HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/30/2006 B A K E R S F I E L D
Sue Benham, Chair
David Couch
Mike Maggard
Staff: John W. Stinson
MEETING NOTICE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT APRIL 25, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
^. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding issues raised by
Planning Commissioner Ted Blockley regarding collector streets - Rojas
5. NEW BUSINESS
^. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding request from Barbara
Lomas, Planning Commission Chair, for direction regarding increased public
notice on development projects that require hearings - Grady
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
.~.-- Sue Benham, Chair
· Joh . S so David Couch
For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room - Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; and Mike Maggard
Absent: Councilmember David Couch
2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 28, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial
to collector
Public Works Director Raul Rojas explained this referral was a request from
Mr. Steve Hollis to downgrade Paladino Drive from an arterial to 'a collector
street. The Public Works Director explained staff does not recommend
downgrading arterials to collectors. Due to the topography of the area, the
northeast has been planned in the best possible way. If Paladino were to be
downgraded, it would eventually become a bottleneck because the road would
go from an arterial down to a collector and then back to an arterial.
One of the things the City is striving for in the northeast is to ensure not to
duplicate some of the roadway decisions that were made in the southwest. The
best example would be Brimhall Road between Calloway and Coffee, which
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
was downgraded to a collector and now needs to be brought up to arterial
standards to better handle the traffic due to the growth of the area.
Public Works Traffic Engineer Steve Walker explained the Kern COG model
calls for Paladino to be an arterial due to expected growth, air-quality
conformance, and congestion management. The 2030 adopted growth model
projects 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Steve Hollis, a resident on Paladino Drive, expressed his concerns. The
area is zoned for animals and arterials do not allow left turns through the
median. The residents have horses and backing horse trailers out of a
driveway onto an arterial as well as slowing to turn in, is very dangerous.
Public Works Director Raul Rojas agreed that residents with horse trailers using
Paladino have valid concerns. Left turns will not be allowed out of the
properties, only right turns in and right turns out.
Traffic Engineer Steve Walker stated caution signs could be put up advising.
drivers of the trailer traffic. If properties are wide enough, two cuts could be put
in the sidewalk allowing for circle driveways. The speed limit, set by the State,
for arterials and collectors is the same, 65 miles an hour, but can be modified
with a study if there are safety issues.
Ms. Paula Einstein, a resident on Paladino Drive, had concerns not only with
horse trailers, but riding horses off the properties would require riding them out
on the arterial.
Committee Member Maggard requested Public Works staff to meet with the
residents on this section of Paladino Drive to see if there could be solutions
worked out by changing the landscaping area on the south side of Paladino to
make the read wider to be able to create a lane on the north side for residents
to be able to get their horses in and out of the properties.
Committee Chair Sue Benham requested this item be brought back to the
June 27th Committee meeting.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding issues raised by
Planning Commissioner Ted Blockley regarding collector streets
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Committee Member Mike Maggard asked the Public Works Director to check on
the condition of Masterson Road. The patches were washed out from the recent
rains and there are potholes on Masterson Road south from Paladino toward State
Route 178 with one huge hole as you approach State Route 178. Also, there are
cracks along Paladino by the new construction.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant
City Manager John Stinson; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Planning Director Jim
Movius; Traffic Engineer Steve Walker; and Public Works Civil Engineer Bruce Deeter
Attendance-others: Mike Kaia, Young Wooldridge; Scoff Blunck, Castle and Cooke;
Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh and Associates; Robert Kapral, RMK Group; Martin Ortiz;
Centex Homes; Paula Einstein (Paladino Road); Steve Hollis (Paladino Road); and
Kristy Hollis (Paladino Road)
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
S:UOHN\Council Committees\06Planning&Development~p&d 06 apr 25 summa~,doc
B A K E R S F I E L
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: . n Alan Tandy, City Manager
_ _/]1/
FROM: ~" Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: [J~'~ July 25, 2005
SUBJECT: COLLECTOR STREETS
Referral No. 1198
COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED STAFF AND THE PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT COMMITI'EE ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED BY PLANNING
COMMISSIONER TED BLOCKLEY REGARDING COLLECTOR STREETS.
In his letter, Planning Commissioner Blockley is concerned that Collectors that are
eliminated from the Circulation Element of the General Plan can cause pedestrians and
non-motorized vehicles .(bicycles) more problems as development builds out. He
contends that Collectors are inherently safer for pedestrians and bicyclists because they
are "low-speed, Iow-volume method for traveling between various sections" in an area
or community. Collectors may have a lower speed limit than some Arterials and may
have a lower volume of traffic than some Arterials, but they are not what traffic
engineers consider a Iow volume, Iow speed roadway.
Collectors are multi-lane roadways that allow more opportunity for access than the
limited access Arterial roadways while collecting the traffic off of the local residential
areas and connecting to the Arterial road network. The prima facie speed limit of 65
miles per hour on the Collector is the same under the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as
for the Arterial roadway. With full development of the area along the Collector, the
speed limit can usually be lowered when justified under the requirements of the CVC, as
also done on an Arterial road. Many of the Collector roads in Bakersfield have a speed
limit of between 40 and 50 miles per hour. The prima facie speed limit of the local
residential street is 25 miles per hour.
Collectors will typically have a traffic volume of 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day, with
some Collector roads having over 10,000 vehicles per day. The typical local residential
street will have between 200 and 800 vehicles per day with some exceptions of up to
1500 or more where the local road functions as a local collecting road for the
neighborhood and connects with the Collector roadway. Collectors are also sometimes
designated as bicycle routes and may have bike lanes for the commuter bicyclist.
C:~DOCUME~1\glorenzN.OCALS~1\Temp~Ref~1198 Collector Streets.doc
Harris Road, mentioned as an example of a desirable Collector road, has about 7500
vehicles per day and a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. The Traffic Engineer does not
consider this classification of road to be more bicycle or pedestrian "friendly", and
therefore more preferred, than a local residential road with only 800 vehicles per day
and a speed limit of only 25 miles per hour.
The General Plan - Circulation Element states that "This pattern (of collectors) is
deviated from where physical constraints are present, where collectors are not needed,
or where existing development precludes the gdd pattern of collector streets." The
Traffic Engineer suggests consideration that the wording may be modified to state "...
where collectors are not needed for motorized vehicles, non-motorized vehicles
such as bicycles, or pedestrians..."
Changing the wording of the Circulation Element definition of Collector roads would
make the process of eliminating a Collector from the Circulation Element of the General
Plan more difficult. The proponent of Collector road elimination would then have to
prove that the need for both bicycle routes and pedestrian routes, in addition to the
motorized vehicles route, would not be adversely affected by a change. This wording
change, or similar phrasing, may accomplish what Planning Commissioner Blockley
desires.
C:~DOCUME~1~lorenz~OCALS-1\Temp~Ref81198 Collector Streets.doc
Planning and Development Committee Meeting - 25 April 2006
Please accept my apologies for being unable to appear in person. I am submitting the two
attached sketches to add some clarity to the concerns previously outlined.
One sketch shows Harris Road and Akers Road directly connecting many neighborhoods
to Silvercreek Park. In contrast, the deleted collector segments of Pacheco and Progress
Roads show how access to Silvercreek Park is limited to arterial streets such as Gosford
Road and Panama Lane. The other sketch shows some of the characteristics of each type
of street.
Both Harris and Akers are designated collector streets with widths, speeds, and traffic
volumes that make them seem relatively safe as bicycle routes. These routes seem aligned
with the goals of 'walkable' communities. Pedestrian and bicycle routes along Gosford
Raod and Panama Lane do not have the same cachet.
The only 'guaranteed' through streets in new developments are Collectors and Arterials.
Although both forms exist on the general plan, collectors seem to need special protection.
A simple policy change to uphold the status of Collector Streets is all that is being
requested. With such a policy, City staff would recommend deletion of Collectors only
when non-traffic benefits are fully considered.
I hope these bits of information are useful, and assist in your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Ted Blockley AIA
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
I
MEETING DATE: March 8, 2006 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent
I
ITEM: 1o~. nnn.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED
FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services DEPARTMENT HEAD
DATE: February 16, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: Report from the Planning Commission regarding request for direction on increased public
noticing for development projects requiring hearings (Citywide)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the memo from the Chair of the Planning Commission and
refer this issue to the Planning and Development Committee.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 19, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed increased
public noticing for development projects requiring hearings. The attached memo from Barbara Lomas,
Chair of the Planning Commission, discusses the City's current notification policy and contains
recommended revisions to the policy.
Based on input Commissioners have been receiving from the public, Chairperson Lomas is of the opinion
that due to the City's growing population and increased public interest in development, the current
notification procedures may better serve the public if the notification radius were expanded.
It is recommended by the Planning Commission that the notification radius be expanded from the current
300 feet to 500 feet. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that the notice be posted on the
project site by the applicant within 15 days of application submittal in order to better inform affected
neighborhoods of upcoming projects.
In order to implement the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to the City's notification policy,
amendments to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 (Zoning Ordinance- Hearing Notices) and
Section 16.16.060 (Subdivision Ordinance - Public Hearing) would be required. It would also require
adoption of an administrative policy by the Planning Department to apply the expanded notification radius
to General Plan Amendments.
The Planning Commission has stated it is willing to offer assistance in developing policies and ordinances
and conducting hearings, as appropriate, on Council's direction.
February 16, 2006, 1:38PM
S:\Dana\admin~2006\Mar\3-8-pc noticing policy.dot
B A K E I~ ES F I E L D
MEMORAND'UM ,
Jnnuary 31, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
FROM: Barbara Lomas, Planning Commission Chair
SUBJECT: Request for direction regarding increased Public Notice on development projects
which require hearings.
The Planning Commission is concerned that with the City's growing population and~public
interest in development, the City should evaluate its hearing notice procedures. Currently, the
City provides notice as required by law, however, based on input we hear from the Public this
procedure appears inadequate in some instances. ,
The Planning Commission requests that the City Council refer the issue of public notice to their
Planning and Development Committee for consideration to expand notice procedures.
The Planning Commission recommends that the notice radius be expanded from 300 feet to 500
feet and that the property be posted by the applicant within 15 days of application submittal to
notify neighborhoods of the proposed project (see attached).
This revision to the notification process would require amendments to Bakersfield Municipal
code sections 17.64.050 (Zoning Ordinance - Hearing Notices) and 16.16.060 (Subdivision
Ordinance - Public Hearing) and adoption of an administrative policy by the Planning
Department to use this notice procedure for General Plan Amendments also.
The Planning Commission offers assistance in developing policies, ordinances and conducting
hearings as appropriate based on Council direction.
JM~S:~Movius~lPH Direction memo\jm
POSTING OF PROJECT AREA
Within 15 calendar days after submittal of a General Plan Amendment, zone change or
subdivision application, the applicant shall post a sign(s) giving notice of the proposed
project ·
The notice shall be posted on each street frontage of the subject property. One sign shall
be posted and evenly spaced for each 300 feet or less of street frontage.
The sign shall remain posted until the City has taken final action on the proposed project,
or the application is withdrawn.
The size of each sign shall be 4'x 8' with a minimum of 6 inch letters. The content of
each sign shall include at a minimum the following language.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN AMENDENT, ZONE CHANGE OR'SUBDIVISION
From: To:
(Use Plain Language)
OR
To construct single family/multiple family dwelling units
(Number)
Questions? Developer's Phone Number
Bakersfield Planning Department Phone Number
Case #
S:/Forms/Posting of Project/12/23/05/jm