Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2019 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: Committee Members: Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Bruce Freeman – Chair Councilmember, Bob Smith Councilmember, Willie Rivera Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:00 p.m. City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301 A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 26, 2019 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. General Plan Update – Tandy/Kitchen 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Microbreweries – Kitchen B. Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Tentative Tract Maps – Tandy/Kitchen 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT   B A K E R S F I E L D Committee Members Staff: Chris Huot Councilmember, Bruce Freeman Chair Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Willie Rivera Councilmember, Bob Smith SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12:00 p.m. City Hall North – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember, Bruce Freeman, Chair Councilmember, Willie Rivera Councilmember, Bob Smith City Staff: Alan Tandy, City Manager Steven Teglia and Chris Huot, Assistant City Managers Brianna Carrier, Administrative Analyst III Nathan Gutierrez, Management Assistant Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Richard Iger, Deputy City Attorney Nick Fidler, Public Works Director Jacqui Kitchen, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Development Services Building Director Kevin Coyle, Development Services Planning Director Paul Johnson, Planning Principal Planner Mike Hale, Bakersfield Police Captain Dianne Hoover, Recreation and Parks Director Fidel Gonzalez, Recreation and Parks Facility Planner Additional Attendees: Members of the Public 2. ADOPT APRIL 17, 2018 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT The report was adopted as submitted. /S/ Chris Huot   Planning and Development Committee February 26, 2019 Agenda Summary Report Page 2   3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion Regarding Sidewalk Standards – Tandy/Fidler Public Works Director Fidler provided a brief summary of the existing arterial street sidewalk standards and reviewed the revisions to the standard provided in the memorandum of the agenda packet. Revisions to the standard would increase the sidewalk width from six feet to eight feet while continuing to allow for landscaping and meandering walk paths. He provided visual concepts by means of a PowerPoint presentation. Committee Chair Freeman and Committee member Smith concurred with the proposed changes. Committee member Smith made a motion to present the revisions to the full City Council. The motion was unanimously approved. B. Discussion Regarding Permit Streamlining – Tandy/Kitchen Committee Chair Freeman stated the purpose of the discussion was to explore areas of the permitting process that can be streamlined to be developer friendly. In response to Councilmember Freeman’s January 9, 2019 referral, Development Services Director Kitchen provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the current permitting process, mechanisms used by other cities, and potential mechanisms the city can use. Many cities are using software programs to process permits. The software enables multiple users from various departments to review permit submittals simultaneously. It allows for applicants to track and monitor the status of their permit during the review process as well. City Manager Tandy stated staff has been reviewing the software program option for some time but has been unable to implement such a program due to budgetary constraints. This is no longer the case due to the passage of the Public Safety and Vital Services measure. The purchase of a software program will be included in the next budget cycle for funding. Tom Uce, RGF Properties, stated he would like to see a streamline process establish to provide better timelines and guidelines for developers from the beginning of the permitting process through the end, in particular the final phases of the process. Russell Johnson, Common Sense Consulting, stated the proposed software program may improve the permitting process and should include a component which identifies the permit lifecycle and provides alerts to management when an issue arising so it may be addresses as soon as possible. Phil Gaskill, Gaskill Rose Family Homes, stated the City’s Building Division is one of the most accommodating he has every worked with and that improvements need to be made to communicating with developers regarding timeframes. He would like to see the City transition into an online-electronic based permitting process.   Planning and Development Committee February 26, 2019 Agenda Summary Report Page 3   Committee member Rivera requested staff implement into the current process a notification component to inform applicants of receipt of their application and include timeframes to complete the review process. Trent Miller, Ruetggers & Schuer, stated a flowchart identifying the person assigned to process the application and coordinate with the various departments for processing would assist developers with a point of contact for notifications and communications. Ryan Freeborn, Landscape Development, stated he has worked with other municipalities who have an electronic software program and the permitting process is very efficient. He provided staff names of different software programs he has used. Committee Chair Freeman requested staff conduct further research and meet with developers to identify additional areas of the permitting process that can be improved. Staff to present the information to the Committee at a future meeting. C. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the 2019 Committee Meeting Schedule - Huot The Committee meeting schedule was adopted as submitted with the exception of the April and June meetings which were changed to April 30th and June 4th. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee member Rivera asked to have the Accessory Dwelling Units topic added to the agenda for discussion at a future Committee meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:21 p.m. B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Development Services Director City of Bakersfield ● 1715 Chester Avenue ● Bakersfield, California ● 93301 MEMORANDUM May 21, 2019 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Chris Parlier Bob Smith FROM: JACQUELYN R. KITCHEN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: General Plan Update Strategy & Options Request for Proposal This item is an update on an ongoing topic before the Planning and Development Committee. Background On May 10, 2019, the Development Services Department sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified consultants to prepare a General Plan Update Strategy & Options document. The document is to provide a comprehensive analysis and recommendations for: 1) at least three (3) options to approach the upcoming update to the City’s General Plan and 2) anticipated schedule and cost for each option. Update Options (to be included in proposal): 1. Focused Update. All legally required updates to specific Elements within the MBGP and addition of any newly mandated Elements; No parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations. 2. Policy Update. “Focused” option content plus specific, locally important policy driven updates within some or all Elements of the MBGP; Limited parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations. 3. “Other” Update. Optional third option, parameters to be designed by responder incorporating all new State laws and guidance regarding General Plan updates. Project Objectives (to be evaluated within each Option): a. Within each Element, identify the various options and methodology for existing goals, policies, and implementation measures to be revised and the type of goals, policies and implementation that should be added or removed; these policies should be coordinated with the mitigation in the MBGP EIR, to facilitate future streamlining via CEQA Section 15183. b. Identify new Elements that could be added and general framework for possible content; c. Identify specific areas/Elements that will require continued coordination with Kern County; City of Bakersfield ● 1715 Chester Avenue ● Bakersfield, California ● 93301 d. Define the strategy for updating the existing land use map designations throughout the General Plan area (not applicable for Focused Option); e. Identify options for the future General Plan boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) f. Identify other possible General Plan implementation tools and methodology. The deadline for proposal submittal in response to the RFP is before 5:00 pm on July 12, 2019. The following table provides a rough schedule of document development once the chosen consultant is under contract: Milestone Month Kick-off meeting 0 One mid-project status report and meeting with City staff 3 Draft GPU Strategy document submittal 6 Planning & Development Committee meeting attendance (2) 7 Final GPU Strategy Document submittal 8 CC meeting attendance (2) 9 Final document presentation to PC and/or CC (1) 9 Action & Staff Recommendation: No action necessary; this is informational only. Page 1 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Development Services Director MEMORANDUM May 21, 2019 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Chris Parlier Bob Smith FROM: JACQUELYN KITCHEN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Referral No. 770 (Ward 2) Definition of Microbrewery in Downtown Bakersfield This item is in response to a referral made by Councilmember Gonzales at the April 10, 2019 Council meeting. Background At the June 7, 2017 City Council meeting, Councilmember Gonzales made a referral to the Planning and Development Committee to review creation of a definition of a “microbrewery” in Downtown Bakersfield. On October 3, 2017 and November 7, 2017, Staff presented this Committee with several possible ordinance amendments to permit micro-breweries and micro-distilleries with special consideration given to: (a) odors; (b) wastewater discharge; (c) annual production limits; and (d) California Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) licensing and permitting. On January 10, 2018, City Council adopted ordinances adding new definitions for “Brewery or Distillery, Large” and “Brewery or Distillery, Small” and identifying these as permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the industrial and commercial zone districts, as follows: Brewery or Distillery, Small 1 Brewery or Distillery, Large 1 Section Zone Permitted Use CUP Permitted Use CUP 17.24.020.B C-2 (Regional Commercial) X n/a 2 C-B (Central Business) X n/a 2 C-C (Commercial Center) X 17.28.020.B M-1 (Light Manufacturing) X X 17.30.020.B M-2 (General Manufacturing) X X 1. This definition is not inclusive of Wineries, which are only permitted via CUP only in M-2 zone. 2. All “Permitted Uses” in the C-2 are also permitted in the C-B and C-C zones. At the April 10, 2019 Council meeting, Councilmember Gonzales made a new referral to explore options to remove the requirement that small breweries and distilleries continuously operate with bona-fide food service. Page 2 Staff Analysis Based on Council direction, Staff has drafted language to amend the definition of a “micro” breweries and distilleries to remove the food component. The specific change to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.04.078 would be as follows: “Brewery or distillery, small” means the manufacturing of fifteen thousand barrels, or less, per year of beer, ale, malt beverages, or one hundred thousand gallons, or less, of distilled spirits; not including wine. Operations shall continuously comply with the following operational standards: 1. Maintain an approved Wastewater Discharge Plan from the Bakersfield public works department. 2. Maintain a valid California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) license. 3. Obtain appropriate permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, if applicable; and adhere to industry best practices for odor reduction. 4. Include and continuously operate a bona-fide food service/restaurant component, on-site. To ensure the change will not conflict with the various ABC license types related to breweries and distilleries, Staff is working with the local ABC district office. As of this writing, Staff is waiting on ABC to provide their findings based on the proposed amendment. Recommendation: Given that Staff has not yet heard back from the ABC, your Committee has several options: 1) Direct Staff to bring back to Planning & Development Committee for additional discussion. 2) Direct Staff to Draft Ordinance changes noted above and bring to City Council if the changes do not conflict with ABC rules. City of Bakersfield ● 1715 Chester Avenue ● Bakersfield, California ● 93301 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Development Services Director MEMORANDUM May 21, 2019 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Bruce Freeman, Chair Chris Parlier Bob Smith FROM: JACQUELYN KITCHEN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Maps: Extension of Time for Vesting Rights This item is in response to a request made by Councilman Rivera at a Planning and Development Committee meeting on February 26, 2019. Councilman Rivera asked staff to look into extending the time to use vesting rights from 1 year to 2 years on a recorded map. Background Vesting rights are established by the State Subdivision Map Act and implemented by local Ordinance. Government Code Section 66498.5 addresses timing by stating that rights conferred by a vested map shall last a minimum of one from the date of recordation, and no more than two years if allowed by local ordinance. The City’s local Ordinance currently allows one year to exercise vested rights upon recordation of a vested map. In the past, the City offered a discretionary process where developers could request one additional year on a case by case basis, for a total of two years. However, in June 2005, Council adopted Resolution 118-05, which removed this option to request an additional year. During the Recession in 2011, Council adopted Resolution 036-11, which temporarily suspended this restriction for one year. During that time, 2 applications for extensions were received and they were approved by the Planning Commission. In January 2012, Council suspended the restriction for one additional year; however, no applications were submitted. Staff Analysis Based on Council direction, Staff has drafted language to amend Resolution No. 118-15 to allow for the second year. This could be achieved in one of two ways: • Option 1: Restore past process to allow developers opportunity to apply for one additional year, with Planning Commission approval (BMC 16.24.090 C.3). • Option 2: Amend BMC 16.24.090 C.3 to allow second year automatically. Recommendation Option 1 allows for case-by-case review of each request and is consistent with past practices. Therefore, Staff recommends option 1. Documents Presented At The Planning & Development Committee May 21, 2019 Meeting Informational Item All Wards City Council Committee Meeting Planning & Development May 21, 2019 1 2 OVERVIVEW OF TOPICS Refresher - What is a General Plan? History of City’s General Plan Past Committee Briefings on General Plan Update Two changes to the local landscape : County moved forward with a separate General Plan and will no longer maintain a “joint” Plan with City Changes continue in State law, local ordinances, growth patterns, and the needs of the community City seeking Consultant to prepare a “General Plan Update Strategy and Options” 3 WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN? City’s long term blueprint for the community’s vision of future growth. Government Code §65300: “Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in 65302.” Starts with Community Vision, created through public outreach: Look back to identify past challenges & accomplishments Examine current data and emerging data trends Consider future issues, challenges, and goals Set goals, objectives, and policies for future growth (I.e., reduce sprawl, encourage infill, establish design standards, etc.) NINE REQUIRED ELEMENTS New Elements for Disadvantaged Communities and SJVAPCD Other Options: Kern River, Downtown, Parks, Historical Resources, Etc. LAND USE HOUSING NOISE SAFETY CIRCULATION CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ENV JUSTIC* AIR QUALITY* KERN RIVER* 5 HISTORY OF CURRENT GENERAL PLAN 1990 - Joint City/County 2010 General Plan 1994 - Metro Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan 2000 - Vision 2020 Community Outreach 2002 - MBGP Adopted & EIR Certified (20 Year Projection) 2006 - Reviewed Options For Update (Joint CC/BOS) 2009 – Preliminary Public Outreach & Existing Conditions Reports 2016 – City Council Direction to re-initiate review of Options 2/2/16 – Planning & Dev Committee – Direction to see Kern County approach & issuance of new State Guidelines 2018 – State issued 2018 General Plan Guidelines & County initiated new Kern County General Plan Update process. 5/10/19 – RFP Issued for Consultant to provide Options 6 PAST COMMITTEE MEETINGS - RECAP General Plan Explanation & Need Required Elements, Other Options History of Bakersfield’s General Plan Need for Update to 2002 Plan Metro Plan now 17 Years Old State Issuing new GP Guidelines New Legislation & New Growth Update Considerations Cumulative Impacts (Traffic, Air, GHG, etc.) Infrastructure Needs (Water, Sewer, Roads) Update Process 7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE RFP Issued May 10, 2019 for Options to approach the Update Focused Update All legally-required updates to specific Elements within the MBGP Any newly mandated Elements No parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations Policy Update “Focused” option content plus specific, locally important policy driven updates within some or all Elements of the MBGP Limited parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations “Other ” Update Parameters to be designed by Consultant incorporating all new State laws and guidance regarding General Plan updates 8 RFP OBJECTIVES Identify methodology for existing goals, policies, and implementation measures to be revised and the type of goals, policies and implementation that should be added or removed within each Element Coordinate mitigation in the corresponding EIR to facilitate future streamlining via CEQA Section 15183 Identify new Elements and general framework for content Identify specific areas/Elements that will require coordination with Kern County Define strategy for updating existing land use map designations throughout General Plan area (not applicable for Focused Option) Identify other possible General Plan implementation tools and methodology 9 SCHEDULE 05/10/19: Distribution of RFP 07/12/19: DUE DATE for Response to RFP 08/12/19: Interviews, if needed (Tentative) 09/06/19: Notification of Final Selection (Tentative) Once contract awarded, anticipate 6- to 9-month schedule Milestone Month Kick-off meeting 0 One mid-project status report and meeting with City staff 3 Draft GPU Strategy document submittal 6 Planning & Development Committee meeting attendance (2) 7 Final GPU Strategy Document submittal 8 CC meeting attendance (2) 9 Final document presentation to PC and/or CC (1) 9 10 ACTION & NEXT STEPS No action needed – Informational Only Next Steps: Presentation to Committee by selected consultant Comparable Cities – Costs & Time •Insert Comparison Table COMPARABLE CITIES – AS OF 2016 Bakersfield Dec. 11, 2002 EIR 1999 - 2002 by staff Staff Time 151 (408 sq mi GP) 360,000 Glendale 1986 - Periodic Element Updates Varied Ongoing by staff Unknown 31 200,000 Modesto 2008 EIR 1992 - 2008 Approx. $950K 37 210,000 Ontario Jan. 27, 2010 EIR 1/2008 – 1/2010 $3 Million Includes website 50 166,000 Oxnard October 2011 EIR 2005 – 10/2011 $ 1.1 Million 25 200,000 Pasadena Aug. 18, 2015 EIR 2009 – 2015 100+ Outreach mtgs $1.5 Million ($850K EIR) + City Staff Time 23 127,000 Riverside Nov. 2007 EIR 4/2002 – 11/2007 Unknown 99 304,000 San Bernardino Nov. 1, 2005 EIR 1999 - 2005 Unknown 62 213,000 Stockton Dec. 11, 2007 (Sued by A.G.) EIR 2002 – 2007 6/2014 - ? $2.75 Million 65 303,000 Novato Mar. 8, 1996 EIR August 2009 - Ongoing Unknown 30 55,000 Kern County June 15, 2004 EIR 2001 - 2004 $ 8,142 850,000 Tulare County Aug. 28, 2012 EIR 2003 - 2012 N/A 4,863 455,000 Fresno County Oct. 3, 2000 EIR 1996 – 10/2000 $660,000 6,011 955,272 Sacramento March 3, 2015 (Update) EIR 2004-2009 = 2030 Plan 2012-15 = 2035 Update $4 million 97.92 470,000 Santa Monica 1984, Update to Land Use & Circ Only 2010 EIR 6 Year Process $2.3 million 8.3 92,000  RFP/Hire Consultant  Scoping Meeting (occurs During 30 day Notice of Preparation process)  EIR Adequacy Hearing (occurs During 45 day DEIR/Draft General Plan Update process)  Comments on Draft EIR/Draft General Plan Update  EIR/General Plan Update Hearing (Planning Commission)  Adoption Hearings (City Council) CEQA PROCESS  Workshop 1: Planning Commission  Workshop 2: Four Community Workshops (to define “Possible Future” scenarios)  Workshop 3: Planning Commission (to review issues/development alternatives)  Additional Public Input Opportunities Internet Web Sites Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Process OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT 12% 17% 31% 39% 85% 93% 109% 113% 118% 124% 174% 211% 428% 13. OAKLAND 12. SAN FRANCISCO 11. LONG BEACH 10. LOS ANGELES 9. SACRAMENTO 8. SAN DIEGO 7. ANAHEIM 6. SANTA ANA 5. SAN JOSE 4. RIVERSIDE 3. STOCKTON 2. FRESNO 1. BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA CITIES % POPULATION GROWTH: 1970 - 2014 16 CURRENT GENERAL PLAN AND UPDATE PROCESS Government Code: Local governments to revise their general plans as often as they deem necessary; code does not specify a mandatory minimum timeframe for revision of elements, except for Housing Element. In 2002, MBGP anticipated a 20-year planning horizon and CEQA analysis Changes in local growth and economy o 33,900 Single-Family Building Permits since 2002 o 40% population increase from 2000-2010 (Per US Census Bureau) o 41,800 New Housing Units projected from 2015-2135 (MBGP Housing Element) o 500,000 People projected in Bakersfield by 2020 New legislation (Air Quality, GHG, Circulation, etc.) Changing Community needs and vision 17 OVERALL PROCESS Timeframe: 1 - 3 Years Phase I: Obtain Approval from City Council, Issue RFP/Select/Hire Consultant Phase II: Conduct Public Outreach, Assess Current Conditions Phase III: Prepare Draft General Plan Update Phase IV: Conduct CEQA Process & Analysis Phase V: City Council to Adopt Updated General Plan & Certify New EIR 18 APPROACH Preliminary Research, Outreach & Evaluation Bakersfield Changes/ Update 2009 Draft Existing Conditions Reports Evaluate Growth Assumptions & Projections Determine factors that will influence future growth (legal, economic, environmental, demographic, etc.) Outreach to determine what City vision for the future Determine Scope of General Plan Update Policy Development for: Air quality & Greenhouse Gases, Groundwater Sustainability, Agricultural Land, Public Facilities & Services, Infrastructure Needs, Housing allocations, Mobility, etc. Land Use Assumptions and Potential Land Use Changes Infill Incentives, Architectural Standards, Urban Design Guidelines (relationship between people and the built/natural environment) Addition of new Elements (Economic Prosperity, Downtown Area, Employment Centers, Healthy Communities, etc.) Methods to address future changes Regional Traffic/Circulation 19 FUNDS AND CONSULTANT ROLE Funds Costs can range from$1 million - $4 million dollars City maintains “General Plan Update Trust fund” Flat fee of $84 per building permit since 2005 (recently raised to $105 – still less than others) Current balance: approximately $1.8 million dollars Consultant Role Public Outreach Strategy (varying time-frames) Prepare Existing Conditions Reports Prepare Draft General Plan Framework Comprehensive CEQA Analysis – Draft EIR & associated Technical Studies (Air/GHG, Traffic, Urban Decay, etc.) Update Draft General Plan and EIR Based on Staff Review, Council Input, and Public Comment Prepare Final General Plan and EIR as well as associated documents, maps, GIS/CAD files, Monitoring Programs City Council Referral (All Wards) City Council Committee Meeting Planning & Development May 21, 2019 1 2 CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL April 10, 2019 Referral from Councilmember Gonzales: Explore options to remove the requirement that small breweries and distilleries continuously operate with a bona-fide food service. 3 BACKGROUND June 2017 referral to explore ordinance amendments to permit micro- breweries/distilleries in downtown Bakersfield. October 2017 presentation to Planning & Development Committee referral to explore ordinance amendments to permit micro-breweries/distilleries in downtown Bakersfield. Considered the following: Odors Wastewater Discharge Annual Production Limits ABC Licensing and Permitting January 2018 City Council adopted ordinance. 4 DEFINITION Brewery or Distillery, Large The manufacturing of more than 15,000 barrels per year of beer, ale, malt beverages, or more than 100,000 gallons of distilled spirits; not including wine. Operations shall continuously comply with the following operational standards: 1. Maintain an approved Wastewater Discharge Plan from the Bakersfield public works department. 2. Maintain a valid California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) license. 3. Obtain appropriate permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, if applicable; and adhere to industry best practices for odor reduction. (Ord. 4926 § 1, 2018) 5 DEFINITION Brewery or Distillery, Small The manufacturing of 15,000 barrels, or less, per year of beer, ale, malt beverages, or 100,000 gallons, or less, of distilled spirits; not including wine. Operations shall continuously comply with the following operational standards: 1. Maintain an approved Wastewater Discharge Plan from the Bakersfield public works department. 2. Maintain a valid California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) license. 3. Obtain appropriate permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, if applicable; and adhere to industry best practices for odor reduction. 4. Include and continuously operate a bona-fide food service/restaurant component, on-site. (Ord. 4926 § 1, 2018) 6 EXISTING PERMITTED USE / CONDITIONAL USE Brewery or Distillery, Small 1 Brewery or Distillery, Large 1 Section Zone Permitted Use CUP Permitted Use CUP 17.24.020.B C-2 (Regional Commercial) X n/a 2 C-B (Central Business) X n/a 2 C-C (Commercial Center) X 17.28.020.B M-1 (Light Manufacturing) X X 17.30.020.B M-2 (General Manufacturing) X X 1. This definition is not inclusive of Wineries, which are only permitted via CUP only in M -2 zone. 2.A llA“PermittedAUses”AinAtheAC-2 are also permitted in the C-B and C-C zones. 7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT Brewery or Distillery, Small The manufacturing of 15,000 barrels, or less, per year of beer, ale, malt beverages, or 100,000 gallons, or less, of distilled spirits; not including wine. Operations shall continuously comply with the following operational standards: 1. Maintain an approved Wastewater Discharge Plan from the Bakersfield public works department. 2. Maintain a valid California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) license. 3. Obtain appropriate permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, if applicable; and adhere to industry best practices for odor reduction. 4. Include and continuously operate a bona-fide food service/restaurant component, on-site. (Ord. 4926 § 1, 2018) 8 NEXT STEPS Consistency with State License. Coordination with California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), Bakersfield District Office. Option 1. Bring back to Planning & Development Committee for additional discussion. Option 2. Bring to City Council for ordinance amendment. All Wards City Council Committee Meeting Planning & Development May 21, 2019 1 2 BACKGROUND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66498.5. (SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (SMA)) b) The rights conferred by a vesting tentative map as provided by this chapter shall last for an initial time period, as provided by ordinance, but shall not be less than one year or more than two years beyond the recording of the final map. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map, the one-year initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. c) The initial time period shall be automatically extended by any time used by the local agency for processing a complete application for a grading permit or for design or architectural review, if the time used by the local agency to process the application exceeds 30 days from the date that a complete application is filed. At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period provided by this section, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the legislative body within 15 days. Summary of Government Code: Vesting right for each phase is valid for one year, beginning on date of recordation date of that phase. One additional year may be requested upon discretionary approval by the lead agency. 3 BACKGROUND CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IMPLEMENTATION BMC Chapter 16.24 (Implementation Ordinance) City Council Resolution 118-05 (adopted June 8, 2005): Council Policy to no longer grant discretionary extensions of vesting rights. Result: Developers only have the initial 1 year beginning at recordation date to use the vesting right. City Council Resolution 036-11 (adopted May 18, 2011): Council adopted a limited time abeyance of Policy Resolution 118-05. From May 18, 2011 through April 30, 2012, Resolution 118-05 was in abeyance. Result: 2 applications for vesting rights extensions were approved during this abeyance period. City Council Amendment 1 to Resolution 036-11 (adopted January 11, 2012): Extend abeyance of Resolution 118-05 for vesting rights that were set to expire between May 18, 2011 and April 30, 2013. Result: No applications submitted. 4 ACTION ITEM Option 1: Amend Resolution No. 118-15: ›Rescinding Resolution No. 118-15 will allow developers opportunity to apply for one additional year to exercise vesting rights with PC approval per BMC 16.24.090 C.3. ›As determined by City Council. Option 2: Amend BMC 16.24.090 C.3 to allow second year automatically. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 allows for case-by-case review of each request and is consistent with past practices. Therefore, Staff recommends Option 1.