The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/17/1996 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 17, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL' OF MAY 22, 1996 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY - Steve Ruggenberg - GET B. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS - Hardisty 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp 'FILE COPY BAKERSFIELD - Kevin McDermott, Chair ~t:~: T~a?~:.~/Ya iMt earr~a g e r Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 22, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:30 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and Patricia M. Smith 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 10, 1996 MINUTES April 10, 1996 minutes approved with correction referencing Rosedale and Heath as a possible future fire station site. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FIRE STATION LOCATION Fire Chief Kelly reiterated his comments of the last meeting and added that staff had conducted test runs for distance and time for fire station placement at URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Page -2- Stockdale and Allen Roads and Brimhall and Renfro Roads. Also mentioned was the future development in the northeast and a possible fire site to service Lake Ming and Bakersfield College within the next seven to 10 years. The Committee suggested that staff work with the County Fire Chief to develop siting criteria. In addition they requested a letter be sent to the Board of Supervisors that they assure an acceptable level of fire protection is provided to existing and future development in the area when reviewing the site for their future station. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE The BIA expressed its concerns regarding increasing the commercial fees so high that the impact would also have a rippling effect on residential construction. It was suggested that developers be allowed more flexibility to pay the scheduled fee or conduct their own study to determine the true impact of the project and thus, the fee. Staff indicated that the current ordinance has an appeal provision in it which gives developers some flexibility already to conduct their own study. Staff will ensure that this provision is clarified, noting that the study must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. The fees will be reviewed on a three-year cycle, allowing for cost-of-living adjustments. The City and County will work together to have consistent standards and those will be brought before Council for resolution adoption. The Committee recommended the ordinance be sent to Council for adoption. ' B. HIGHWAY 58 UPDATE CalTrans and KernCOG provided information regarding the resources that are available for the Highway 58 project. CalTrans indicated that they have been working on this project for four years and expressed their commitment to continue the project even though within their organization they are dealing with a very competitive environment. The bulk of the resources for right-of-way purchase have been removed, but some money was left to keep the project alive. The $5.2 million will be split between that earmarked for the right-of-way purchase and that which will keep the project on schedule. The engineering work is 95 percent completed, however, the environmental work has yet to begin. So far, the project is still on schedule for 1997/98. KernCOG will develop a pert chart schedule to track the process. CalTrans noted two factors for the Committee to consider regarding the California Transportation Commission: 1) they react to public protest or "non- support" and have a tendency to slow the process through "non-activity;" and 2) they look favorably on the "partnering concept" - the City, County and Council of Governments - as a way of approaching projects. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE [~ ~"~~ [~ ~-~ AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Page -3- C. SITE PLAN REVIEW This item was postponed until the June meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned 2:02 p.m. GEW:jp tegyfor lan now oppo uni the future p anni now, and priori- involvement We are at a historic point ~~~~:~~ ~ The MTIS is a planning ~~~~~~ tizing ou~ futvre needs, we will ~~~ Public involvement wil'l in our transportation ~~~ process that incorporates the ~ ~ assure that Kern County be key to our transpor- planning. For the first ~~ vision of community leaders, keeps its fair share of federal ~ ~ tation planning. You will time, major government, ~~~~ business people, interested transpoKation funding. We ~~ ~ have the oppo~unity to transportation and ~~ residents and planners in give input to community ~~ are losing $15 million per environmental entities in ~ ~3~ formulating how and where year in matching government leaders during the Kern County - the City of transpo~ation funds will funds - money that we've planning process. It is~ Bakersfield, the County of be spent, already been taxed for - the goal of this process Kern, Kern COG, Golden because we don't have a local to consider all options Empire Transit, Caltrans funding source. This is an issue and come to a and San Joaquin Valley Kef, Coun~ has the which community leaders consensus on the highest highway usage Unified Air Pollution per capita in the state, are addressing, most productive and Control District - have J Population Gro~h Trends cost-effective solutions. joined together to address I (Population in Thou~nds) ~OO Your inputis very our transportation ~b~~ , ~~ ~ ~ valuable as we look to strategy. The Major ~~ ~~~ ~~ . a future in Kern County Transportation Investment ~~ ~00 ~~~ ~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~~~ that avoids the kind of Strategy (MTIS) will set ~~~ ~oo ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ gridlock facing Los in place a plan that ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~oo ~ ~~ ~~ Angeles and other will determine our ~~ ~ ~~ ~ major cities: a future transportation in ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ in which we and our the future. ~~ ~ ~~ children continue to 1970 ~80 1990 2000 2010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~: ~ ~ enjoy the quality of life ~~ ~~ we value so highly. Rush hour a time to avoid being on ~ ~ the road in most major cities. Here in .Kern County, we are still able to get where we're going without too much trouble. Our commutes are usually reasonable allowing us plenty of time to enjoy Four families, our life- styles and after-work activities· But what happens as our community continues to gr~ow without any transpor- tation solutions in place? What happens to o.ur quality of life when we must leave earlier, rush moreland arrive late? Please rank the importance to you of each of the following transportation improvement options being considered by local planning agencies. (1 = not at all important and 5 = very important.) The options are grouped into short-term options that can be completed in the next five years, and mid- to long-term options that will take more than five years to complete. Short-term (1 to 5 years): ~Create bicycle lanes for commuters Better timing of traffic signals More one-way streets in the downtown area Restrict parking on busy streets Repair existing streets and highways More buses, longer hours and wider bus service area Provide limited stop, direct buses (express bus) Promote more ridesharing Encourage telecommuting cTelecommuting mean~ that employees work at home or at telecornmutingcenters located near home. By working at horne or a telecornmuting center, the individuals are not driving, and thus, there are fewer vehicles on the road.) Mid- to long-term (6 to 20 years): ~finish a crosstown freeway ~Widen key streets and intersections ~Build more river crossings (bridges) ~Build more railroad and freeway over- or underpasses ~ Build a freeway around the city ~Control traffic signals by computer ~Keep the existing streets and highways in good repair ~More, buses, longer hours, and wider bus service area ~Multi-car trolley running southwest to northeast [light rail] (Continued on reverse) Any of the transportation options described on the front page must be paid for with a combination of local, state, and federal money. Several sources of local funding for transportation projects have been suggested. Please rate how likely you would be to support each of the following funding sources, on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not likely and 5 = very much. ~Metropolitan area sales tax local gas tax Annual parcel fee (property tax) Vehicle registration fee How would you grade the current transportation system (highways, streets, buses) in the metropolitan Bakersfield area? A = excellent, C = average, and F = failing: (check one) A = excellent B C = average D F = failing Don't know What has been your experience with traffic congestion traveling through metropolitan Bakersfield recently? (check one) ~ No congestion Congestion in some spots only ~Bottlenecks during rush hours (Where? ) Always delays traveling east and west Other (specify: ~ ~I don't travel through metropolitan Bakersfield PLEASE PLACE THIS IN THE COMMENT BOX OR MAIL TO: Chester Moland, Golden Empire Transit District, 1830 Golden State Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MAJOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STI~TEGY Participating Agencies: Golden Empire Transit District City of Bakersfield Kern County Kern Council of Governments California Department of Transportation San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District March 15, 1996 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MAJOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY The Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) is a consensus building process that will result in the identification of the most beneficial and locally supportable package of transportation projects for the community. It is a coordinated strategy sponsored by all local and state transportation agencies in Kern County including: · City of Bakersfield · County of Kern · Kern Council of Governments · Golden Empire Transit District · San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District · California Department of Transportation STRATEGY OVERVIEW · BACKGROUND · PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES · CURRENT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING LIMITATIONS · CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS · PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE STRATEGY · OPTIONS FOR MAINTAINING MOBILITY · THE PROCESS AND OBTAINING CONSENSUS · SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY · BACKGROUND Over the last 25 years, the population of Kern County has almost doubled: from 330,000 persons in 1970 to 632,000 in 1995. By the year 2010 the State Department of Finance predicts that we will have over 1,000,000 persons residing in Kern County--tripling our 1970 population. In 1970, we had essentially the same transportation system of streets and roads that we have now in 1996. We have added some local roads to serve new residential developments, and a few buses for local transit service; but no new capacity to serve the 300,000 additional residents that now live here. Will we grow to 1,000,000 persons and still have essentially the same transportation system that served 330,000 persons in 19707 Or will we face this tough issue, plan for growth, and provide adequate transportation? That is what this strategy is intended to address. · PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area will be faced with many transportation challenges in the coming years. Some of the most crucial challenges are: Population Growth: · The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area has a population of 382,000 (1995) and will grow to 612,000 over the next 20 years (2015), an increase of over 60 percent,t Emerging Traffic Congestion: · The Metropolitan Area consists of 715 miles of city streets and 934 miles of county roads. Within the Metropolitan Area, Highway 99 has average daily vehicle counts as high as 100,000 vehicles per day. Trucks account for as much as 37 percent of the average daily traffic.: On Route 58, trucks account for 33 percent of all the traffic. By comparison, the statewide average for trucks is under 10 percent of total traffic. Funding At Risk: · Between FY 1989-90 and FY 1993-94, Golden Empire Transit annual ridership increased by 26 percent, or from 4.7 million passengers to nearly 5.9 million Estimates developed based on information provided by Kern COG. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan, Kern COG, 10/94, page 4-78. passengers? This positive trend is now in jeopardy, as the availability of local, state and federal money for GET's operations is at risk. Roadway Improvements And Maintenance: · A key transportation objective is to aggressively seek funds for maintaining and improving our transportation system and to establish Kern as a "self-help" county to raise matching funds in some manner. The Kern County maintained road system is the second largest in the state with over 3,330 miles, but is 37th in the amount spent per mile on maintenance. An average of approximately $3,000 per maintained mile of roadway is spent annually on preventative maintenance ($10,000,000 total), but this is $2,000 below the statewide per mile/per year average. The estimated cost to rehabilitate the existing system (new construction, overlays and safety projects) is an additional $13,500,000 annually. In addition, Caltrans estimates that over half the highways in Kern County have existing service deficiencies and almost all will become deficient over the next ten years. Air Quality: · Kern County is classified as nonattainment for both Ozone and respirable particulate matter. Metropolitan Bakersfield is also classified as federal nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Approximately 70 percent of the carbon monoxide generated in Kern County is from motor vehicles. Maintain Livability of Community: · One indicator of livability is the assurance of continued mobility throughout the Metropolitan Area. As growth occurs and no investments in new transportation infrastructure are made, travel times will deteriorate over more hours of the day. Given these challenges, The Golden Empire Transit District, the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, Caltrans, Kern COG, and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District have embarked on a Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) to identify what the most effective mix of transportation improvements is for greater Metropolitan Bakersfield. The following issues need to be addressed in the MTIS. Issue '1: Growth of the Metropolitan Area and the continued sprawl of development and activity centers. Issue 2: Growth in Internal and External Travel Markets, primarily journey to work, but also school/university, shopping, etc. 3 California State Controllers Reports. Issue 3' Orientation of Travel. The fastest growing travel markets will be on the west side, and east-west cross-town travel, for all trip purposes, will increase. Issue 4: 'Geographic Constraints/Barriers. SR 99 is a barrier that limits cross-town travel options and cross-town capacity. The Kern River, railroad lines, and rail yards also funnel travel into concentrated corridors. Issue $: Growth in Cross-Town Travel will exceed the peak-period carrying capacity in key travel corridors. Congestion will grow and air quality may worsen. Issue 6: Limited funds require finding the optimal solution to emerging transportation problems. A process is needed that involves all local agencies and key stake holders in the determination of the most beneficial and supportable transportation solutions for the Metropolitan Area. These solutions would then have the highest funding priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Issue 7: Multimodal Connections. The variety and extent of possible multimodal connections will grow in the future and are key to the fabric of good transportation in the Metropolitan Area in the future. · CURRENT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING LIMITATIONS Kern County, the City of Bakersfield and Golden Empire Transit all rely on a combination of local, state and federal funds for building and maintaining local streets and roads and for maintaining the local transit system. Due to the downturn in the economy, along with reductions in state and federal funding, it is increasingly difficult to operate and maintain the existing transportation system. For example, Kern County's maintained system of roads is the second largest in the state with over 3,300 miles, but is 37th in the amount spent per mile on maintenance. On the transit side, federal operating support for Golden Empire Transit was recently reduced by 44%, with all operating assistance scheduled to be eliminated within the next four years. With existing operations and maintenance budgets facing big reductions, little money exists for needed improvements based on projected population growth and economic development trends for the county. In fact, the Kern Council of Governments estimates a 20-year funding shortfall of nearly $2 billion for needed highway and roadway construction, $33 million for transit system "'improvements. · · .. · CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Today, we have more grocery stores, more shopping centers, more houses, more jobs, more children, and more schools than we had in 1970. We also have more travel through our neighbor- hoeds and across town than in the past. For long-time residents, this increase in traffic congestion is readily apparent. For newcomers, Bakersfield is still a lot better than Los Angeles--but is that our standard? To some, our roads are congested--and are getting more congested with each passing year. To others, traffic congestion is not a big issue, yet. But what will the future bring.'? Perhaps we could all agree on one thing about traffic, congestion, and transportation mobility, we want to maintain what we have now, and not let conditions get any worse. The 1994 Regional Transportation Plan is a "long-range" planning document prepared by the Kern Council of Governments that consolidates city, county, and GET planned and funded transpor- tation projects. Hundreds of highway, roadway, pedestrian/bicycle, and bus projects are included in the plan to be accomplished over the next 20 years. Projects include new bridges across the Kern River and various canals, improvements to Rosedale Highway, partial construction of the "Kern River Freeway" west of Sate Route 99, some railroad grade separations, and various traffic signalization projects. These are all fine projects which can be constructed, operated, and maintained with existing financial resources. But they are not enough to keep up with the 300,000 new residents expected to arrive over the next 15 years. Worse still, many of these funded projects may be delayed beyond the 15 to 20 year horizon period, further degrading the transportation system. Traffic congestion will get much worse unless new major investments in the Metropolitan Area's transportation system are made between now and year 2015. · PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE STRATEGY Recognizing that the above projects will not be able to maintain basic mobility, i.e., the quality of transportation that we have today, the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Golden Empire Transit District, Kern Council of Governments, Caltrans, and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District have teamed to sponsor what is known as a "Major Transportation Investment Strategy" (MTIS) of transportation alternatives for Metropolitan Bakersfield. The purpose of this strategy will be fourfold. 1. To provide the most appropriate transportation response to growth. 2. To maintain, and possibly improve transportation mobility to and through the heavily congested central portion of Bakersfield (i.e., south of Route 178, north of Ming, west of .... Union,..and.east. of. Cali~fornia/.New -Stine). 3. To maintain, and possibly reduce transportation-related air quality emissions. 4. To provide residents with basic mobility choices and connectivity to major travel destinations. The challenge will be to manage our public resources (tax dollars) wisely, and make the best investment choices for our community. · OPTIONS FOR MAINTAINING MOBILITY Many investment options have been identified in prior studies. These include: 1. Doing Nothing (No-Build) beyond currently funded projects and services. 2. Adding low-cost Transportation Systems Management projects such as select highway, transit, and transportation demand management actions to address points of congestion not cured by the "No-Build" option. 3. Building Highways, such as one or more of the unfunded roadways listed in the Regional Transportation Plan and the Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. These include the State Route 178 Crosstown Freeway and "Beltways" on the south and west sides of Metropolitan Bakersfield. 4. Building a transit system that would increase the number of GET buses or equivalent services two, three, or fourfold from today's modest levels and introducing new innovative bus service concepts. Additionally, the strategy could examine the feasibility of a light rail line that might run east/west through central Bakersfield, as suggested by a recent long- range transportation study conducted for the Metropolitan area. 5. Providing Balanced Transportation Improvements representing the most appropriate combination of the above. · THE PROCESS AND OBTAINING CONSENSUS The Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) is a transportation planning process that will identify and select the best package of long-range improvements to implement for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. It is the most significant process of its kind for our community. It requires that we genuinely involve Bakersfield's policy makers and the general public. The results of this process will determine where and how federal, state and local transportation dollars are spent in the future. The Metropolitan Bakersfield MTIS is now underway and the nine individual tasks will be completed between now and the fall of 1996. Federal and State Transportation agencies are partic- ipating in the MTIS since some of the features of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) selected at the end of the project will require new funding. The MTIS is being conducted with the public involved in conceptualizing and selecting the transportation components of each alternative. · SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY Due to lack of state and federal transportation funds, the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area must seriously consider establishing some type of new local funding source for building and maintaining transportation improvements. This new funding source is critical because it would (1) provide needed funding, (2) create new funding opportunities for the metropolitan area through the leveraging of local funds to obtain matching state and federal monies and (3) allow for local control over how funds are spent for improvements. Through the Bakersfield MTIS, the Metropolitan Area has an opportunity to develop a community consensus on short- and long-term transportation priorities for the metropolitan area. Once a consensus emerges, local leaders can then begin building public support for one or more local funding measures that will be needed to fund transportation improvements. Key Consensus Bu,id,ng Steps in the MTIS Process ' / .... ""~ ~ · . ~ / ~ 0 c 1995 ;: 1996 MEMORANDUM May 14, 1996 TO: ALAN TAN'DY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING - MAY 22, 1996 COUNCIL REFERRAL - OUTLINE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO REMEDY ANY DEFICIENCIES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .MAY HAVE HAD ON THE MARKETPLACE The ruling on the Marketplace site plan review approval, as I understand it, directly relates to the issues raised in the petition filed by Jill Kleiss. Five of the nine determinations in the court's ruling relate to our decision to approve the site plan for the project. They are as follows: #3 The project is not statutorily exempt. #4 The project is not categorically exempt. #5 The project is not ministerial. #7 The Marketplace is a permitted use in a C-2 zone. #9 CEQA does apply to this project but doesn't obviate previous decisions other than issuance of a building permit without first preparing an EIR. Based on this understanding I propose the following immediate, short-term and long-term actions in response to the ruling on the Marketplace project: I. Immediate Action: It is clear that if we made the same decisions on a similar project on a different site we could be challenged and suffer the same ruling. Therefore one obvious thing we need to do is change the approval process for similar projects. Change to me means modify - not overhaul. The following changes are recommended: A) Revise categorical exemptions in CEQA Resolution 212-92 as follows: 1. Add to Class 3 New Construction or conversion of small structures: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code for change of use of existing buildings and new construction for small commercial and industrial projects. 2. Delete from Class 5 Minor alterations in land use limitations: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal I Code. · Alan Tandy May 14. 1996 Page 2 B)Revise site plan review ordinance to require environmental review for certain projects as part of the site plan review process for: 1) New commercial or industrial projects consisting of: a) Any single retail store or business with a total gross floor area of 75,000 square feet. b)Any retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet. c) Any addition to any existing retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet increasing the total gross floor area by more than twenty percent (20%)' or by more than 75,000 square feet, or any addition to any existing shopping center increasing the gross square footage of the shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more. (Note: The above items are adopted site plan review policies. CC resolution 111- 83, and Planning Commission Resolution 55-83). 2. :. Additions to commercial or industrial projects changing a single tenant building to a multi-tenant building or adding additional square footage or building pads to an. existing multi-tenant building. C) Revise CEQA resolution to give responsibility to Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to recommend approval of negative declarations or certify an EIR for site plan reviews. II. Short-term action: There are other changes that should be made that aren't as apparent. They are changes in response to potential weaknesses in our process identified during our review and preparation for arguments before the court. Those items relate to our CEQA resolution and the list of ministerial and categorical exemptions contained therein. We should review and make necessary revisions to the list of categorical exemptions and ministerial projects in the CEQA resolution. III. Long-term actions: A broader issue outside of the issues ruled on by the court but related is the authority granted to various departments with respect to the application of conditions to insure compliance with site plan review, resolutions, ordinances and procedures. The following issues should be evaluated: A. Evaluate whether or not it would be beneficial to require PCD zone changes for all shopping centers. Alan Tandy May 14, 1996 Page 3 B. Evaluate the authority granted to various department and division heads to condition projects through site plan review. SO:pit cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Gall Waiters, Assistant City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney Attachments: Copy of Judges Ruling on the Marketplace Copy of Site Plan Review Resolution used for Threshold for Initial Study m\matS.13 634 4999 E C $~PERIOR CT ~002~004 ~ SUFLqaOII COUgT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOItr~A ?'~ IN AND FOIl THE COUNTY OF KERN ~ESE~,~O~, ROC,1~R D.P. AN,DAT.T .JUOGF. C.T. M~ez T~TL&: SO~T ~I~ A~ION C~~, E. Robert Wright CI~ OF B~S~9, ~S~ CI~ Judy Skousen, ~pucy City ACco~ey ~L. ~ AL ~rl ~ern~dez. ~puCy City Attorney ~. 229601 ROR See attached rulia8 made a part hereof. Copies mailed co counsel on chis date./clm MINUTES FR0~; RDRV ~uL:~,~u ON MARKETPLACE C~QA T~IAL LET A P~~ INk. ION iSS~ IN FAVOR OF PETITIO~RS ~S~INI~ ~ CI~ 0F ~RSFIE~ ~ ~ P~ IN I~REST ~OM PR~I~ WI~ ~ CONS~U~ION A~IVI~ ON ~ PR~ ~O~Y ~0~ ~ ~ ~TP~CE, ~ PROM ISSUI~ APPRO~ OR ~ ~R ~E~ITS POE ~ PR~ PRIOR ~ COMPLYING WI~ ~ R~QUIR~S OF CEOA. 9~ITIO~ ~ ~~ ~IR COSTS OP SUIT ~IN. ~ O~STION OF P~ITION~S' ~I~~ ~S~ ~ BE CONSID~ AT SU~ TI~ ~ A COST BI~ IS FIL~ W!~ ~ ~T. WI~ ~ ~ ~ SPECIFIC ISS~S ~ C0~T ~ ~E ~E FOL~WING DE~I~TIONS: _ 1. ~ P~TITION IS N~ ~ BY ~K~ IN PRC S~ION 21167 (A). T~ WAS NO FI~ ~0~ 0F SI~ P~ ~ITI~S ~IL A~ST, 199~. 2. ~LIEF P~S~ ~ ~ P~ITION IS NOT M~S~. P~TITI0~S ~ SOUG~ -EIR ~, IN~ AS B~ ~ CI~ ~ ~ P~ IN I~ST T~ ~ POSITION ~T ~ EIR NOW ~ PROCESS OF D~D~TION IS BEING DO~ ~ ~ ACC~O~TION, ~ NOT BEMUSE IT IS ~LY ~QUI~, ~ ISS~ OF ~ ~CESSI~ OF PREP~TION OF S~ BE~ ~ ~T IN ~IS } PR~ IS N~ STA~RILY ~ ~ PRC SE~ION 2108~.3 . SEE SE~ION 21083.3 (C).' ~ROVISIONS OF ~C SE~ION 21084 (A). ~PR~ 0F A SIZ~ OF ~ ~P~CE, E~ E~YING, SO F~ ~ POSSIB~, ~SIFI~TION OF A "C~S ~ PR~, IS N~ A "MINIS~I~ DR~. ~ER PRC S~ION 080 (k) . ZO~ 0~I~ S~ION 1~.53.010, ~ SEQ.,PROPE~Y A~S ~NSIDE~ DIS~ION ~CIS~ OF ~T DIS~ION IN ~IS ~OR PR~ ~I~ OBV~S ~ ~M ~T ~PROV~ OF ~ PRO~ CONSTI~S A MINISTERI~ ~ION. 6. ~K ~ONS W~LL ~G~ IN ~ CI~ 0F ~RSFIE~'S BRI~P, VOLleY ~P~TION OF ~ ~IS ~ER IS ~T ~S ~I~TA. CONS~UCT!ON OP A PR~ SUCH AS ~ ~TP~CE 0N ITS 4999 ~ ¢ SL'P£RIOR CT ~00t,004 PRESF-/~T SITE REPRt~SENTS A PERMITTED US~ IN A C-2 ZONE AS S~T PORTH IN ~R 17.24 OF ~ BMC (SEE BMC SE~ION 17.04.546). 8. ~ ~I~ OP(~~ ~ES N~ ~ ~LI~P IN ~IS ~SE. T~ CO~T I$ ~ PERSU~T~T ~ ~I~ SHO~ ~ BE APPLIED A CE~ ~E BEMUSE OF ~ ~LIC I~ST ~SES OP ~ LEGIS~TION. HO~, IN ~ INST~ ~E ~ CO~T PI~S ~T ~ FIL~ OF ~IS A~ION ~~O~OUSLY WI~ ISSU~CE 0F ~ BUI~I~ P~IT, ~ IN ~ S~ MO~ ~ PI~ SITE P~ CO~ION ~S, ~S N~ S~RT ~PLI~TION OF ~ ~I~. ~ EVID~C~ ~DU~ AT ~ ~REIN V~ ~ ~INIS~TI~ ~ ~HS N~ ~STI~ ~ R~LI~P SOUG~ IN P~G~ I OF ~ 9~ITI~S' P~R. ~ PA~ ~QA ~ES ~PLY ~ ~IS ~~ ~ES NOT ~C~SS~ILY OBVIATE ~ DECISIONS ~D ~ DA~ BY ~' CI~ ~~I~ ~%S PR~, O%~R ~ 'l~R DECISION ~ ISS~ · UI~I~ P~MIT WI~O~ ~IRST PREP~IN~ AN ~IRO~~ I~A~- -~PORT. '"SOLUTION ~0. 55-83 RESOLUT ~: ~F ~? PLANNING ~.IS.ION OF .... CITT OF kAKERSFiELD ~DO.~.NG ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN REVIEW POLICY. WHEREAS, pursuanu to Sec=ion 17.53.051 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, the Planning Con%mission is ~equired by resolution Site Plan Review objective~ and policies, subject =o approval by the City Council; and WHEP~$, the policy se= forth below, in addition to those set forth in ?!annin~ Ccm~.iss!cn Resolution ~:cs. 21-82, 23- - 82 through 37-82, approved by =he City Council in ins Resolution No. 57-82, has been found by the Planning Commission to be consisten= wi~h and ~o promote the purpose of Site Plan Review as se= forth in Section 17.53.010 cf the Bakersfield Municipal Code. NOW, THEP~FORE,__== ,.~ P~SOLVED by ~_ P!ar~.ing Commission of the Ci%y of Bakersfield as follows: 1 ~ha~ the =~'o,.'~- ~: added to the !is~ c Plan Review policies: Tha~, .in addition to dedica:ions of real proper=y requlred and excepu as such share is or2nerwise assessed cr cons=ruc:icn in lieu or in excess thereof required, as a condition of issuance cf site plan approval for any mapor retail project, as defined hereinbeiow, and prior ~o issuance of any building permit for the project, the appiican: for such project, by cash deposit, contract and corporate surety bond, cr irrevocable instrument of credit from one or more responsible financial ins=itu=ions regulated by the s~a~e or federal government and pledging the= the funds are on deposit and ~aaran:eed for payment upon the City's demand, and/ct dedication or offer cf dedica%ion, as determined by %he City Engineer, shall make, or pay its proportionate share of the cost cf, additlcns to, upgrading cr construction cf public facilities the need for which is wnol!y cr par=ia!iy a=:ribu~ab!e uo the project. "major retail ~(~ A. For purposes cf this policy, the ~arm pro,eot" is defined to include each of ~he follOw,hq: (i) Any single retail store or business w~h a to,al gross floor area cf 75,000 square (2) A,,y retail shopping con:er wi%h a ~r. oss floor area of more than 100,000 square leon. (3) Any addition =o any existing retail shopping con:er with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square.feet increasing the total gross floor aea by more than twenty ~ercen= (20%) or by more than 75,000 square fee:, or any addition =c any axis=in~ shcppin~ increasing t_he gross square footage of the shoppin~ canner ~o 150,000 square fee~ cr more. B. For purposes of this po!los', a shopping center means any group of a~ leas. =~co businesses cna sincle cr se:a~ e parcels cf proper~y which group u=i!i=es cc:~cn cff-stree~ ~arkin~ facilities an~ access. C.- As used herein, "pu~!ic facilities" means s~_reet and brid~e (including overpass) widenings, paving, s=reet lights, ~raffic signs and signais, cur~s, gut:ers, sidewalks, medians, median frri=a=ion sys:ams and landscaping, intersection and access ccnstrucnions and recons~ruc=ions, freeway access and axi= consr, ruc=ions and reconsnruc=ions; wa=er mains, wells, pumping and s=orage facilities, including cons=ruction and upgrading =o increase fire flows; sewer mains, p'=mping and lift stations; drainage lines, culverts, sumps, and pumping facilities; utility system extension or upgrading; fencing and landscape screenlng (including irriga=ion therefor) for any of ~he foregoing; transit stops; and any equipment or facility made necessary by ~he progec= and to be used primarily in relation to the project, including the fees and costs for plans and specifications for such public facilities. D. Unless the City Engineer and the app!icanu ouherwise agree, such needs and appor=ior, menu of such costs snail be assessed and made pursuant ~o =ne wriuuen report of one or more consul:anus hired for such purpose Dy the City. whose fees and costs are advanced to the City by and are the responsibility cf the applicant. Unless the applicant and the City Engineer agree upon a consultan: or consul=ants, the applicant shall select the consultant from a list of three provided by the City Engineer. If more than one consultant is to be used, the City Engineer shal~ provide a lis= of three names for each =o be selec=ed. Such repot= shall be prepared in accordance with parameters set by the City Engineer. E. C~sus assesse~ pursuant hereto shal~, 'anuil ccnsuruc- ~ion of such faci!i=ies, be deposited in a special accoun= for each public faci!itv = ~or which the? ~ere assessed. Should plan expire under =he provisions of Sec=ion 17.53.060 H. or a projec= be abandoned by written notice to the City's Planning Director and City = ~ _ _ng_ne__ after approval of a site plan, the assessmenus made and uai~. h~reun~er, ..... .... .__...=~"~: .... _..=' .... .... "~.... ~aid a the public faci!i=y, shall be refunded. Such refund snell be made to uhe owner cf the prooecn as shown on t_he site plan application on file wi:h the City's Planning Depar~men=. Should such ownership change after any kuch assessments have been made and paid, it. shall be the mu=ua! responsibi!i=y of both =he former and the new owners to advise ~ne Planning Direc=or of the City in writing cf the party to whom refund is to be made should the si~e plan expire cr be abandoned. F. Each public facility for which an assessmen= has been made and paid and the account therefor shall, until the facility's cons=rucuicn, be revlewed by =he ~ity Council an a no=iced hearing each. year after =he date cf payment ~o assess =he continuing need for such facility. The owner of any assessed may.petl=ion uhe City Council at any time for a de=e.~...inauicn ~ha~ such need no ~nqer exists. .houl, i~ be determined by ~e City Council that such need no longer e×is~s, cr shoul~ any facility for which an assessment has Deen made and paid n~ De budge~ed.-:~" ~he City. for cons~ruc~icn within tan (I0) ~'- rs following payment tc ~ne City and construction began cr ~urcnase order issued within one (!) year thereafter, ~he ~moun: assessed' therefor, including an':' inheres: earned, shall be refunded. G. The ~im:ng cf cons:ruction of such public facilities shall be at the sole discre:icn of the City. H. Assessments imposed hereunder may be appealed in accordance wi~h Sec:ich !7.53.060 i. I. For purposes cf this policy, i: is recoqnized ~ha: sequential development on separate but adjacen~ parcels may single development on any such marce~ ccns:itu:es a major retail project as defined a~cve. Accordinqly, the tc:a! square foo:aqe cf allr_.a_~=" ~ :=~:ies ccn~:ruc:ed cr to be c:ns:ruc:e~ cn parcels creater in :he course of one subdivision cr resu~ivisicn of one cr n:cr_= a~.cen:~ ~ni:iai par:a!-= ~=kail, fir .~ur~-~ses. cf ~%is pc!icy, 'be Considered cumulatively to determine whether the minimum recuiremen:s tc constitute a major retail pro~ec: are me:. The oblige:ions ~mposed hereunder shall be deferred as :o any daveiopman: i-d:''~''~'' and cumula%ive!:' below su:n threshold and the app!ican= fcr site plan approval therefor shail, az a condition of approval, contract wi=h =he City :o pay his prcpor=ionate share of any consultant's fees and assessments deuermaned :~ - application for site plan approval on behalf cf a pro3ect which, when added to those proceeding i: within the shoppin~ cen%er, ezceeds the threshold, and evidence cf such CCh'tract shall be recorded a~ainsu the property. The need for public facilities shall be determined cn the basis of a fully built-out shopping ccnucr and, cnce assessmcnus have Oeen apportioned, pa,~menu o~ an apportioned ~hare ~ball be ~ade s condition of site clan approval for each subseGuent development within the shoppznq center. 2. It is recommended %ha: ~he time limits specified in Chapter !7.53 be ex:ended frr ~rojec~s .as ts which a consul:an: is hired, as provided above, ~r~vlded that such extension snail not exceed ninety (90) days. 3. That the Secre:ar'~' cf ~he Planning ~'~ ~ =~-- hereby directed to forward this Resolution :o ~he City Council for approval cf the Site Plan Review objectives and policies se: forth herein. 4. That the above Site Plan Review objective and policy shall be considered in effect and shall be uti~- ~ review of site plans for ma~cr re:ail projects as to which detailed final cons T.ruc%lon drawings an~ c:her rela:e~ documents nave nc~ been submitted for plan check and building pe.-mi% prior ~o I HEREBY CERTIFY =nat the fsregcing Reso!utlcn was passed, and adoo:eg. _:~,, the Piann~nc. ~_c--'==icnl__ cf ~he City of Bakersfiei~ au a r_~u!&r m_=~n? %h_re~f ..ei~ cn ~he i~th da,.' cf Augusu, 19E3, by uhe fcil=~.:inq r-~ ~:~ x'=:e: AYES: NOES: .~BSENT: DATED: THE CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD DEWEY SCZALES, Secretary Planning Director AJS:mro 7-13-83 7-19-83 8-02-83 8-10-83 8-12-83 8-18-83