Loading...
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