Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 20, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2005 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of November 4 and 18, 2004. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approve continuance to February 3, 2005 of Vesting Tentative Tract 6421 Optional Design (Phased) (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approve continuance to February 17, 2005 of Zone Change No. 04-1508 (DeWalt Corp) (Ward 4) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6362 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 7) Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the projects. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Parcel Map 11192 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report including two memorandums dated January 19 — one from the Planning Department and one from the Public Works Department. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff`s recommendation. Roger McIntosh, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the staff report and concur with the recommendation including the two memorandums dated January 19, 2005 concerning some of the conditions. Mr. McIntosh said there are three access points on Stockdale Highway equally spaced on the frontage of Stockdale from Jewetta to Allen Road. There will also be one additional access point off of Jewetta and an additional access point on Allen Road and one off of San Juan which is north of the site. A signal is currently planned and designed to go at San Juan and Allen Road. It is currently out for bid and construction will start very shortly. That was a condition of approval of tract 6250 to the north. The six points of access will also allow access in and out of the site and will have common access easements/agreements between and along all 14 parcels behind the buildings so we will have good circulation and flow in and out of the site. We feel that the six access points will provide enough access for the traffic that is to be generated. They calculate about 570 trips. That equates to approximately 60 trips per peak hour. So, with the six access points, they feel there will be about 10 trips during peak hour per access. Mr. McIntosh stated he is ready to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Movius to point out on the map where the existing signal is at Jewetta, where parcels 8 and 9 are along Stockdale and where there will be another access point. Commissioner Lomas said her concern is access to parcels 8 and 9. The left turn worm into the parcel to the south goes into a school site and a couple times a day the stacking lane is full and it spills over onto Stockdale Highway. The left turn lane has parked cars on it. It is an existing problem and her concern has to do with bringing more traffic which could create an unsafe environment. She would like a signal put in. Mr. Walker said that basically we prefer fewer signals as possible and to his knowledge none is planned for this location and to his knowledge none has been asked for. If the development did ask for a signal, they would have to perform a traffic and engineering study involving synchronization of the signals to be sure that we could fit it in —to see if this location would actually work for a signal —so it would not impede the traffic. One of the greatest congestion problems we have is signals. We prefer to have fewer signals where possible. He feels what would be more appropriate at this location would be a lengthening of the turn lane. Commissioner Lomas said the existing problem is access to the parcel to the south — not to the applicant's parcel and wondered if that can be a requirement to deal with that turn lane when it is not accessing his parcel? Mr. Walker said that does not have an actual nexus to this project. If it is becoming a problem, it is something the city would have to take hold of and mitigate. He does not think this development would have anything to do with that turn problem. Commissioner Lomas asked staff to come up with some sort of idea for a solution. There is a problem there and adding more traffic to it she feels will make a larger problem. Commissioner Tragish asked if a condition is put on the project if it would have to have something to do with health, safety and welfare to which Mr. Movius agreed. Mr. Movius also said that it would have to have some relationship to this project. The remedy for this problem is Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 3 to refer the matter to staff so that it can be looked at and a report made back to the Commission. Commissioner Tragish asked what kind of showing would have to be made in order to develop the nexus that approving this project would increase traffic in a situation where Commissioner Lomas believes is developing into an unsafe condition? Mr. Movius said the evidence right now is it is a pre-existing condition that with the developer having the land completely vacant, there is still a problem there. He does not know if there has been a showing that this developer would add any traffic to that left turn lane that would make it worse than it already is. The remedy would be to lengthen the left turn lane. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Shaw that if this is referred to staff to lengthen that left turn lane, how long would the procedure take? Mr. Walker said the analysis would take about 2 to 4 weeks. As far as implementing it with city work crews, it would have to be a capital improvement project which would have to have a request for funding. There are no funds at this moment to implement this project. He suspects it would be later on in the year after the new budget is approved. Commissioner Gay said he is not in favor of a signal and this location. He feels the signal is the responsibility of the school. It is not the applicant's responsibility. Condition 13 gives the school an opportunity to talk to staff, do the signal and the study in addition to an immediate need would be to extend the channelization to help the high school right now. Commissioner Gay said he has a concern about signage and asked Mr. McIntosh how they managed the signage for the River Walk project and if it would be the same here? Mr. McIntosh said it will be very similar to that. They have a program they have been working on to emulate that kind of spacing and signage opportunity. Commissioner Gay asked if it would be acceptable to have a comprehensive sign plan so that he and staff can work it out? Mr. McIntosh said that would be acceptable. Commissioner Gay said he would like to add to the motion a comprehensive sign plan to make it attractive to the community. Commissioner Spencer said regarding Ms. Lomas concerns, he feels this should be held over for staff to look at or he would be in favor of lengthening the turn lane. He said it is a concern that this is a bad situation right now. Commissioner Lomas said she would like to refer this matter to staff. Staff said o.k. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if they will report back to the Commission and when? Ms. Shaw said sometime in the next two months. Mr. Walker said that since they have been made aware there is a problem (whether it comes from the Commission or general public) it will be part of our work list of things to study and they will have it studied and checked out and bring up some ideas of how and when they can mitigate the problem. The results of the study will come back in the form of written communication. Commissioner Gay asked who determines what length the turn lane will be when the median is put in? Ms. Shaw said it is put in according to city standards. A longer staging area can be requested if a problem is anticipated. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11192 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and incorporating the memorandum from the Planning Director dated January 19, 2005, the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated January 19, 2005, referring to staff the problem of the left turn lane at this location, adding a comprehensive sign plan prior to Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 4 the first building permit to this project and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley , Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6362 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 7) See Consent Calendar 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6421 Optional Design (Phased) (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 3) See Consent Calendar 7. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change No. 04-1508 (DeWalt Corp) (Ward 4) See Consent Calendar 8. 2005 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Review of Planning Department operations, Planning Commission workload and new year challenges. (Staff presentation) James Movius, Planning Director, said this is an informational presentation regarding growth, workload and alignment with City Council policies. The following is his verbal presentation. Slides accompanied many of the statements. Right now, Bakersfield is in a huge growth boom (slide). We are adding 13,000 people a year. Urbanization is taking up about 3 square miles per year and we issue about 350 building permits per month. Our Building Inspection department is doing 400 different types of inspections everyday on development projects. All sectors are developing. The southeast has several tracts going in which is great news. We haven't seen that in the past. All four quadrants are developing tracts on the fringe but there is also tons of infill happening. The Commission doesn't normally see that because it is on existing lots. All sectors of the city are experiencing excellent infill growth. Everything in this presentation affects the Commission and the things they do. The Planning Department is divided up into three sections: 1) Current Planning basically does subdivisions and zone changes, 2) Advance Planning does the GPA cycles and annexations and 3) Permitting and Zoning which is our counter section. Current Planning right now has 50 tracts in various stages of processing (slide). There are 95 active tentative tracts which all require care and feeding as they record different phases and come in for consistency checks with staff and work through their conditions of approval. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 5 We are working on 36 annexations in Advance Planning and 27 general plan amendments. Our Permit and Zoning section at any one time has about 21 projects with CUPs, Modifications, Parcel Map Waivers and Lot Line Adjustments. They do about 150 other types of permits per month along with the counter and phone calls. Right now we are involved nine different environmental impact reports (slide). In past years we might have one or zero or maybe three. The first one is the one the Commission took comments on at their last meeting. The total of these add up to over 6,000 acres of land which is over 10 square miles of development on projects where we have EIRs going that will be before the Commission. We also have several special projects (slide) — the Air Quality issue is before a Council committee trying to work on that to resolve those issues. Staff is working on a Sphere of Influence expansion which will, if approved, put a lot of area out to our general plan boundaries within our sphere. We are working on several development agreements with different developers. The Parks and Trails Plan is being implemented. We are working with McAlister Ranch, Pacificana and Pulte to work with them to try to get them in the city. Pacificana is the large one that goes out to I-5. We are constantly working on implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan. We have had a lot of appeals in the last year (slide). The slide on the screen shows the number of appeals that were taken before City Council last year. It groups them by issue. The top of the list is air quality and seven regarding access and circulation. We had two projects denied by the Commission based on premature ag conversion. Both of those were denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council approved them. Vesting Rights Extensions are still in committee at City Council. Application completeness will go by the wayside as a lot of them dealt with City in the Hills which has taken a different approach now. Limits on units went to Council, one on oil field conversion, density or lot issues and the pedestrian bridge issue. Basically, what it worked out to was about 32 percent of the appeals were the air quality issue — the Sierra Club and Renee Denato Nelson. Access and circulation issues made up 25 percent. We have three professional planners in each of the three divisions (slide). Except right now. In the Permitting and Zoning section one position has not been filled because of budget restraints in the past and one Associate Planner left to Shafter. In the Advance Planning section one associate left for Shafter and we have one that will retire in May. We have a third less staff than we had five years ago in the department and there is a tremendous amount of workload right now. This means slower processing time (slide). We used to process a tract map in less than two months. Now that is four and five months. A subdivision application file used to be about 1/2 inch thick. Now they are all about three inches thick and the Commission has to read most of what is in those files. Fewer issues get resolved. During the last general plan cycle, there was a project on Snow Road that had a lot of design issues. That issue was known to staff a couple months before hand. We informed the developer that they needed to meet with the people in the area and resolve those issues and as I recall the night of the meeting the developer walked in and said they had met with the people the night before. That is not too good. That puts the Commission in the position that those issues are unresolved at that point. We used to be able to shepherd those projects more. Now we do expect the developers in controversial projects to handle a lot of those controversies themselves. The trouble is that every engineer in and out of town is swamped too. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 6 So, often, they are late in getting to those issues. Mistakes will be made. As you could tell during the last GPA cycle, you didn't see the happy go lucky Marc Gauthier that you usually see fighting for different projects. You could tell he had been punched in the ribs a few times and the Commission was finding mistakes in the staff reports because of cut and paste and computers and stuff and it wasn't a happy time. But that will happen when you overload a staff with as much work as we have. The Commission has the same problem. They have a huge, difficult job to do. There is a tremendous amount of reading material that is getting thicker every week with the number of studies that we do and the number of issues that are out there. There is some help on the way (slide). We are in the process of hiring at least one interim consulting service that will take over some of the large EIR projects that we have to help keep those on schedule and shepherd them through. We do have fliers out now for Associate Planners. Depending on how things go, we will be hiring anywhere from three to five associate planners off that list. We are headed in that direction. We have an in-house promotional Principal Planner recruitment that will probably start in a week so we will elevate another one of the Associate Planners to the vacant Principal Planner position that we now have. Related to all of these subjects is this goal (slide). Every Planning Commission handbook on how to be a Planning Commissioner will tell you that you need to have an alignment between your City Council, your Planning Commission and your staff. We have to all be on the same burner—for at least the big picture things. Council direction right now to deal with this growth is to accommodate this growth and allow it (slide). In order to do that, the books will also tell you that you need to follow Council policy and precedent. Staff tries to setup Council policy for you as far as how it relates to the general plan in the staff reports. Precedent is — and I am going to be blunt here — when you deny two ag conversion projects and they approve them — that's precedence. It is in fact precedent. If we send it up there and they overturn it, with this amount of growth, with the amount of acreage I just mentioned, with the maps that I gave you that shows all of the subdivisions on the perimeters, there is a lot of pressure for outward expansion and it is going to take up agricultural land. They directed staff to expand the sphere and annex property so it develops in the city and not in the county. I have a stack 10 inches thick of county projects that have come over to me because they send it to us (because they are close to the city, they are required to by law) that are all urban development in county areas. Pacificana and McAlister Ranch will develop whether it is in the city or whether it is in the county. Ted James said two weeks ago that the county has about 1,000 lots in the county in the northwest part of town and they are on septic tanks. That stuff that is on septic tanks should be in the city on sewers. The city has a higher level of service to provide citizens and we can provide it more efficiently. Growth should be happening in the city — not the county. We have competition with Shafter and the county for urbanization. The development market is so hot right now that it will occur in the county. It would do absolutely no good to draw urban growth boundaries around the city right now. If we said lets stop where we are or let's take Panama Lane or lets take the existing Sphere or the existing city limits and just stop. It wouldn't stop development. It would still be occurring under lesser standards. This is the sphere of influence map (on the screen) that Stanley Grady is working on. All of the colored property is what we are eventually going to try to add. I don't know if we will get that because LAFCO looks at things a bit different than we do. That is also where the development is growing. Pacificana and McAlister Ranch are talking with the city right now about development agreements and how to get into the city. But they are playing us against the county. They are also trying to determine what the county will give them. You can't blame them. If you are a Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 7 developer, that is what you do. How are we going to obtain and maintain this alignment between the City Council, staff and Planning Commission (slide)? One way is through workshops like this and information exchange. The Commissioners have their own jobs and are busy and here every two weeks and they get a snapshot picture when a binder is dumped on you and you really don't know that Stanley is out there doing a sphere of influence amendment and that we've got development agreement negotiations with developers that the Commission won't see but the City Council does. I would like to try to get some guest speakers. I heard an excellent one a few weeks ago on air quality and how it is affected by urban growth. The type of growth we do. If I can get that person here I think it will be real helpful. The subdivision tracking map (on the screen) shows there are 95 subdivisions and their location. This is our most popular selling map in the city. We sell tons of these things to developers and marketing folk. The stuff in the southeast is nice to see for the first time in a lot of years. We are going to do our best to get the Planning Commission to the Planning Commissioner's Institute April 13 through the 15th. That is a good time to go and see what other staffs are doing for other Commissions. What other people that have been doing it for years to see if what I am telling you is correct—that you need to be aligned with your Council. Also, access to your Planning Director — I would rather on the day of the meeting gather up a bunch of maps and drive out to your office and meet with you than have you come down here and feel uncomfortable about making some decision that night. You guys are good about calling me. I really encourage that. The heads up I get by a-mails or by phone calls. Even if I can't respond to them, I can at least be thinking about them on the way over here and maybe have some ideas about how to approach issues. Don't ever feel you are going to inconvenience me because you are my priority and I want to make sure when you get here that you are ready to do business and you feel comfortable doing it. If not, we will continue something or try to get answers one way or the other. That is all I had. I appreciate your time and I will certainly take questions. Commissioner Gay said they realize that staff is working as fast as they can. He is never one to want more meetings but he thinks they have lost some contact and staff lost the "heads up"when we lost the pre-meetings. Commissioner Spencer said he has a question on the policy under Council direction where it says that we must follow Council policy and precedent. To him this reflects back that we as a Commission — if we feel that a project shouldn't be approved — but then when it gets to Council and its reversed and they approve it — then we are then obligated to follow their approval. So, where is the planning, where is the planning coming then — why are we here? I mean, if they overturn us and we are thinking about a planning project and we have good justifications for approval of a project and then — I don't know if politics are coming in to play— but... why should we then on every project thereafter follow what the Council did? And, it is a planning issue with me in that I just feel that Council disregards our recommendation. How do we sit up here as Commissioners and say "oh well, they are going to turn it down, might as well go ahead and approve it." I don't know if I am making myself very clear but it's a matter that if they overturn our decision, then we are obligated in the future to approve any precedence setting project. That's my only problem with this matter you are presenting. Because I think it is great and I feel that you have done a very excellent job in presenting it to us but I didn't like the idea of someone just simply being able to say "well, I don't care what you guys say, I am going to approve it anyway." I am through Mr. Movius. I just wanted to vent a little bit. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Tragish said I don't know if Mr. Movius is going to touch that one but I would like to say something that my understanding is of course the City Council is elected by the people of Bakersfield and we are appointed to serve the City Council to review these projects as they come through in their behalf and to give our report to them. I understand that they set precedent and they set policy and that is part of our job to implement that and I believe that is what we should be doing. I think there is a dividing line here that I kind of hear Mr. Spencer alluding to. I don't think the City Council wants us to turn our brains inside out and not utilize it. I think what they are saying is that they have made decisions regarding particular items or practices or items of development they want followed and they want to see them implemented since we are basically serving pursuant to their appointment. I also believe that they want us to apply the policies and general plan as we believe they should be applied and that what we think the City Council intended us to do. The only thing I hear Mr. Spencer saying - and kind of sometimes I quiz - is that its possible for a Commissioner to disagree with the policy of the City Council and if does, or she does, and they have to make a distinguishment why that policy doesn't apply in that particular case and I believe that's what the Commissioners have tried to do in the past. I don't think any Commissioners have ever flagrantly said "I'm not going to follow City Council policy or practice." If we see something and we can distinguishment why it doesn't apply — then we do that. Then, lastly, I have said many times reasonable people disagree and City Council are the elected officials and if they determine they don't agree with us, I respect that. So—that is kind of my take on it. Commissioner Gay said he can understand Mr. Spencer's feeling. I think — to staff too — it is interesting when an applicant — maybe out of jest — tells you they don't worry about what we do because they'll just go to Council and get what they want and that makes you question why you are here. But to John I would tell you that in some of those that we have overturned, if you haven't watched the Council meeting that night, I am amazed about how much more information that applicant finally has and presents to staff and they get their act together when they come to Council with information that we weren't given and they are much better prepared. So, yes we may have turned it down but I look back—other than screaming at the TV that night—we weren't given that information. I find that on some of those situations when the Council does overturn it, they were presented much more information in a better package and a more formable presentation than we were ever given. It is like they come in with a minimal amount that they can get by with sometimes and that's where we get sideways sometimes to that. That's my only comment Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Ellison said thank you to Mr. Movius for his presentation. He said he was given a book when he first started the Planning Commission on doing the job of a Planning Commissioner. In that book it was described the job of a Planning Commissioner and outlined the duties that we should be following the general plan, the ordinances and so on and that the Planning Commission is free of politics. And so, when you showed us the list of items that were overturned, in particular the ag land conversion —two projects that were overturned — I feel that the Commission at that time was doing their job, brought issues to light, but now that we know what the City Council wants in terms of ag land conversion and expansion of the city, we will take that into account but the underlying thing I will be looking at is the general plan policies. You mentioned that we need to have an alignment between the City Council, staff and the Planning Commission and you mentioned that it is well documented in the literature. If you have that type of literature I would like to read that so I can be better in tune with that alignment process. The case of the ag land conversion — it took two cases for us to finally really truly outline what the City Council wanted — so perhaps that alignment is not just a one way street. We need to get feedback from the City Council other than a form of an overturned project. So, I look forward to working back and forth — keeping those lines of communication open. This is going to be a very busy year and if we can avoid projects that need to go to City Council to be then overturned that's going to reduce workload, its going to streamline items but the underlying factor for me is going to be the general plan policies. If I have a misunderstanding of a policy, I Minutes, PC, January 20, 2005 Page 9 am going to come talk to you Mr. Movius about those items and try to keep things moving. Its going to be a very busy year. Thank you for the presentation. It is very enlightening. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments. Are there any other comments. Mr. Movius said that he probably didn't explain it well but the appeal list I showed you weren't ones that they overturned you — those were ones that went to them. Actually, they agreed with you guys on most of those. The ag land conversion issue: Staff is partly responsible for that. We need to give you guys better information. That is one reason I have given you that tract map and I have instructed our graphics people that when there is a development— no matter where it is — they always show the other tracts from that map that have been approved, but they don't show up. You guys look at stuff and it looks like gosh its all ag land out there—what's going on? Well, you may not know it but there may be a tract right adjacent to it that's already been approved and also just a better understanding of what the county is doing and their growth. They are definitely responding to it cause they are a county that is in the business of urban expansion. So, just I think with staff helping you out with type of additional information —with these types of discussions — I think that will help you out a lot and its really not a controversial issue between you and City Council. I think its just like David said, we need to give you better information when you guys are looking at the project. Commissioner Tragish said thank you to Mr. Movius and that he agreed with that and thanked him for taking that into consideration. 9. COMMUNICATIONS: None 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director February 7, 2005