The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/25/2006 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, April 25, 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 FEBRUARY 28, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial to collector- Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding issues raised by Planning Commissioner Ted Blockley regarding collector streets - Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R S F I E L D ,~'~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~,,_~ Sue Benham, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, February 28, 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 1:08 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS (REGARDING CLOSED SESSION) None. 3. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel--Potential Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 (one case) The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 1:15 p.m. The Closed Session was adjourned and the regular meeting was called back to order at 2:42 p.m. 4. CLOSED SESSION ACTION Committee Chair Benham announced there was no reportable action. 5. ADOPT JANUARY 31, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, February 28, 2006 ['~?J~ ~,~ t!::' ~' 7. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding status of the hillside ordinance Planning Director Movius reported staff is work on refining wording regarding identification of primary and secondary ridgelines and viewsheds. As staff explained at the last Committee meeting, instead of focusing on slopes and setbacks to protect the view, staff is looking at slope protection areas and areas with steeper slopes that will remain open space under the hillside ordinance. Staff is also waiting to hear from the City's consultants regarding criteria for maximum cut and fill and whether or not that needs to be put into the ordinance. As soon as the draft wording is completed to address those particular issues, staff will be conducting informational meetings with interested groups and the public. After the meetings are held, it will go to the Planning Commission for perhaps a workshop and then a hearing. The Planning Commission will then make its recommendation to the City Council. Committee Chair Benham wanted to make sure the community is made aware that the public is welcome to attend the meetings just for information and does not need to have a position. The Committee took no further action. B. Report and Committee recommendation regarding park standards (This item heard before the Closed Session) Recreation and Parks Director Hoover reported on the meeting of the Volunteer Park Standards Committee. Copies of various planning documents currently being use to make decisions on parks, park sizes and park elements were distributed for the volunteers to review. The Volunteer Committee will be meeting again. In order to facilitate their review, it was decided staff would create a list of standards that would need to be changed, which could then be included in the Volunteer Committee's recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee' to address the following: · Regional park fees · Changes to the standard park size · Ratio of park size per population; currently it is 2.5 acres per 1,000; there have been suggestions from the community to make it 5 acres per 1,000 population · Maintenance requirements of various sized parks · What amenities should be included in pocket parks AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, February 28, 2006 DRAFT Committee Member Couch is also serving on the Volunteer Park Standards Committee. He suggested since pocket parks are going to be built in gated communities, the Volunteer Committee should review the percentage of park credits and amenities/elements, while reviewing pocket parks for subdivisions. Nick Grontkowski, a new resident in the northwest, spoke regarding expanding the number of parks in the northwest. The nearest park is over two miles away. His family just moved from the southwest where there are parks within walking distance. Mr. Grontkowski expressed he has small children and would be willing to help facilitate getting more parks in the northwest. City Manager Tandy responded that the parks in the northwest are governed by the North of the River Recreation and Park District. Assistant City Manager Stinson will provide contact information to Mr. Grontkowski. The Volunteer Park Standards Committee will continue to meet and will report back to the Planning and Development Committee. 8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Planning Director Jim Movius; Recreation and Parks Director Dianne Hoover; and Park Construction and Facility Planner Ken Trone Attendance-others: Dana Karcher, Tree Foundation; Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants; Kevin Burton, Young Wooldridge, LLP; Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke; Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering; Bill Cooper, Kern River Parkway Committee; Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County; Harry Love, Sierra Club; Colon Bywater, North of the River Recreation and Park District; Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh and Associates; James Nickel, Nickel Family, LLC; Cai Rossi, McMillan Homes; and Nick Grontkowski, northwest resident cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\06Planning&Development\p&d 06 feb 28 summary.doc B A K E R $ F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MEMO DATE: April 21, 2006 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ,~~~ SUBJECT: Request for Reclassification of Paladino Drive to a Collector I have reviewed Mr. Hollis' comments and have the following response: 1. The cr/ter/a for be/ng an arter/a/ street are not be/rig met. Typ/ca//y an after/a/street w/Il handle 25k veh/c/es per day. In the 2030 traffic stud/es, this sect/on of Pa/adino Drive w/// average /ess than 11k vehicles per day. True. The KernCOG latest model runs predict at least 11,000 vehicles per day. However, the reduction of an Arterial Road to a Collector in an area that is not yet fully developed leaves open that traffic volumes may be much more than estimated, depending on the final development plans. A repeat of the Brimhall Road situation, wrongly downgraded in the '80s to a Collector between Calloway and Coffee, is not desired. 2. The total distance for Pa/ad/no/s/ess than three mi/es. If Hwy 178/s be/rig rea//gned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportat/on. (Un/ess the speed/irnit on my res/dent/a/street/s 55 mph) The speed limit on Paladino, even if it were a Collector, will initially be 65 miles per hour, as required by the California Vehicle Code. If subsequent speed studies justify such, it may lower to 55 or 50 mph, after the area is developed and built out, as typical for other area of the City. 3. By rnak/ng Pa/ad/no a collector,/t can be changed to 4 lanes without a reed/an and save the city over ¢1, 000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and reed/an costs. A $1million figure is an unsubstantiated statement and is without foundation. The cost differential may be less. The cost of construction would not be borne by the City, but by the adjacent developers. Any savings that might be realized, would be for the developers, not the City, and is not a funding source for schools, or other infrastructure, as proposed by Mr. Hollis. 4. Safety concerns. As a/lowed for/n prev/ous meetings, horses and other an/reals are perm/tted on the north s/de of Pa/ad/no. Should an an/ma/get out, the results could be devastat/ng. Not to ment/on the obv/ous factors of ch//dren play/rig/n yards next to a h/gh speed thoroughfare. A Collector Road is still a major roadway and would not be of any less concern for safety as an Arterial would be. Farm animals and children would still need to be controlled and monitored. Children playing in, or near a street, even a "local" road is strongly discouraged for safety reasons. A Collector Road is still a high speed thoroughfare and respect for that fact should be given by all users of the road. S 5Docs\STEVEXPaladino-M rHollis response. DOC $. Consistency and fairness to current res/dents. ~Tf not for the current res/dents paying a large percentage of the recently instal/ed water line, construct/on efforts would have been delaye~. Our community has been part of the City of Ba/¢ersfie/d (and paid taxes)since 1977 yet are st///without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construct/on on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was rea/igne~ to handle the add/bona/ tral~Tc. One of the first projects scheduled for comp/et/on is on the northeast side. No comment from the Traffic Engineer. S:XDocs\STEVEXPaladino-MrHollis response. DOC B A K' E :R S F I E L CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: n Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: /~/~~ Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: ~/~Y~'July 25, 2005 SUBJECT: COLLECTOR STREETS Referral No. 1198 COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESI~-D STAFF AND THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED BY P.LANNING 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:~)OCUME-1\glorenz~OCALS-1\Ternp~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 q'his pattem (of collectors) is deviated from where physical constraints are present, where collectors are not needed, or where existing development precludes the grid 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\glorenzi~OCALS-l\Temp~,ef81198 Collector Streets.doc Page 1 of l Sue Benham From: "Ted Blockley" <ted~fdae.com> To: 'Sue Benham (E-mail)' <sbenham~}sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 8:14 AM Subject: City Policies regarding Collector Streets Hi Sue, I'm wdting after voicing again my concem that more consideration given to non-motorized travel in the city's circulation planning. The matter was deletion of a segment of a desginated collector, which at one time could have provided part of a safer route for children, the elderly, and others who get around without cars. A policy or other guidance from the council seems like a good way of not only keeping this kind of diversity in our streets, but also enhancing their utility. Freeways, expressways and arterials aren't pedestrian or bicycle friendly. Collector streets are the only systematically applied iow-speed, Iow-volume method for traveling between various sectiOns of land as they develop. One of the best examples is Silvercreek Park - accessible from Harris Road. Harris extends several miles east of the park, making that park accessible to 6-7 square miles of housing between Wible and Gosford Roads. West of Gosford, there is the same area of new or planned housing where high-speed arterials are the only way of reaching Silvercreek Park. This discrepancy results from absence and deletion of just a few key segments of collectors, specifically, Harris ends at Gosford and nearby portions of Pacheco and Progress Roods have been eliminated as collectors. Absent a policy on the subject, staff had little reason to oppose applicants with a valid traffic study and a convenient reason for eliminating these roads. Now that they are gone, there is little that can be done to restore them, and no plans we've seen to assure an effective substitute. I've had discussions on this subject with Stan Grady and Jim Movius. They agree that having this kind of diversity in street patterns is desirable, but emphasize that the traffic engineers in Public Works have much more influence on these decisions than Planning does. Public Works has a vast responsibility, and preserving small pieces of minor roads can't possibly be their top priority, so a matter like this one really tends to get lost in the shuffle. I woud certain favor having a city council policy that either requires or encourages relocation and addition of minor through streets so that we have a full complement of circulation choices in newly developed parts of the city. The benefits are obvious and can be described by quite a few familiar phrases like 'safe routes to schools", "connected neighborhoods' and 'walkable communities". I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks, Ted Blockley 7/11/2005