HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3599ORDINANCE NO. 3 5 9 9
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION A OF
SECTION 16.16.010 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILING TENTATIVE
MAPS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, filed an application requesting
amendment to Section 16.16.010 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code relating to the
location to file tentative maps; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 20-94 on May 5, 1994, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of said amendments and this Council
has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning Commission as set: forth
in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the proposed project was categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15300.4 as identified in the City's CEQA
Implementation Procedures, Resolution No. 212-92; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and City of
Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff,
Planning Commission and this Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby ~makes the
following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA,
pursuant to Section IV.B.3.d of Bakersfield City Council Resolution No. 212-92.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals
and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
SECTION 1.
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and
correct.
2. Subsection A of Section 16.16.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
16.16.010 Filing.
A. Each subdivider shall file or cause to be filed such copies of the
tentative map as may be required by the planning director with the planning director of
the City of Bakersfield, California.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
......... O00 .........
2
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
, by the following vote:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED 'J~L 1 ~ ~11~
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney
ML:pjt
May 27, 1994
res\o1616010.cc
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION
AND NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS IN EXCESS OF 4 FEET HIGH
FROM THE ZONE MODIFICATION REQUIREMENT
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.16.010 AND 17.64.035 OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING ~O
PROCEDURES FOR FILING TENTATIVE MAPS AND
MODIFICATIONS OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARDS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A TENTATIVE MAP. AND FILING OF
APPEALS OF SAID MAPS
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 C, D & H OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM
SIZE FOR LOT DEPTH, WIDTH, AND DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 I AND J OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16.28.170.O OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR
APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS OF LOT STANDARDS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
REQUIRING RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES WITH
SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE SUBDIVISIONS.
Staff reports recommending approval were given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She asked if
this were the opportunity to make comment about other sections of the
ordinance. Ms. Marino said it would not be appropriate to discuss items which
are not on the agenda. They could be commented on during the public
statements portion of the agenda.
Ms. Don Carlos referenced Exhibit "A" specifically the depth and width of lots
being a certain criteria when abutting agricultural uses. She asked for
clarification and asked that this mean literally abutting rather than a street
separating residential from the agricultural zone. Mr. Hardisty said it is based on
a common property line arrangement. Regarding paragraph H c, oncerning double
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 3
frontage lots, she suggested if the width is being changed perhaps a more exacting
description could be given to qualify the lots which may technically be considered
double frontage. She gave an example of a lot abutting a collector and having a
masonry wall. She asked that language be added as follows: "The lots which
include a waiver of vehicle access at one side shall not be deemed to be double
frontage lots." Mr. Hardisty said this is already covered in the ordinance.
Regarding Page 3 of Exhibit "A" the changes relating to paragraph 3 as refe~xing
to property zoned multi-family in which an element of public benefit is necessary
to justify the reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open
space or facilities unique to the project, she said it was her understanding that in
requiring amenities of single family developed in a multi-family zone that it be
consistent with the requirement of R-1 development with reduced lot sizes. The
restriction is that only recreational facilities can be provided as an amenity,
however in an R-1 zone with reduced lot sizes several options exist such as park
land or in-lieu fees, requirement for 80 percent of the median sales price and
other criteria. This does not accomplish uniformity. She suggested there should
be another category that would address recreational opportunities in the proximity
of the project.
Commissioner Hersh asked for example from Ms. Don Carlos in which a
recreational amenity could not be provided within the project boundaries. She
said if a parcel is only 15 acres and a park is required within this site it would not
pencil out. She felt perhaps some criteria to allow this would be an option. She
asked that the Commission revisit criteria such as Item D which requires 80
percent substandard lots within the subdivision.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Messnet said there are 3 criteria that the Commission considers
for single family housing such as recreational open space facilities, park land
dedication and in-lieu fees which would take care of the fear expressed by Ms.
Don Carlos regarding some sites not being able to provide an on-site facility. He
asked if any consideration was given to adding these items to Section 3. Mr.
Hardisty said the criteria in F could be used, however the Commission must be
careful to tie the amenity to the project.
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 4
Commissioner Marino said a workshop was held on this issue in which minutes
were prepared and he referenced handouts that the new commissioners did not
receive. He said Commissioner Powers had asked that two ordinances be written
one in which the open space amenity would be eliminated in the R-1 zone and
one in which it would be added in the R-2. He did not feel there was a problem
with the smaller lots, however felt there was a problem with the ordinance. He
said he would be inclined to continue this ordinance to the June 2, 1994 meeting
so that Item D could be added and staff could work on a clarification for Item H.
He suggested this item be sent to committee to meet with the BIA to clarify
unclear wording.
Commissioner Brady said he was unclear about Item 16.16.O.3. saying he felt the
small lot subdivision could be justified without an amenity by saying they are
immediately adjacent to sufficient open space for the area. He was concerned
that in this situation staff may reject it and the commission would not see it. Mr.
Hardisty said staff would recommend approval of subdivisions in which amenities
were previously provided in other developments to benefit the subject subdivision.
He said approval would not be recommended in situations in which a developer is
trying to take advantage of a neighbor's generosity.
Commissioner Hersh said the 80 percent rule bothered him and he would like to
see something that would refine it. He felt staff would be amenable to allowing a
developer of a small subdivision to contribute to an existing amenity within the
area. He said he had a problem with large subdivisions with small lots and
surrounding residential subdivisions all trying to use the same planned or existing
amenity. He said he felt the ordinance was acceptable in general and leaves
enough leeway for staff to make adjustments for special situations.
Commissioner Delgado concurred with Commissioner Hersh's assessment
regarding the basic need for an ordinance. He said he wanted to see the issne of
compensation for the fact that the Commission is dealing with small lots to be
addressed. The absence of open space in each yard should be addressed through
alternative solutions. He stated his reluctance in seeing these agnendments
postponed further. He said he was not opposed to further review of the 80
percent rule in the future, however would like to see the Commission proceed
with the adoption of these ordinances as they exist.
Commissioner Messnet stated his inclination to act as a commission on these
ordinances and handle the 80 percent issue at a later time. Mr. Hardisty
recommended that any motion regarding the 80 percent rule be handled
separately from these proposed ordinance amendments. He pointed out a map
which depicts subdivisions with substandard lots.
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 5
Commissioner Brady was concerned the Commission is recommending passing an
ordinance just to get something on the books. He felt the proposed ordinance
should be broad enough to allow a developer to install a larger park at a site in
the vicinity of a developing subdivision thus providing amenities for both.
Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Hardisty said the language
in paragraph 3 restricts the public benefit and is not meant to match the
definition of paragraph 2.F. He felt if substandard lots are going to be allowed
they should not be justified with a bigger than average park three blocks away.
He suggested the wording be as follows: "Recreational open space connected or
adjacent to the project and/or facilities unique to the project."
Commissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Boyle's comments, asking if his
proposed language would be appropriate. Mr. Hardisty said it could be added to
Paragraph 3.
Commissioner Marino said he did not vote for this ordinance at the previous
hearing on it. He agreed with Commissioner Brady's comment regarding the type
and distance of amenity from a project. He felt the ordinance requires those of a
lower economic status to provide more park land, which he did not feel was
equitable or consistent with the general plan. He said he was agreeable to the
wording proposed by Ms. Don Carlos for Item H.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Brady to
direct staff to bring back this entire ordinance at the May 30, and June 2, 1994
meetings, in the interim holding a meeting with a commission committee and
Building Industry Association to develop wording which is clear and applied
equitably.
Responding to question by Mr. Hardisty, Commissioner Marino said he wanted
consideration given to all items on Pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Exhibit "A," which
includes the 80 percent rule.
Motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brady, Marino
NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messnet
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messnet said it was his preference to handle this issue at this time. If
the 80 percent situation is to be considered it could be handled at a future
hearing.
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 6
Commissioner Delgado suggested that Item #0.3 read as follows: Further if the
project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings and a proposed development
offers elements of public benefit within or adjacent to the project that justify the
reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open space and/or
facilities unique to the project, ... (the balance to read as in the staff report).
Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Hersh
to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed
amendments to Sections 16.16.010, 16.28.170.C, 16.28.170.D, 16.28.170.H,
16.28.170.I, 16.28.170.J, 16.28.170.O, with Item #3 modified to read as follows:
Further if the project site is zoned for multiple family dwellings and the
proposed development offers elements of public benefit within or adjacent
to the project that justify the reduction in lot area... (the balance of the
condition to remain as it exists in the staff report).
and 17.64.035, as shown on the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and
recommend the same to City Council.
Commissioner Marino asked Commissioner Delgado if he could define
"acceptable amenity" for a project. Commissioner Delgado felt an acceptable
amenity would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission upon the
examination of each individual project, since less than 6,000 square foot lots are a
discretonary item.
Commissioner Marino felt this ordinance would not work and for this reason he
would not support the motion. He stated his belief that excessive cost placed on
affordable housing becomes a barrier to affordable housing and is not consistent
with the Housing Element, therefore Finding #4 that this is consistent with the
2010 General Plan could not be made.
Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Delgado said
"adjacent to" would not include projects in which a street would separate amenity
from housing.
Commissioner Boyle did not know if the standards were specific, however felt
planning is discretionary.
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 7
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messnet
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Marino
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Marino to
make findings set forth in staff report and approve the amendment to Section
17.08.180(B) as described in the staff report, and recommend same to City
Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino
Messner
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messner said he would entertain a motion at this time to refer items
concerning the ordinances to committee.
Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh
send this item to committee to reconsider the language to Paragraph 2.F. so that
it adopts the same language that the recreation open space be within or adjacent
to the project and consideration of Paragraph 2.D. as well. Chairman Messnet
appointed Commissioners Hersh, Brady and Boyle to the committee. Motion
carried.
FILE 5502 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY SKIP
HARDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DWELLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN R-1-CH (ONE
FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/- ACRES, CONTAINING
A TOTAL OF 26.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST AND WEST OF WIBLE ROAD, NORTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD,
AND SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL (Continued from the regular
meeting of April 21, 1994)
Staff report recommending approval was updated.
Chairman Messher said the public hearing was closed at the last hearing, however
upon a request by Mr. Callagy he recognized him.
RESOLUTION NO. 20-94
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF TITLE SIXl EEN OF
THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
FILING TENTATIVE MAPS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, filed an application requesting amendment
to Section 16.16.010 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code relating to the location to file tentative
maps; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set, MONDAY,
MAY 2, 1994 and, THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1994, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a
public hearing before said Planning Commission on said application, and notice of the public
hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, it was determined that the proposed
project was categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15300.4 as identified in the
City's CEQA Implementation Procedures, Resolution No. 212-92; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held May 5, 1994, said amendment was duly
heard and considered, and the Planning Commission found as follows:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to
Section IV.B.3.d of Bakersfield City Council Resolution No. 212-92.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals and
policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows:
1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The amendment to the Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.16.010.A is
hereby approved as follows:
16.16.010 Filing.
Each subdivider shall file or cause to be filed such copies of the tentative
map as may be required by the planning director with the planning
director of the a~ City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, of Bakersfield,
California.
On a motion by Commissioner Delgado and seconded by Commissioner Hersh,
the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messnet
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Marino
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of May, 1994.
DATED: May 5, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
~ OF BAI~ERSFIELD
~-'~.AC .K/H~. DIS'l'Y,~ret ary
Planning Direct9~
ML:pjt
May 24, 1994
res\1616010.pc
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SSo
County of Kern )
CAROL WILLIAMS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of
the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 14th day of July, 1994 she
posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct
copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3599, passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 13th day of July,
1994, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION A OF SECTION
16.16.010 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO FILING TENTATIVE MAPS
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
DEPUTY City Clerk