a Class "C"
Project.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, Design
Review Committee Report No. 90-2 was accepted.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, the
recommendations of Design Review Committee Report No. 90-2 were
implemented.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 8
Agency Member Kronenberg, Chairperson of the Design
Review Committee, read Report No. 90-3 regarding an application
submitted by Wells Fargo Bank for signage, landscaping, and
change of color to a building located at 1300 22nd Street as
follows:
The Design Review Committee on January 29,
1990, reviewed an application by wells
Fargo Bank for new signage, landscaping
improvements adjacent to the perimeter
streets and parking lot, and change of
building color to a structure located at
1300 22nd Street.
Specifically, the existing full-service
bank building will receive a new entry
addition to the north elevation with
extensive landscaping at this entrance and
throughout the surface parking lot. The
parking lot immediately north of the
entrance will be resurfaced and stripped.
The parking lot trees will be Chinese
Evergreen Elms. In addition, all existing
street trees on 22nd, 23rd, and "L" Streets
will be replaced with 36" box Flowering
Plum "Krauter Vesuvius" Trees. The trees
are tentatively set to be located inboard
of the existing sidewalk due to its narrow
width; however, Public Works should discuss
with the architect and the owner the
possibility of altering the sidewalk
configuration to permit installation of
trees along the curb as our guidelines
usually call for downtown. The building
will be painted grey in color.
The Committee recommends Agency approval of
this application including all conditions
described in Site Plan Review #1384.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, Design
Review Committee Report No. 90-3 was accepted.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Kronenberg, the
recommendations of Design Review Committee Report No. 90-3 were
implemented.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 Page 9
NEW BUSINESS
Financial Feasibility Study conducted by
williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates for the
Downtown Convention Hotel.
Mr. Larry Williams, Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates,
Inc., provided a summary of the Financial Feasibility Analysis
of Hotel Development and Operating Options for Bakersfield
Convention Center Hotel prepared by Williams-Kuebelbeck &
Associates. He recommended that the City seriously consider
completing the project itself under a public borrowing where
the City retains ownership of the asset, both the land and the
building. He suggested not going into another lease with the
developer, but enacting an operating agreement/lease with a
hotel operating company and get that company in the
negotiations and hopefully there would be enough to negotiate
to where they would participate in the capital cost of the
project. That might well be in the area of what is called FF&E
(furniture, fixtures and equipment), or it might be a further
participation. This would have to be negotiated once the City
has selected competitively an operating company. He suggested
that part of this program is to have the construction
management company handle the work for the City as the City's
representative.
Chairperson Paynter stated for the record that the
Central District Development Agency did not have a part in
developing the DDA (Disposition and Development Agreement) for
the hotel. It was done before the formation of the Central
District Development Agency.
Chairperson Paynter recommended that the Agency
members have the opportunity to read the report and the
questions in writing prior to the February 22, 1990, meeting
and let the staff meet again with the consultants and then have
a study session.
Chairperson Paynter stated that the report would be
forwarded to the City Council by February 7, 1990.
Upon a motion by Agency Member Watson, the Financial
Feasibility Analysis of Hotel Development and Operating Options
for Bakersfield Convention Center Hotel report was accepted.
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 10
AGENCY STATEMENTS
Agency Member Kronenberg read the following:
Mr. Chairman, my comments might be titled
"Thinking Big." As the Agency is no doubt
aware, various factions in Kern County are
putting together plans to attract a
University of California campus to this
area. Efforts are being made by private
citizens, corporations and a public task
force.
It appears that the litmus test for
securing a UC campus goes beyond choosing
the appropriate geographic location to
serve the residents of California. What is
really required is the commitment of local
resources, both public and private,
principally in donated land and capital
improvements.
So far, everyone is aware that Mr. George
Nickel has a site under consideration
northeast of town and that Tejon Ranch has
entered the game with several potential
sites in the southern portion of the
county.
One potential site has not received any
consideration--the Agency's project area.
As we go forward with the revision to our
redevelopment element, it is essential that
a land use designation for a UC campus be
discussed. With the Agency's considerable
development powers--site acquisition,
financing, construction of public
facilities--and its need to revitalize
downtown, how can we pass up this
opportunity? Most of the infrastructure is
already in place which would save
considerable costs to the county if another
site is chosen. The risk could be
enormous, but a UC campus downtown would be
the magnet for private investment that we
have been struggling toward.
I would recommend that the chair assign the
feasibility of such an endeavor to the
Development Committee. Time,
unfortunately, is not on our side, since I
think February is the time frame for the UC
consultants to make some sort of
determination on which location, perhaps
just which county within their central area
that they are looking at, but the idea
needs review.
Chairperson Paynter referred this matter to
Development Committee.
the Urban
87
Bakersfield, California, February 5, 1990 - Page 11
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Agency, upon a motion by Agency Me~er Watson, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m. / ; / /
CHAIRPERSON of tM Central District Development
Agency of the Cindy of Bakersfield
ATTEST:
SECRETARY of the Central District Development
Agency of the City of Bakersfield
kdsc