Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Jennie Eng, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Stanley Hopkins indicated that he wants to speak on vesting tentative tract 6642, agenda item 7.4. He will speak during the regular agenda item. Darren Catcher, 6653, agenda 7.5, stated he will speak during the regular agenda item. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of February 2, 2006. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the non- public hearing items on consent calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a. EXTENSION OF TIME—Vesting Tentative Tract 6170 (Delmarter and Diefel Engineering) 4.2b. Approve continuance until April 20, 2006 of PUBLIC HEARING —Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11441 (DeWalt Corporation) 4.2c. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6578 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2d. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6610 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) 4.2e. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6616 (McCutchen 110) 4.2f. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6730 (DeWalt Corporation) Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 2 The public hearing is opened. No one in audience spoke on the public hearing items. Commissioner Tragish requested removal of consent calendar number 4.2f, regular agenda item 7.6. The public hearing is closed, except for 4.2b and 4.2f. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the public hearing items on the consent calendar, excluding 4.2b and 4.2f. 5. PUBLIC HEARING— Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 05-0519 (Ward 7) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one commented on the adequacy of the draft EIR. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented on his understanding of the EIR. He commented that he would like to see how this project's traffic impacts the entire city of Bakersfield. He indicated that he would like to tie this analysis into all pending projects in the City. (i.e., the Westside Parkway, east-west beltway, Seventh Standard Rd.). Commissioner Blockley commented about the adequacy of the circulation element and changes that this would entail in ensuring consistency with the circulation element. He stated that the circulation in this area deviates from a typical pattern of collector streets in that they are missing as it is very rural land. He stated that the lack of collectors will have an effect on the ability to provide safe bike lanes. Commissioner Spencer inquired why this project at this time is being justified for development, and considered in-fill when there are thousands of acres located within close proximity to the city. He stated that any approval of this project would set a precedent to develop all of the adjacent land, which is not being considered in the EIR. Commissioner McGinnis reiterated what the other commissioners have stated. He stated that his major concern is the traffic circulation pattern. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to refer comments to Staff of preparation of the Final EIR. Motion carried by group vote. 6. PUBLIC HEARING—Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11441 (DeWalt Corporation) Heard on consent calendar. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Tract Maps 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6578 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6610 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) Heard on consent calendar. 7.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6616 (McCutchen 110) Heard on consent calendar. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 3 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6642 (McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Stanley Hopkins stated he submitted a letter concerning problems with the alignment of Monica Street. He indicated that their 3 concerns are: 1) Alignment of Monica; 2) The vertical and horizontal, and the grading that would be required to build Monica; and 3) Storm water acceptance under the tract from the north that flows into Monica Street. He indicated that Staff's condition number 13 does not cover those items. He stated that they are asking for a denial because they feel that the tract needs to be redesigned. He indicated that it is his understanding that there is a letter from the County supporting denial on these grounds. Phillip Hall with the Law Offices of Young, Wooldridge, representing Kern Canyon Estates, stated their position is that this development needs a brick wall between the mobile home park, to the west of it, and the full development. He stated that the adjacent properties have different character differences, which should require a brick wall. Mr. Hall further indicated that the cul-de- sacs are right at the fence line, and that there is only a chain link fence with pickets between the slates between the cul-de-sacs and the mobile home park. Mr. Hall further indicated that there are safety issues. He stated that upon approval they would like the requirement of a brick wall down the entire length. He indicated that they have 72 letters from members of the mobile home park asking for this requirement. Mr. Hall submitted these letters. Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh and Associates, representing International Housing, responded to Mr. Hopkins concerns regarding the Monica alignment by stating that the alignment requires vertical as well as horizontal specific design, and as to drainage from the properties to the north, they agree that it is part of the design criteria that they will have to follow when they design Monica, which will comply with City standards. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are not going to build a brick wall, and will be a block wall if any wall is put up. He pointed out that the letter from Mr. Hall's office, signed by Mr. Conant, refers to installation of approximately 474' of 6' high block wall. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that this property is zoned for mobile home park, and is the same zoning as the adjacent property, except that this developer is proposing to build single family homes in a mobile home park zone. He pointed out that it is not really an incompatible use. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated his concerns were: 1) wall on west of property; 2) actual characterization of use and its consistency; 3) Monica Street improvements. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not have a problem with a block wall on the west boundary. He inquired of the applicant as to the length discrepancy. Mr. Hall responded that it was his understanding that 474' is the full length. Mr. Hall indicated that they are concerned with the safety issues, as well as privacy issues. He further commented that it would not aesthetically make sense not to finish the block wall. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if Mr. Hall opposes a wood fence for the balance of the boundaries that do not effect his property. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the reference to the inconsistency of the proposed project in Mr. Conant's letter. Mr. Hall responded that it was their understanding that project would construct manufactured home. Mr. Tragish stated that he believes that the use is consistent. Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to Monica Street he is concerned with the alignment. He inquired of Mr. Hopkins what his objection is to this project. Mr. Hopkins responded that when they designed their project, which is in the planning process now and awaiting public hearing, they checked on Monica Street and found that the alignment was adopted, and that it could not be moved. Mr. Hopkins stated that they designed their project according to the specified alignment. He stated that his concern is that the tract to the west of his property, as currently designed, has not allowed for the alignment of Monica the way it exists and has been approved. He stated that because of this, the current applicant has shoved it over onto his property which would ruin his project. In addition, Mr. Hopkins stated that there are drainage and grading considerations that effect both parties. He commented that if there is not some kind of an understanding and Monica Street is not included in the design of the tract, it will be hard to construct in the future. Mr. Hopkins stated that he wants to establish the vertical alignment, as Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 4 well as the horizontal alignment of Monica, and address the drainage issues. Mr. Hopkins stated that his property has two catch basins that would collect water in Monica and take it down its natural course which is across the subject property. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff as to the alignment of Monica, to which Staff responded the existing alignment of Monica intrudes onto the subject property more than the new proposed alignment by the applicant. The applicant would have to make a separate application to amend the specific plan for an alignment in the County. Mr. Hopkins stated that Staff's recommended condition regarding the alignment does not go far enough and he would like the vertical alignment addressed as well as the drainage study. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are not proposing to realign Monica. He stated that this property is being annexed into the City, and this is the LANDCO syndrome where the City does not recognize specific plan lines that the City has adopted. He indicated that once the property becomes part of the City those specific plan lines don't mean anything. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are attempting to align Monica to an intersection that would be safer than what the County has adopted. (He stated that he believes that there is a driveway that goes into a cemetery.) Mr. McIntosh stated that they are not proposing to change the alignment with this application, and they agree with Staff's condition. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the proposed Tract Map interferes with the specific line for Monica. Mr. McIntosh responded that they will work with the specific line as adopted. Commissioner Tragish stated that it seems premature to approve this project when it's ultimately going to hang on what the County or City does with Monica, as well as the fact that it substantially interferes with the work being done by the easterly neighbor which is far along in its development process. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Staff for clarification of the Metropolitan General Plan. Staff responded that it is a joint plan, and the City does respect the circulation element alignments for streets, however the circulation element alignments for streets don't necessarily have to coincide with a specific plan line. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the condition requiring construction of Monica Street within the boundary. He pointed out that as drawn, it is a tiny little sliver of pavement that ends at a point. Staff responded that without Monica being constructed to connect point A to point B, and in this case all the way out to Kern Canyon Road, it may not need to be constructed at all. Staff may ask that it not be constructed until such time as the County constructs the remainder of it. Staff stated the City would probably ask for a deposit from the developer for the cost of the road. Commissioner Blockley inquired if that would require a change in condition number 3.5.1.4 that requires for the construction of Monica. Staff responded that a modification can be made to give the City engineer the option to require the design and then a deposit for the construction at a later date. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. McIntosh as to the grading and if Monica Street is actually lower than the existing ground. Mr. McIntosh responded that there is a swale that comes down, and starts at the northeaster corner of the property and goes southwest. He recommended that the circulation element be amended to delete the collector north of College, which would save Mr. Hopkins a lot of money, and which would effect the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the four cul-de-sacs and the grading being below existing grade. Mr. McIntosh responded that it has been designed to follow the contours as closely as possible, indicating that on some of the cul-de-sacs there are some cuts, and on some there are some fill. Mr. McIntosh stated that they would be agreeable to constructing a block wall from where the second cul-de-sac starts, the lot that is south of this cul-de-sac, to the lot that is to the north of the third cul-de-sac along the mobile home park boundary. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to College Avenue and if the end of it as a collector will be Monica Street. Staff responded in the affirmative. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner McGinnis stated that he likes Mr. McIntosh's solution to the deletion of Monica Street. Staff responded that it would be possible. Mr. Hopkins stated that they are willing to explore this idea, and have spent an entire year designing their project based on the current alignment of Monica Street and its current width. He further indicated that Cal Trans has approved the intersection at Kern Canyon Road. Mr. Hopkins stated he would be agreeable to working with the applicant on the issues concerning Monica Street. Mr. McIntosh stated that they would be agreeable as well. Commissioner McGinnis inquired as to any proposal for completing the block wall as suggested by Mr. Hall. Mr. McIntosh stated that they could transition to a redwood or cedar fence. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff how to handle Monica as it is just a minute piece. Staff responded that a condition could be included which addresses everything regarding the circulation issues, including that if Monica is eliminated as a collector on the circulation element, then the map could be redesigned, and it would be accommodated in-house. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Hopkins if he could easily redesign his project to accommodate Monica as a City street. Mr. Hopkins responded in the affirmative, stating that they have submitted a vertical alignment to the County. He stated that if they can comply with it and corroborate with Mr. McIntosh in redesigning both the drainage, as well as Monica Street vertical alignment, then they would be happy. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. McIntosh as to the width of a residential versus a collector. Mr. McIntosh responded that a residential local street is 60' right-of-way versus a 90' right-of-way on a collector. If Monica is pushed to a City street it will fall better into Mr. Hopkins plans. Commissioner Tragish stated that the proposal does not appear to be orderly. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Hopkins should get annexation into the City. He inquired of Staff how all of this would be done procedurally. Staff indicated that it would entail a submission by Mr. McIntosh to the County of Kern for an amendment to the Specific Plan Line, to move the plan line off, or a requested General Plan Amendment through the County for a circulation element amendment. If the County abandons the specific line and makes it a local street, then Mr. Hopkins should be able to amended his drawing on the subdivision and keep processing it. Commissioner Tragish stated that it makes more sense to have the wall run from the top (the north boundary of the applicant) down to at least where it cuts in back into the project because of the noise, aesthetic, and privacy factors. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to see a short continuance to get Mr. Hopkins and Mr. McIntosh to address these issues. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Staff about postponing without having to re-advertise. Staff responded that the April 20 h meeting would be the most suitable. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. McIntosh if he is in agreement with a block wall, etc. that it would be put on consent calendar for the next meeting, and that if he's not in agreement, then they will take more time. Mr. McIntosh responded that two weeks is fine. Mr. McIntosh stated that for the record he is in agreement with everything Commissioner Lomas just said. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Hopkins as to a continuance. Mr. Hopkins stated that he is in agreement with the issues discussed, and if the width of Monica Street is reduced it would not necessarily hurt them. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Hall as to a continuance. Mr. Hall inquired if they are talking about a block wall across the entire line. Commissioner Lomas responded it would be across the whole western boundary, to which Mr. Hall stated that they would be in agreement. Staff agreed that it would be a consent item on the March 16th, 2006 meeting. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to continue this agenda item 7.4 to the March 16, 2006 meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac 7.5 Tentative Tract 6653 (Quad-Knopf) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Dr. Manbir Singh stated he submitted an e-mail letter, and stated he was representing the church. He indicated the members are concerned with the noise and traffic issues. He stated that they do not think this is the right location for housing. Zorawar Singh Bindra stated there are other developments on the west side of Stine right behind Ridgeview, as well as on the north side of Ridgeview. He stated that putting two housing tracts between two churches is going to cause noise issues to the residents as well as the congregation of the churches. He stated that this area can be better utilized in other ways, such as a tutoring center which would be useful to the schools in the area. Darrin Pitcher, Senior Pastor at the Ridgeview Church of the Nazarene responded to the objection letters. Pastor Pitcher stated that the land has always been designated residential. He indicated when the Temple purchased its property there was already residential on the back side of their property. He further confirmed that they will be single family, quality affordable residential homes. Pastor Pitcher stated that with regard to the compatibility of churches and residential homes they co-exist all over Bakersfield, and in their area there have been no complaints. Pastor Pitcher submitted signatures of homeowners in support of the project. He pointed out that noise is not current a problem. He further pointed out that Ridgeview High is and two churches incur more traffic then 24 homes will. He further pointed out that they value community service, and only want to enhance that aspect. Gary Smee, the developer, stated they want to maintain a good relationship with their neighbors on all sides. He stated that they envision a very nice quality affordable project with 24 single family homes, surrounded by a block wall. He stated that they have met all the criteria of the zoning. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the applicant has met all the criteria, and is a responsible project. He stated that he supports this project. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner McGinnis. He inquired as to the alignment of the road. Staff responded that the four-way signal at Stine and Ryzona has been designed and is ready for construction right now. Commissioner Blockley stated that he agrees with the other commissioners, and supports this project. Commissioner Lomas addressed the opponents. Staff indicated they would like to make a change to condition 16 with respect to the block wall which should indicate the "north and south boundary." Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract Map 6653 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached Resolution with the modification of condition 16 where it references the word "south", it should say instead, "north and south boundary." Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 7 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac Five minute break taken. 7.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6730 (DeWalt Corporation) Pulled from consent calendar. The public hearing is opened. Staff indicated they met with the applicant who wanted an understanding that if the waiver was granted that it would only apply to this particular piece of property, and not the entire field. Staff indicated that the applicant does not object. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Robert Balow with DeWalt Corporation stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendations and conditions. Jim Marino, representing Dan Gali, the property owner, stated he is available to answer any questions the Commission has. Rick Pearce stated that he has property that abuts this project and stated he is concerned with potential complaints due to horses and motorcycles. He indicated that building tract homes next to these large existing acreages has the potential for future complaints. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this project moves the existing trail, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the water issues. Staff responded that as tracts develop they do provide water service. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve vesting Tentative Tract Map 6730 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit „A„ Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac Commissioner Lomas added that in response to Mr. Baehr's questions about buffers, buffers are a part of all subdivisions. 8. PUBLIC HEARING—Zone Change 05-1921 (Barbara Kenton Gibbs) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Franci White, who lives directly west of this property, called the Planning Commission's attention to the County and City zones and asked that the County be annexed into the city for the purpose of building multi-family units. She expressed her concern with the traffic, pollution, crime and safety. Gerald Patterson, lives in the Bloomquist area, and states the apartments are low income and unsafe. He further indicated that the lot is on Bloomquist and not Belle Terrace. Cindy Thompson stated that the apartments on Belle Terrace have a security gate, and ever since it's been a disaster because all of the tenants come and park around their corner, and sometimes block her driveway. She said there are empty bottles out by the cars and is a real inconvenience. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 8 Chris Morgan stated she delivered 46 signed petitions protesting this zone change. She stated she lives at 4407 Rufus Drive, and stated she objects due to her experience with these types of apartment complexes. She stated that the residents in this area feel threatened by this new violence associated with the apartments. She stated that there are gang members on the south side of Belle Terrace in the apartment complexes and opposing gang members on Bloomquist Drive on the east side of McDonald Way. She stated that if there are more apartments it will affect their neighborhood. Gary Duke, lives on the corner of McDonald and Bloomquist, and stated that on the corner there is a drainage ditch that entire neighborhood drains into. He stated that traffic congestion is a big problem already and it is not safe for their children to play. Pat Hamlet, lives at 4407 Bloomquist Drive, and expressed her disapproval of the attempt to rezone the subject property. She stated that there have been many accidents at the intersection and does not feel that it is safe. Marsha Broadway, lives at 215 Bloomquist, stated she has problems with fowl language, trash in her yard, and taking of her oranges and apricots off her trees. She stated that she is concerned with these same problems occurring around the subject property, as well as the traffic issues, and the lack of respect for other people's property. She indicated that the property is not vacant as it does have a house on it, and there is a man that lives in the house. She stated that the applicant is inviting more trouble. Charles Bowman stated he lives in the area, and inquired that if the property is in the County, how can the City rezone this property. Roberta Doyle stated she lives at 226 Bloomquist, and was asked by Mr. Gibbs to keep an eye on some of the properties. She stated she advised Mr. Gibbs of needles in the bushes for kids to get a hold of, and pit bulls that have gotten out, the large number of people living in a two-bedroom house, but he didn't do anything about it. She emotionally explained that she opposes this project. Michael Coleman, lives on the northeast corner of Bloomquist and McDonald Way, stated that his biggest concern with multiple dwellings at this location is the traffic down McDonald. He indicated that traffic is currently bad, and there is a dip in the road which vehicles hit so hard that it rattles the windows in his house. He stated that he does not want apartments built so close to him. Barbara Gibbs stated that there is an existing apartment, and then three lots that are going to be developed as they have the zoning, and the lot next to them they own and have the zoning on. She indicated that it would be a better development for them to be able to include that corner, and the sidewalks would be brought down from the apartment building around the corner. (end of tape) She indicated that they are not slumlords. She said that they will not be building any Section 8, but rather condos or nice apartments. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated there are several R-3 zonings along Belle Terrace, and a number of R-2, as well as a couple of RS. He stated that the buffer zone to the established neighborhood to the north is Belle Terrace. He stated that from a personal point of view, he is sorry to see the R-3 on the north side, indicating that he will vote against it. He stated that he feels that it is piecemeal at best, and to preserve the neighborhood he is not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tragish, indicating that he does not think that it is orderly development, and is not consistent with the neighborhood. He further indicated that along with traffic issues, there are health, welfare and safety issues. He indicated that he thinks they are using the statutes for annexation for the wrong purpose (i.e., to be able to build this property out). He stated that he does not believe the applicant has made any showing to counter the oppositions' comments with regard to the traffic issues. Commissioner Tragish further stated that buffer is Belle Terrace. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 9 Commissioner Lomas responded to Mr. Bowman's question. She stated that the City did not request annexation, but rather the applicant did. Staff gave its explanation. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the map and the two large R3 parcels to the east which look undeveloped. Staff explained the map. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that the County doesn't often provide the same level of service as the City does. He stated that he is troubled with the application for several reasons, because it was stated that this annexation is to provide sewer for the property so that it can be developed as apartments, in conjunction with the property next door, which is not under consideration for annexation, and appears to be a separate lot. He stated that he cannot be in favor of this as it stands right now. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is an annexation application for the parcel to the east, to which Staff responded that it is this single part of this parcel. She inquired if Staff knows the owner of the parcel to the east, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Lomas commented that they've been told it was the Gibb's. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to deny zone change 05-1921. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac 9. WORKSHOPS 9.1 Thomas Road Improvements Workshop Presented by Ted Wright, Civil Engineer IV. TRIP is a partnership of a number of agencies including the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, CalTrans, Federal Highway Admin., as well as the Kern Council of Governments. TRIP has entered into an initial five year contract with Consultant Parsons Transportation Group who will be providing a lot of the services. To accelerate the program, TRIP is trying to minimize the amount of environmental documents, however if there is a more controversial area they will do the project so that it's not holding up the entire project. TRIP is also looking at ways to accelerate the design and construction of these projects. TRIP also wants to get environmental approval as quick and early as it can, and is seen as the biggest hurdle. There is some legislation that allows California as one of five states to take over the delegation of the FHWA duties in regards to the NEFA process/program. The Department Of Transportation is working on a proposal to give the FHWA the ability to do that. TRIP wants to use a shotgun approach and have eight or 10 environmental documents going concurrently at the same time, and will be started real soon. Some of the projects are further along then others, and some are a little simpler than others, and TRIP wants to expedite those even more, and start putting pavement on the ground as quick as possible. TRIP is also looking at design and risk which means they carry the design of the project concurrently with the preparation of the environmental document, or design and build which can be done after the environmental document receives an okay. TRIP consists of four earmarks and all have an initial for the name of the Bill. The first earmark was for the beltways project at $140 million which includes the north beltway which is the widening of Seventh Standard Road, the west beltway which is a grade separated access controlled freeway that will run north south on the west side of the metropolitan area, and the south beltway which the County recently adopted, which will also be a grade separate access controlled freeway that will run from eastern part of the metropolitan area over to Interstate 5. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 10 They would like CalTrans to ultimately consider this as the future State Route 58, which will allow reasonable traffic to get from east of Bakersfield over to Interstate 5. The money for the south beltway is for a route adoption only, and there aren't construction funds for that project. The north beltway has a number of different funding sources, with TRIP being one of them. The City of Shafter and the County have also been working on this, and the environmental document for this is currently being circulated. The second earmark is for the widening of Rosedale Highway from State Route 43 to 99, and the widening of 24th Street from 99 to about C Street, which includes the interchange at Oak and 24th Street. There was a $60 million federal earmark for this project. All of these projects have multiple matches that vary from about 11.5% up to 20% depending on which program the earmark actually comes out of. These come out of several programs of the Safety-loop Federal Highway Bill. The third earmarked project is for the centennial corridor loop which includes the centennial corridor south segment that would tie to the east end of the Westside Parkway and would continue up to 178 in the northeast, and includes a northerly lay that would tie to 178 and run along the 204 alignment up to State Route 99, and then it also includes the Hageman Road Flyover, which would connect Hageman Road, west of 99, to State Route 204, east of 99. CalTrans is looking at this now to see if the north loop, from 178 up to 99 could be a State Route 178, and with that have a full freeway-to-freeway interchange at 99. The fourth earmark is for State Route 178 project in northeast Bakersfield, including the 178 and Fairfax interchange, 178 and Morning Drive interchange, widening of existing 178 Highway on the bottom green line, and in the upper green line is new freeway alignment that hasn't been developed yet, however it was adopted by CalTrans back in 1961, and the City adopted the same alignment in the early 90's, but it hasn't been constructed yet. However, land is being reserved for that facility as development occurs in the northeast. This project is earmarked for$100 million. This project has been ongoing for a number of years, and it is at about at 95% plan completion, and expects to bid this project later this summer, and have construction starting later this year. This is also funded from the State Transportation Improvement Program, but has not been able to follow through on its funding commitments due to the financial issues with the State Budget. TRIP has individual projects that will have individual environmental documents on Fairfax, Rosedale Highway, Westside Parkway, and are all Phase I projects. Phase I plans to deliver in six years. Phase II and III is scheduled to deliver in nine years, and then Phase IV, Centennial Loop north, is a 12 year delivery schedule. Another project that is not a part of the TRIP, but is also being funded from federal and state gas tax funds is the Westside Parkway. About a week ago the Federal Highway Administration approved a draft document and a public hearing is anticipated in front of the Planning Commission on this project around April 20, 2006. There will be a 45 day comment period on this project and it is hoped to be started in the middle of this month (March). Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the chain of command in TRIP. Mr.Wright explained that City Council is the one that enters into the contract, and ultimately is the body that determines the EIRs. Mr. Wright stated that he reports to the Director Raul Rojas, who reports to Alan Tandy, the City Manager. Parson is Mr. Wright's staff. Parsons will have eight to 10 people who will be working full time, and in addition will have "road warriors"that come in as both workload and expertise needs require their particular assistance. Mr. Wright indicated that the program manager is Chris Clark and the Deputy Program Manager is Jarrod Couchian. There will also be corridor managers and procurement people, as well as document control people. Commissioner Blockley inquired if it would be possible to get printed materials that may help the Planning Commission in some of their decisions. Mr. Wright responded that would be possible. Commissioner Tragish inquired if he could get an e-mail of Mr. Wright's presentation with the PowerPoint. He further inquired as to the Phase I projects and if they all have easements or right- Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 11 of-ways and if they are fully funded at this point. Mr. Wright responded that fully funded today does not mean that it will be fully funded in five years with rising construction costs. He stated that they are not necessarily fully funded with just trip dollars, but there are local match dollars, along with impact fees, and are hopeful for a 'h cent Sales Tax in November. He pointed out that STIP has not been real helpful, but the Governor is looking at some bonding programs and infusion of funding to infrastructure. Commissioner Tragish commented that it seems to him that the real pressure point is the widening of Rosedale Highway and the west parkway to give some relief to the east west traffic which is where a lot of bottlenecks are being created. He inquired how far along this project is. Mr. Wright responded that Assemblyman McCarthy is carrying legislation for the City and County to take over Rosedale and have CalTran relinquish it to the City and County local entities, which will allow them to improve Rosedale to City standards and not have to go through the CalTrans process for the design. Mr. Wright stated that it will move along faster if the state would relinquish Rosedale Highway to the City/County. Mr. Wright indicated that the state wants to relinquish control. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the City has all of the easements and right-of-ways for the Westside Parkway from its inception from 99. Mr. Wright responded that the City has almost all of the right-of-way from the Friant Kern Canal west, with one piece that is on the Council's agenda for the next meeting that will be acquired between Heath and Renfro. From Friant Kern east the City has appraisals and are dealing with the property owners but they have not yet been acquired. However, some has been acquired along Mohawk. He indicated that they have acquired approximately 75% of the property, and the part that hasn't been acquired is not under development. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the Westside Parkway also includes a bridge from Mohawk over the Kern River. Mr. Wright indicated that it includes Mohawk from Rosedale Highway to Truxtun Ave. which is a bridge over the river and under the railroad, as well as over the Westside Parkway from Mohawk and across the Cross-Valley Canal. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the cost of the loop, to which Mr. Wright responded that the earmark is $330 million, and the match on that is 11.5% which is about another$35 million, which brings it up to $365 million. He stated that they won't know a more precise amount until they get further into the environmental document of engineering. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the money for the south beltway and what happens with the designation of Highway 58 on Rosedale Highway, and if they have to wait until the south beltway is built. Mr. Wright stated that with the relinquishment of Rosedale Highway, one of the requirements is that it will stay posted as 58. He indicated that CalTrans would like to move 58 on an interim basis (until the south beltway is constructed) up to Seventh Standard, however, they don't want to do that until they are done with the north beltway project The north beltway would be a city arterial street with no access other than every 'h mile would have signals, and any commercial fronting would have to add a fourth axillary lane along it's frontage. They are acquiring right of way for six lanes, but will initially only build four, and the TRIP may augment it to build six lanes, otherwise they would wait until adjacent development occurs to build the fifth and sixth lanes. There is no requirement for six lanes by CalTrans to move 58 to this location. 9.2 Traffic Study Workshop Presented by Steve Walker, City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Walker explained how the traffic studies are a moving standard. He stated they look at the trip generation that will be created. They create a rough draft traffic pattern, and use a sliding scale based on the known levels of service at different intersections. In following the GPA and the policies of the GP if the level of service is a C or better, the cutoff is 100 trips, and if it's less than 100 trips they don't have to study that segment because it's considered to be acceptable service. He indicated in those areas which are less than a level of service C and D, there is a cut off of 50 trips, and if it gets down to an E it is 20, and F (parking lot standard) it is 10 trips. This sliding scale assists in determining where the edge of study needs to be, and contain it to something more logical. This is also consistent with the CalTrans study. Mr. Walker stated that part of the way they determine where the traffic patterns are going to go is they also use the Kern Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 12 Cog Traffic Model, which is maintained and updated frequently and by plugging in the perimeters given to Kern Cog, they can determine just where the traffic is going to go and use that as a basis for the determination of the intersections and road segments that they need to study. They also use the Kern Cog. Model for information as to what the growth will be effected by this development, and determine how much traffic will be on certain roads from both a calculated basis and augment that with manual fine tuning of the traffic study using engineering expertise. Thereafter, impacts are listed and using the traffic impact fee, RTIF and see if those projects are going to make a difference when implement, and then make a determination of how much a percentage cost their impact is on these projects to make a determination as to what their fee will be, and whether there will be things that will have to be done right up right (opening day mitigation), or whether there will be some things they can participate in funding for a future project that will be happening after theirs starts. This is all put in the conditions of approval or the mitigation for the conditions of approval, and will be part of the engineer's report. Mr. Walker said after receiving the mitigation they will go through and review the study while working with the engineers to develop the traffic study. Once the traffic study is approved and it is implemented into the traffic impact report of a larger study (EIR or Neg. Dec.) it will have the list of conditions to implement the mitigations, and is done by Ms. Shaw. Mr. Walker pointed out that they reject some traffic studies as well. He indicated that this process is not done in a vacuum, and that they work with the traffic engineers that submit these projects and studies to get them to a point where they are acceptable and can be reviewed by the public. Mr. Walker emphasized that this is a very complicated process, and it is a very time consuming process to go through a traffic study. Commissioner Tragish commented that he is perplexed as to where the raw data is derived from. Mr. Walker responded that a lot of manual data input is required for the traffic study, which involves going out into the field and counting cars and seeing what is there currently before you can make projections for the future. He indicated they also use the Highway Traffic Engineer's book manual of counts, which has basically formulas for determining the trip generation that various types of uses will have. He indicated that it is based on historical data, and based on thousands of traffic studies. He stressed that it is not exact, but rather an estimate. Commissioner Tragish inquired how often the trip generation book is updated, to which Mr. Walker responded it was done about every two years. Commissioner Tragish inquired why we are having the traffic problems that we have in Bakersfield if we've supposedly been mitigation these issues. Mr. Walker responded that part of it is due to failures in the past, and they are playing catch up all the time with implementing and taking care of those problems that we're just not foreseen in the past. He indicated that getting into these traffic studies is relatively new. Mr. Walker indicated that they could do a traffic study that would cover the entire Bakersfield Metropolitan area, but it wouldn't matter that only 2 cars go through a certain intersection on the west side of town, for a project that's on the west side of town. There is also not a level of adequacy with that widespread of an analysis. He indicated that is why they have the traffic impact fee, because it is a regional fee that takes care of the loose ends that you can't really get a grasp of or get a definitive quantitative idea of what is happening at those locations. The projects that are in that impact fee are updated every two years. Ms. Shaw indicated that the list is updated annually, but the program is updated every three to four years. Commissioner Blockley inquired how much play room is allowed. Mr.Walker responded that the thresholds at the raw level of service is fixed, and it's either they meet it or don't meet it, but when they've gone below level of service C, or where the existing traffic situation is projected to be below level of service C, there may be varying degrees of D and a number range will be associated with that level. Mitigation has to take place to bring it up to the highest level of the numeric value. Planning Commission — Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Lomas inquired about adding various variables to the model, such as retirement housing. Mr. Walker responded that different perimeters can be put into the model. The model already has set up what is in the General Plan and the various types of land uses, and that's the base model. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a better way to list the variables that have been entered by the applicant. Mr. Walker responded that the variables entered are what is in the project description. 10. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff reported that the Planning Commission has done more than 460 public hearings in the last two years on projects. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish requested a color copy of Mr. Wright's presentation. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director March 28,2006