The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/16/2004 B A K E R S F I E L D David.Couch, Chair ,Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMrFrEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, August 16, 2004- 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second :Floor-.City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT APRIL 26, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed cell phone tower ordinance -- Hardisty B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Sierra Club response to voluntary .plan to mitigate development project non-attainment air quality emissions to zero -- Hardisty 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding appeals of extension of vesting rights m Hardisty/Rojas 6. COMMrn'EE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN\Council Committees\04Planning&Development~o&d04aug16agenda.doc . ...$ . D AFT David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City-Manager Sue Benham Staff: John -W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARYREPORT ~SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, April 26, 2004, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1.. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. · Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; and Mike Maggard Councilmember Sue Benham arrived at 1:15 p.m. 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 2, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED 'BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendations regarding additional review of.issues related to the General Plan Update and EIR a. photovoltaic panels Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained that during the General Plan Update hearings there was a proposal the City should encourage the use of solar photovoltaic panels. The technology has advanced and its use is becoming more feasible. As part of a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club, the use of solar panels is being imposed on a couple of subdivisions and is being incorporated into the first .model home and offered by the developer as an option. Arthur Unger, Sierra Club, spoke in favor of the City encouraging the use of solar panels in developments. Brian Todd, Building Industry of Kem County, spoke regarding homes being more energy efficient now and the use of solar panels being a good idea, but spoke against mandating the use of solar panels as the extra cost would be paid by the homebuyer, which would price some homebuyers out of the market. AGEND~ SUMMARY REPORT D AFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 26, 2004 Page 2 Mary Jane Wilson, WZI Inc., spoke in favor of solar panel use,-but explained the use of solar panels does very little to clean the air in Bakersfield as it would not cut the amount of energy being produced here and exported to other areas in the state. C°mmittee Chair Couch indicated he is interested infurther exploring the use of solar panels and will be sharing printed information with Committee Member Maggard.. He also requested that staff work with the BIA and see .if language can be developed to promote the Use of photovoltaic panels. b, bus turnouts City Attorney Ginny Gennaro reported back to the Committee on constructing bus turnouts in future developments and the risks .of buses merging into traffic from public transit ".turnouts" instead of stopping .in the right lane. Although Golden Empire Transit (GET) does not.approve of bus turnouts due to increased liability risks, the Council may make it a City policy that bus turnouts be included in the .planning process. Depending upon where the City decided to put the bus turnouts, as .long as it is reasonable, the City would still be able to use the design im'munity defense. GET is not required by law to use the turnouts. Assistant Public Works Director Jack 'LaRochelle spoke in favor of having bus turnouts especially on arterial roads; however, GET has been reluctant to commit to locations for bus turnouts because their routes change due to ridership. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained it would be possible .to. integrate transit as part of the planning for project developments from a traffic mitigation position and identify bus turnouts to modify traffic congestion for developments .that generate high volumes of bus usage. Committee Chair Couch, using suggested wording from the City Attorney, made a motion the Committee would like staff to pay particular attention when the environmental review on traffic is conducted for a project to ascertain if bus turnouts would be a mitigating condition and if so, request input from GET and implement the bus turnouts. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. c. cell phone towers Development Services Director Jack Hardisty reported this issue is being reviewed due to concerns of Councilmembers regarding unsightly communication towers being established and the impacts to neighborhoods. Staff gave a report on the aesthetic value of using camouflage towers to conceal the metal structures, such as fake trees, clock or water towers. Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club, spoke regarding her opposition to towers being .put in neighborhoods that are not concealed and in support of the City adopting an ordinance similar to the County's. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT AIFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 26, 2004 Page 3 The Committee reviewed the issue of .cell tower camouflage and spacing. It was determined adoption of an ordinance regulating the appearance of cell towers would .be consistent with the County's treatment of towers, be in compliance with federal law and be an improvement for the City. The Committee requested staff to draft an ordinance for consideration. B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding air quality mitigation fees At its last meeting, the Committee requested staff to report back on a list of pollution reduction projects and associated costs a developer could choose from to mitigate a development project's non-attainment emissions to zero, as a way-to address the Sierra Club's concern over air pollution resulting from subdivisions. Development ServiCes Director Jack Hardisty provided an overview of the type and cost of pollution mitigation measures that would qualify to off-set pollution, such as traffic signal coordination, intersection improvements/traffic signals, and converting diesel engines to cleaner burning fuel. Staff reCommended starting with voluntary participation in a mitigation program. Developers could choose to work with the City to include mitigation measures to reduce the project's air pollution impacts to zero as a part of the application for approval to develop. This voluntary program would focus more on reducing air emissions, instead of collecting a fee. Committee Chair Couch expressed he would like to get started working on air pollution mitigation to get out of the cycle of having a lawsuit filed against every new proposed development. A voluntary program could-be implemented and be more immediately available and also _provide an opportunity to see if the Sierra Club will' be agreeable to this approach, 'before proceeding with a more formalized program. 'It was noted there is a need to closely coordinate with the Air Pollution Control District so if the voluntary program is a huge success, whatever the City does is complementary to the District's requirements. Committee Member Maggard stated it would be important to include in the application process that the volunteer.program would end if the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District puts in place a mandate that changes the economics of the volunteer program. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro concurred. Committee Member Maggard made a motion to send a Report to the City-Council outlining the implementation of a voluntary air pollution mitigation program for the Council's approval. The Committee unanimously approved the motion and directed staff to prepare a Report to the City Council. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING D~AFT Monday, April 26, 2004 Page 4 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation: regarding request by North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District to change zoning of parks within the District from OS (Open Space) to 'RE (Recreation) - (This item heard first.) Development Services. Director Jack Hardisty gave a brief overview of the uses permitted in the RE (Recreation) and OS. (Open Space) zones.. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District (NBRPD) has requested the City consider zoning their parks RE instead of OS..OS zoning requires going through the conditional-use permit process. The City has gone .through the conditional permit use process for its fire stations, water wells, the aquatic center and ice facility. The County does not have a specific zone for parks but approves them through the conditional use permit process. Due to the intense uses in the NBRPD parks in the northwest located near homes, staff did not recommend changing the NBRPD park zoning from OS to RE. Dave McArthur, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District (NBRPD), explained that NBRPD always gets public input on all proposed NBRPD facilities. He spoke in support of changing NBRPD park zoning to RE and expressed that as community parks are, in their master plan, NBRPD should not be required to go through the conditional use permit process, as this process allOws the Board of Zoning the ability to make changes or apply conditions, which may add to the cost of the park. Committee Member Maggard expressed concern this change of zoning may also preclude the Council from the ability to effect a change to something being constructed in the City for constituents to whom the Council is responsible and accountable. In response to a question from Committee Chair Couch on Ways to resolve the issue, the Development Services Director explained staff has been working on the issue of making' distinctions for uses permitted in community parks, neighborhood parks and pocket parks. Park designations in the General Plan or planning process are simply designations for future park sites. Elements are not · included in the plan. It would be possible to expand the parks planning to include the broader range of .park types' to further develop the zoning for parks. Committee Chair Couch requested staff to work with NBRPD on park designations to include a broader range of park types and bring the issue back to the Committee. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 26; 2004 Page 5 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Chair Couch confirmed cancellation of the Committee 'meeting scheduled' for Monday, May 3, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Development Services Director Jack 'Hardisty; and Associate Planner Wayne Clausen Attendance-others: Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Edward King, The Bakersfield Californian; Arthur and Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Colon Bywater and Dave McArthur, NOR Recreation and Parks District; and Mary Jane Wilson, WZI Inc. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\04Planningand Development Committee~p&d04apr26summary.doc - ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 17.73 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS. · WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to prom0tei~-~the siting of wireless telecommunication towers and antennas as best appropriate~ prevent, urban blight; a n d ~'~:~" .... WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of and promote the' public health, Safety and welfare by regulating t~e~[ting of ;lecommunication · .:,-.: towers and antennas. C ~ ~i:~i, ~'/i:Ba Ne rsfield NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT the :~aU0cil of the Ci as follows: Section 17.73 is hereby adde~?Jo )al Code to read as follows: 17.73.010 , The purpo~ this ordi~ce is to :~Stablish general guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommU~¥~ation t~;~:;an~ anthem:has The god s of this ordnance are to protect re~9~!' areas;;~::dand uses%f~9~¢potent~al adverse ~mpacts of towers and antenna~;?~a~ge thb:~i~ion of tower~'"'and antennas in industrial and commercial zones?;~{~::;~ncoura~?'~the j0i~{;:~bse of new and existing power sites, encourage users of towb~:~nd antennaS~{:6~?~onfig~a~:;sa d towers and antennas in a way that minim zes the ad erse;~:~!~ual ~mpacts, =cons~der~:~the pubhc health and safe~ ~n the s~bng and use of said to~';~,and avoid pbtential danger to adjacent prope~ies from tower fa ure. In fu~heranc~tOf:~these goal~.:::~.the Oity of Bakersfield shall give due consideration to the general land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites tion of towers and antennas. 17.73,020 Definitions, As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: A. "Camouflage" means man made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles and other similar alternative design of mounting structures that screen or conceal the presence of antennas or towers in an effective manner. S:\COUNCIL\Ords\04-05 Ords\Telecomm unicationTowe rs&Antennas.doc " May 18, 2004 -- Page 1 of 6 Pages -- B. "Antenna" means any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a tower, building or structure and used in communications that radiate or capture electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals), wireless telecommunication signals or other communication signals· C. "Height" means, when referring to a tower or other structure, the distance measured from the finished grade of the parcel to the highest point of the tower or other structure, including the base pad and any antenna. D. "Pre-existing towers and pre-existing antennas" any tower antenna for which a building permit or special use permit has been issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance.. E " " · · Tower means any structure that ~s des and:'constructed pnmanly for the purpose of supporting one or more antenn~;~'for teleph6'~e;::~radio and similar communications purposes· The term includes;rasi~''and television i~smission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, Cellalar telephone towers,~'~i~br, native tower st uctures, and the hke. The term ~nclude the;;,St~ucture agd.;:any suppo~ t~'e:~eto. 17.73.030 Antennas, satellite dishes and te~~nication facilities. A. All antennas, towers, "~d poles, a~ ~ele~ommunication facilities and satellite dishes shall be installed in t~foll~i::~'manner?':c~;:~::? 1. The:::::~~ ~:¢:~'?i~i:~'i:~ions in residential areas are exempt from the pro~s~ons ~:~:~;.:(~) The:~]~tallation '~6f?ne (1) ground mounted satellite d sh :::~'~e(f~:~/;:~,~ a~tbfi~::?:i~?t~e re~:~',;.yard which is less than 10.5 feet in ,:~.??:?::~,~,,,:. ,, ~:::~::ai~:~te~ ~;i~s ;than 12 feet ~n height. ' ?:~?:':';: .... %(6~:,, 'b~::satellite dish antenna which is less than 24 inches in ::;:~'~,~:~ %::;~:~:; dia'~b~ter may be nstalled on a building providing that such '~:~';~:::~-, ':?:~:anten~a¥~does not extend above the eave ne of said ' ~;:':?~;,~ (c)~,:;~;~;~mateur radio antennas where the boom of any active ' of the array is 30 feet or less and the height does ? ;;~:',~???" * not exceed 70 feet. (d) Pre-existing towers and antennas. (e) AM arrays consisting of one or more tower units and supposing ground system which functions as one AM broadcasting antenna. S:\COUNCIL\Ords\04-05 Ords\TelecommunicationTowe rs&Antennas.doc May 18, 2004 -- Page 2 of 6 Pages -- B. Director Review. The following shall be reviewed by the Director, subject to a Development Permit: 1. Antennas up to a maximum of 15 feet in height that are mounted on a building or rooftop and that are screened from view from all adjacent public rights-of- way. 2. Antennas that are architecturally integrated with a building or structure or concealed so as not to be recogniZed as an antenna, such as clocktowers, carillon towers and signs.· 3. Antennas mounted on other existing including, but not limited to, water tanks, pump station, s, utility poles, bal lighting where antenna height does not exceed structure height. 4. Co-location of existing equipment on an i City-approved support structure. - · 5. Mod~hcat~on of ex~st~n~:i?lecommur~ieat~ons facilitii the physical area of the reconfigured or altered ~'~i~:~na ~shi~;i'i!i~°t exceed 25 percent of the original approval: existing antenna up to 75 feet. :~¥~"~:6'~:'~':~'~ monopole':Camouflaged as a palm tree, pine tree or other:~t'~':~:al ob :~:~:'~' of similar objects and which does not exceed the exi,, more than 15 percent. Planning C6~imission Review. The following shall be reviewed by the Planning su6i~ct to a Conditional Use Permit: 1 height of an existing approved antenna that exceeds 75· feet in height. 2. New stand-alone monopoles that exceed 75 feet in height. 3. New ground mounted, uncamouflaged monopoles up to 75 feet in height. 4. All other wireless communication facilities, including lattice towers. S:\COUN CIL\Ords\04-05 O rds\TelecommunicationTowe rs&Antennas.doc May 18, 2004 -- Page 3 of 6 Pages -- 5. Placement of an antenna on any building not screened from public view. 6. On residentially designated property that is developed with a legal non-residential use such as a school or church. D. Development and Design Standards. 1. The antenna, support structure and associated equipment shall not be located within any residential land use district except as pro~i~pd by this Chapter. ,-, , ...... ,.~:~ :~ii~'~~ z.. ~ maximum ct one satellite d~sh ant~nna~shall be permitted per lot except retail locations selling and displaying satellite.,,~d'~'~gnas and/or televisions may have more than one such antenna ~ ~'~ ~ ~ . No pa~ of any satellite :.~i~?antenna shall be;::~located within a required front yard, side yard, or on the stre~t;~:j~ yard of a corner 4. No pa~ of any satelhte d~sh~;;'ante9sa~-shall be located w~th~n three feet of any prope~, line. ,:~. "~;:;~:: 7;;~;;:::.;::¢':: ' 5. Associated e~'~t;%~ b~?i~ated with n a completely e closed structure or othe~se screened flon ~ew. Fenc~Bg shall be wrought ~ron or similar decorative material and shall'*;;~e:~,con~ 't~¢'provisions of this Code. Prohibited fencing inclu¢~Chain Ink, wire. 6. antennae sh~ sited to assure compatibili~ with surrounding and the neighborhood. quipment shall be sited to minimize views from th Landscaping may be required to screen the equipment buildi~ ~';'or view. ,, ,':::¥ If a:~;~nten~?~ attached or integrated into a building, t shall be painted'~'~'match the col°~?~:~f the building and/or covered with similar materials, subject ged, antenna and monopoles shall be a single, non- glossy color such cream, beige, green, black, or gray. 10. Antenna structures shall conform to Federal Aviation Admiistration regulation AC70/7460 latest edition. This may include beacons, sidelights and/or strobes. · S:\COU NClL\Ords\04-05 Ords\TelecomrnunicationTowers&Anten nas.doc May 18, 2004 -- Page 4 of 6 pages -- 11. Antenna structures that are not camouflaged shall be located at least 300 feet apart to prevent clustering. Antenna structures that are camouflaged may be clustered if compatible with 'the surrounding develoPment and not adversely impact the neighborhood. 12. The operation of the antennae shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods such as television,, radio, telephone, computer, inclusive of the city's trunked 800MHz Public safety radio system, etc., unless exempted by Federal regulation. 13. A support structure may be required to:,~:~?~equately designed for · a co-location on another company's equipment, of no m0~;~n two companies. If co- location is proposed the application shall be rev ewe~?,!~%t~e,:::Director, subject to a Development Permit. 17.73.040 Removal or abandonment of ant~as or towers. Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a Co~'~inuous period: bf'~elve (12) months shall be considered abandoned and t~ ~bwner: ~f?~Uch antenna or':{ower or the prope~ owner of the antenna 'or tower site sh ii?e e the same with n n nety (90) days of receipt of notice from the~;:~=, o~ sake~f~i~)~ notifying the owner of such, abandonment. Failure to remove ~h~a~9~ooed an[edha or tower within said nine~ ..... ~ :~,~ . (90) days shall be grounds to declare::the'towe~;~a publ:~C;;;;nu~sance and to cause the tower or antenna to be removed at (h~&:~.a~te~:~[~,~;towe~' bWner's expense or at the pro~e~ owner s expeDSe~:~;Q~;t~e anten~a~9~:~:tbwer ~'i~b?;;~ ~his section shall not limit the Ci~ s remedies and C?;;;~ail~'~a~e all re~e~d ~ ava abieat law or equity. ~::~;~,Ordm~ce shall:~be posted ~n accordance w~th the Bakersfield Municipal Code;; a a' ? 'hall be~;~b~e,,eff&Cti~9~thi~ (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ......... O00 ......... S:\COUN CIL\Ords\04-05 Ords\TelecommunicationTowers&Antennas.doc May 18, 2004 -- Page 5 of 6 Pages -- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER cOUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSONSULLIVAN SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN:COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBER · CITY CLERK and EX OI EIC:IO of the Council of the City APPROVED AS RM: VIRGINIA G City ADD:dll S:\COUNCIL\O rds\04-05 Ords\TelecommunicationTowe rs&Anten nas.doc May 18, 2004 -- Page 6 of 6 Pages -- July 19, 2004 S l E ~A Jack Hardisty Development Services Director C LU B city of Bakersfield Kern-Kaweah Chapter 1715 Chester Avenue P.O. Box 3357 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93385 ' - http://kernkaweah.sierraclub.org. Dear Mr. Hardisty, Executive Committee Paul Gipe, Chair Glenn Shellcross, Vice Chair In order to help improve our region's air quality, the Sierra Club is very much Arthur Unger, Secretary ~nterested in exploring the Zero Emissions Program for new development to " Richard Garcia, Fund Raising Monte Harper which you referred in your May 27 letter. We share your view that litigation Ara Marderosian, Conservation should be avoided, if possible. At the same-time, we do not want to be put in Harry Love, Political the unacceptable position of making a blanket statement against litigation. Of Gordon Nipp,'Ph.D.. Lorraine Unger. M4mbership course, if all impacts of development were properly mitigated, the risk of Sierra Club litigation would be greatly decreased. To this end, we have several Regional Delegates Harry Love, RCC concerns that we think need to be dealt with if the .program is to ·live up to its Ara Marderosian, RCC potential. Lorraine Unger, SC Council Sub-Committoo Chairs One concern is that the mitigation measures to which the developer agrees Mary Ann kockhart, Roadrunner Teresa Stump, Outings actually offsets all of the emissions associated with the developer's project; Larry Wailes, Treasurer that is, we think that the emissions should really be.reduced to zero. This is Condor GrOup necessary if the cumulative effect of all these new projects is to be truly Chester Arthur, Chair mitigated. Specifically, Candy Posson, Secretary Marta aigler, Treasurer · The URBEMIS computer model run used to quantify the emissions Kevin Royle, Conservation from the project should be objective. The consultant who runs the Mary Ann Lockhart, Newsletter model and arrives at thc pollution numbers to be offset should not bc Debra Sheets, Webmaster Barbara Kelley, Outings hired by (and .thus be beholden to) the developer. We suggest that the Erika Cordes, Publicity City hire the consultant or that the-City make its own URBEMIS mn. Kaweah Group · Construction emissions should be included in the computation as well Theresa Stump. Chair aS area source and operational emissions. While construction Dianne Jetter, Vice Chair Carla Cloer, Conservation emissions are temporary, the mitigation projects funded by this Jim Clark, Outings program will also have a relatively short lifespan, approximately the Boyd Leavitt, Treasurer ' Pam Clark, Agriculture same lifespan aS the construction period for the development. · All components with which our area is out of compliance, ROG, NOx, Mineral King Group Harold Wood, Chair and PM10, should be offset. 'Mary Moy, Vice Chair · The projects used to mitigate emissions, presumably replacing or Cynthia Koval, Secretary Janet Wood, Treasurer improving City-owned equipment or faCilities or improving Nmi Fernbaugh, Conservation intersections with LOS below C, should be identified and publicized as Beverly Garcia, Program Richard Garcia, Fund Raising the program goes into effect. A listing of these projects should include Brian Newton, Outings quantification of pollution savings, cost-effectiveness, and justification Patricia Phillips. Agriculture for its inclusion.. The CARB and the Valley Air District have Owens Peak Group developed applicable quantitative methods. Dennis Burge, Chair Steve Smith, Vice Chair · The projects used to mitigate emissions should be new projects, not Ueanie Haye, Conservation projects that would have occurred without this program. This condition Dolph Amstar, Treasurer will ensure that real progress is made in cleanin~.'t~, ~.~....C'~ ~! ~[ ::-f ~7~" Janet Westbrook, Webmaster Don Paterson, Outings i[x2x Carol Hewer, At large jUL ?, Sequoia Task Force Carla Cloer, Chair CITY GF c~.'z~i-~.ERSF'iELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100% recylced paper 30% post-coasume~' waste · A number of developers have agreed privately to a $1200 per house Air Quality Mitigation Fee. We think.that this $1200 amount is a minimum figure and-that the proposed Zero Emissions Program should commit developers to mitigation projects of equivalent value or more. Since the Zero Emissions Program will reportedly be voluntary on the part of the developer, we are concerned that developers who volunteer to participate be held to their word in an enforceable way,. perhaps by including the agreed-to mitigation projects as Conditions of Approval for the development, As a third concern, we feel strongly.that a Zero Emissions .Program, once underWay, should be monitored. The Program should be subject to public input and public oversight, perhapS via timely reporting to the City Council and through news releases. Given that the Program is effective, such monitoring and such openness could give the City, the Sierra Club, and the development community some well-deserved plaudits. Fourth, there are a number of points other than air quality concerns that we would tike to see addressed. Many of these issues are relatively easy for thedeveloper to implement and would be positive quality-of-life issues for Bakersfield. · Developers should at least offer electticity-generating photovoltaics as an option to buyers of their houses. Homeowner incentives should be explored. · Light pollution should be minimized by requiring fully shielded lighting. 'The lights at the City ball fields next to Mesa Matin give us an example of hoW not to proceed. The Dark Skry Association has a number of positive suggestions. · Landscaping should use plants that require little water, perhaps incorporating native plants into the planning. Local botanists can give good advice in this regard. · Most of Bakersfield was at one time habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and the leopard lizard has a very special fully protected place in state law. In addition to the usual HCP contribution, developers should be asked to contribute to a special fund to preserve habitat for the leopard lizard. · There are a number of"smart growth" themes that should be incorporated into project design;, e.g., mixed use, increased density, walkable communities, etc. Incorporating these suggestions (as well as an effective Zero Emissions -Program) into development projects would .make it even less likely that the Sierra Club would initiate litigation. We are very.pleased that the City of Bakersfield is considering a creative strategy to help clean our polluted air. Based on the history of our past settlements, the Sierra Club and the development community are quite capable of coming-to agreement without going to court. Real progress can be made with the City's involvement through a strong Zero Emissions Program. You should further be aware that the Sierra Club has a strong interest .in improving our air quality, and if this can be effectively accomplished without litigation, we think that everyone wins. Thank you for your attention to our concems. Sincerely, Gordon L. Nipp ' B A K E R S F I E L D - MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ~j~.J/~ACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: August 2, 2004 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP PROCESS Council Referral No. REF000848 VICE-MAYOR COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A SYNOPSIS OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP PROCESSES AND EXTENSION PROCEDURES FOR THESE TYPES OF MAPS. The attached flow charts/diagrams explain the process and timeline for vesting rights. Included is the following. · Flow chart for vesting tentative map process. · Flow chart for final map process. · Linear timeline and explanation of vesting rights. JR:djl Attachment P:\OOReferral\Ref000848.doc VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 'PROCESS I APPLICATION SUBMITTED I I COMPLETENESS REVIEW I APPLICANT RESPONDS I TO COMPLETENESS ITEMS I APPLICATION DEEMED COMPL/RIGHTS VEST/ P.C. HEARING SET P.C. HEARING I I MAP RECORDEDI EXTENSION IHEARING/ACTION ICITY COUNCIL (SEE FINAL ' 1 MAP PROCESS) I P.C. HEARING _~ MAP MAP APPROVED DENIED 2 YRS 2ND (TOT^I 5 YRS) CITY COUNCIL NOTES: · TYPICAL MAP LIFE - INITIAL 3 YEARS WITH 5 ADDITIONAL YEARS OF EXTENSIONS IS 8 YEARS · EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE MAP CAN ONLY BE DENIED IF FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD PLACE THE RESIDENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION OR IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY IN A CONDITION .DANGEROUS TO THEIR HEALTH OR SAFETY OR TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW · THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT PROVIDES FOR AUTOMATIC EXTENSIONS WHEN SUBDIVIDER IS REQUIRED TO EXPEND $125,000+ TO CONSTRUCT OFFSlTE IMPROVEMENTS (SEE ATTACHED TABLE) vista 'Ir PROCESS FINAL MAP PROCESS (RECORDING A PHASE OR ALL OF A TENTATIVE MAP) IMPROVEMENT PLANS I PROCESSED I(MAY REVIEW SEVERAL I PLAN CHECKS) C.C. APPROVES AGREEMENTS FINAL MAP CHECK MAP 'RECORDS (VESTING RIGHTS LAST 1 YEAR) I I ALL PERMITS SOME OR NO PULLED PERM TS PULLED I t I NEW FEES 1 YR EXTENSION PAID REQUESTED I IDENIED I '1 APPROVED I I I APPEALED TOI I NEWFEES I ALL PERMITS NEW FEES CITY COUNCIL PAID PULLED UNDER PAID I VESTED RIGHTS AFTER 1 YR i CiTY COUNCiL I EXPIRES HEARING/ACTION I I VESTED RIGHTS AFTER 1 YR NOTES: EXPIRES · VESTING RIGHTS AUTOMATICALLY LAST FOR 1 YEAR AFTER RECORDATION · APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS. THIS 1 YEAR EXTENSION IS DISCRETIONARY AND REQUIRES NO SPECIAL FINDINGS FINAL ~ PROCESS VESTING RIGHTS LIFE SUMMARY: The vesting rights for a map start on the datethe tentative map application is deemed complete by the Planning Department and extend for a period one year (or two years with Planning Commission approval) after each phase of the map is recorded. Since the developer controls when each phase is recorded, the vesting rights for a map can last from 18 months to 17 years in some cases. It is not a fixed time period because it depends on when each phase is recorded during the life of the tentative tract. Typical Tentative Vestinq ,Map Life State Map Act (SMA) says map expires after 24 months or after any additional period of time prescribed by local ordinance not to exceed 12 additional months. City ordinance gives 36 months at the beginning. BMC 16.16.080A & B SMA 66452.6(a) (1) 66452.6(e) 3 yrs. initial City extensions 5 yrs. Final recorded I Additional yr. life (mandatory w/o vests 1.yr. I may be health & safety issues) approved by Planning Commission 0 3 yrs. 8 yrs. 9 yrs. 10 yrs. Map with $125,000 + in offsite improvements - phased vestinq map. BMC 16.16.080A 16.16.080E 16.16.080B SMA 66452.6(a)(1) 66452.6(a) (1-3) 66452.6(e) 3 Record Record Record City Final Additional years Phase-1 Phase 2 Phase 3 extensions Recorded yr. may be initial add 3 add 3 yrs. add 1 yr. 5 yrs. Vests 1 approved by yrs. auto. auto. yr. Planning auto. Commission 3 yrs. 6 yrs. 9 yrs. 10 yrs. 15 yrs. 16 yrs. 7 yrs. (max. auto) (Ttl. possible) Explanation of Vestinq Riqhts Life (after each phase is recorded) At any time during the life of the tentative map, the subdivider can record some or all of the phases of the map. The State Map Act says the vesting rights for the recorded phase shall last for no less than one year and no more than two years beyond recordation as stated in the local ordinance. The city's local subdivision ordinance (BMC 16.24.090C) adopted I year. A one year extension to this time frame may be requested by the applicant (BMC 16.24.090C.3., SMA 66498.5(b)). This one year extension is discretionary and requires no special findings. '. B A~ K ]~ R S ~F I E [, D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 15, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director~ SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider appeal by the Public Works Department of approval of request to extend vesting rights for Tract 6087D and Tract 6104, Phases 1 and 5. Staff has had some preliminary discussions with the City Manager's Office and Castle & Cooke, the developer of Tract 6087 regarding the appeal of the approval of the extension of vesting rights for these tracts. Due to the tremendous complexity of the issue of vesting rights and the fiscal impact to either the City of Bakersfield or the developer, staff recommends that this item be referred to a Council Committee. G:~sub\SHARED~Land DivisionWesting Rights Ext~nemo coucil com referral 071504.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I ' I MEETING DATE: July 21, 2004 AGENDA SECTION Hearings 'ITEM: ~. ~. TO: Honorable Mayor.and City Council ..//'~/.APPROVED Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director. DEPARTMENT HEAD//.~/~_ FROM: DATE: July 13, 2004 CITY ATTORNE? ...~' CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: Consolidated hearing on appeals by the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department of the Planning Commission's decision to approve extensions of vesting rights for Tract 6087 Phase D, located south of Ming Avenue, east of South Allen Road (developer - Castle & Cooke), and for Tract 6104, Phases 1 and 5, located north of Panama Lane and east of Buena Vista Road (developer- Centex), and adoption of resolution overturning the Planning Commission's decision. (Engineer - Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution. BACKGROUND: On May 20, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to approve each of these requests for an extension of time for vesting rights for Tract 6087, Phase D and Tract 6104, Phases I and 5. The Public Works Department of the City of Bakersfield appealed the Commission's decision. The reason given for the approval of the extensions was that the three maps had had building permits issued, so the developer was making progress; therefore, it would be appropriate to extend those vested rights. However, in an action on April 1, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the extension of vesting rights to Tract 6125 Unit 2, which had had building permits issued. There are two types of extension of time related to tract maps. A developer may request an extension of time extending the approval of a tentative tract map. The second type of extension of time is for vesting rights, which is the subject of these appeals. The following provides information in three topics: definition of Vesting Rights; explanation of an extension of time for vesting rights; and extension of time for a tentative map. Discussion of Vestinq RiqhtS "Vesting rights" for a development are outlined in California state law and are intended to give developers a measure of certainty in planning their developments. Generally, the life of a Vesting tentative map can be affected by the State Subdivision Map Act (SMA), local ordinances (Bakersfield Municipal Code - BMC) and legislative extensions (The "life" of a map is the length of time between its completed application and its expiration). Depending on individual circumstances of each subdivision, a tentative map can have a life from three to 16 years. Eight years would be the typical life based on a three year initial life and five years worth of extensions granted by the city. July 14, 2004, 11:05AM G:\GROUPDAT~DMINRP'I'~.004\07-21\Ext Vesting Rights Appeal.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT During this tentative map life, the subdivider with a vesting map is protected from changes in ordinances, policies, and standards. The map remains subject to the ordinances, policies and standards in affect at the time the map application was deemed complete (SMA 66498.1b). The local agency can add conditions above and beyond those flowing from the applicable ordinances, policies and standards to the vesting map only if it determines that failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both (SMA 66498.1 C). Recordation of the vesting map or a phase of the vesting map triggers a new time frame of one year during which the developer of the recorded phase is still protected under vested rights. This one year may be extended an additional 12 months by the Planning Commission upon a timely request by the subdivider (SMA 66452.6(g), BMC 16.24.090 C.). Under city ordinances, the vesting rights on a recorded map would run for one year initially with a one year extension if approved by the Planning Commission. Unlike the extension of time for an unrecorded map, the extension 'of vesting rights is entirely discretionary. No special findings are required to deny an extension to vesting rights on a recorded map. The City is not obligated to grant extensions of vesting rights on recorded maps. Vestinq Riqhts Comparison for Current Tracts The following table summarizes the amount of revenues lost on the permits that have not Yet been issued for each tract or phase being considered, if the extension of time for vesting rights were approved. The cumulative loss in revenues of traffic and park development fees would be $170,565. Extension of Vesting Rights Appeal - Fees lost by I City of A 6087 D 35 8 27 $2,197 $96,741 $647 $16,956 [Baker. sfield A 6104 1 59 53 6 $2,346 $20,604 $647 $3,768 A 6104 5 61 53 8 $2,346 $27,472 $647 $5,024 $144,817 $25,748 $170,565 July 14, 2004, 11:05AM G:\GROUPDAT~DMINRP'r~.004\07-21\Ext Vesting Rights Appeal.doc · ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Discussion of Planninq Commission Action Unfo~unately, the recent action by the Planning Commission results in a mixed message to developers about planning for their future costs, and is unfair to the developer of Tract 6125, Unit 2. There is no discernible difference between the tracts whoSe extensions were granted on May 20, 2004 and the tract whose extension was denied on April 1,2004. Also, this decision results in additional costs to the City of Bakersfield. Cumulatively, if the level of activity for extensions of vesting rights in 2004 is similar to last year's, and if extensions of vesting rights continued to be granted, it is estimated that the City would give up $3,245,136. Analysis provided in support of the increased traffic and Park fees documented the necessity of collecting this revenue to provide transportation and park improvements consistent with General Plan policies and design standards. If the monies are not collected, the City would have to pick up any unfunded burden for those facilities or suffer further degradation of services. If the City Council decides that it is appropriate to allow the extension of vesting rights under certain conditions, then it should be done after weighing all of the consequences to that action. True, the extension of vesting rights will cost the developer or subdivider extra money in increased fees. However, these increased fees go to the City and are needed to construct park and transportation infrastructure required to support the General Plan Land Uses. Not collecting these fees means that the shortfall in funding would affect future residents of these tracts - either through a degradation of services or through loss of General Fund or other money to backfill the loss. This in turn could potentially mean affecting police and fire services or other City functions and services. The concept of vesting rights is intended to give the developer certain assurances and guarantees that the local agency will not change the rules on him partway through his development. This~does not mean that these same rules will apply to the development forever. The developer gets his guarantee for up to eight years. After that, the local agency is justified in applying the rules that are then current. The City is at the mercy of the economy as is the developer - it's just that the City doesn't have the built-in protection that the map act affords the developer. Environmental Determination: In accordance, with Section 15061(b)(3), general rule, extensions of time are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. This request for extension of the vesting rights was not advertised and adjacent property owners were not notified. Conclusion: As shown above, it is estimated that a total of $170,565 in traffic and park development fees would not be collected if the extension of time for vesting rights for these three tracts were approved. This results in other City funds, like the General Fund, being used to cover the fees that are not collected. If no other funds area available, the City risks reduced levels of service and conflict with General Plan policies, which specify certain levels of service. Analysis done for the increases in traffic and .park fees provide supporting evidence that the higher fee is necessary to provide the level of-service consistent with the General Plan policies and design standards. Due to the loss of significant revenue, staff recommends denial of the extensions of time for the vesting rights on these tracts. rnps July 14, 2004, 11:05AM o G:\GROUPDA'r~ADMINRpT~'004\07-21\Ext Vesting Rights Appeal.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR VESTING RIGHTS OF TRACT MAP NO. 6087 PHASE D, ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND SOUTH OF MING AVENUE AND TRACT MAP NO. 6104, PHASES I AND 5 ON CERTAIN PROPERTYIN THE City of Bakersfield ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PANAMA LANE AND EAST OF BUENA VISTA ROAD. WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 20, 2004, the Planning Commission approved the request to extend the vesting rights to Tract 6087, Phase D, and Tract 6104, Phases 1 and 5, submitted by Mclntosh and Associates; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Public Works Department of the City of Bakersfield filed a written appeal to the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, set the time and place of the hearing as Wednesday, July 21,2004, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501. Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City COuncil on said appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Sixteen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, testimony was heard during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, Tract 6087 is generally located east side of South Allen Road and south of Ming Avenue, and Tract 61-04 is generally located north of Panama Lane and East Of Buena Vista Road, as shown on location map attached as Exhibit "A;" and WHEREAS, this vesting extension of time is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); and WHEREAS, the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6087 was deemed complete on March 27, 2002, and recorded on April 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6104 was deemed complete on November 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, Phases 1 and 5 of Tract Map 6104 all recorded on April 6, 2003; and WHEREAS, Subdivision Map Act Section 66498.5.b states: "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 .... " WHEREAS, as provided by the above-mentioned section of the Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.24.090 C.1 states the initial time period for vesting ~" rights is 12 months from the time a map is recorded; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code SectiOn 16.24.090 C.3 states a subdivider may apply for a 1 year extension of time before the initial time period set forth in subsection C.1, of this section expires; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield'Municipal Code Section 16.24.090 C.3 provides for the procedures to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to deny the extension to the City Council; and. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, at its discretion, may approve or deny a request for an extension of time on vesting rights; and WHEREAS, at said regular meeting held July 21, 2004, the appeal relative to the request to extend vesting rights submitted by the Public Works Department of the City of Bakersfield was duly heard and considered and the City Council found as follows: 1. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 2. Extension of vesting rights for this subdivision would result in loss of needed revenues for transportation and park improvements. 3. It is inappropriate to extend the vested rights on this subdivision for one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the extension of time is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. 3. That the decision of the Planning commission is overturned. 4. That the requests for a one year extension of the vesting rights for Tract 6087, Phase D and Tract 6104, Phases 1 and 5 are hereby denied. ......... 000 ......... 2 B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM JULY 15, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC_~R~. SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 6 a & b - HEARINGS OF APPEALS BY.Id'CINTOSH ON EXTENSION OF VESTING TRACTS 6086, 6087A, B & C Representatives of Castle & Cooke have met with staff and explained certain characteristics of their subdivisions which may be unique and worthy of additional discussion. Due to the complex nature of these discussions, there could be a benefit to the City Council if a committee were also involved in them. It is recommended that the hearings scheduled for July 21, 2004 be continued and these cases be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for additional review. JH:pjt m\m cc7-15 Castle & Cooke CALIPORNIA, INC. Stephan j. l~Br~ch · July 15, 20O4 City of Bakers~Id Bakersfield City Councg 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 E:aemionofVestinS Map~ Appeal of PImming Commission Decision Tract 60S6, 6087-A, B, C Honornbl~ Council members: On behalf of Cestle & Cooke, reSeniin~ our appeal of thc Plannins Commission decision fe~l that further disaen~n will ~eM better usdemandins end a positive outcome for all We thank you R~r your comidemjon on this request end look ~ to working with AI~ 10000 Stockdale MiShway (9331/) * P.O. I~x 11165 · ~, CA~LI65 * (661) 664-6503 · Fax (661) 664.~}~ ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21,2004 IAGENDA SECTION: HearingsITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VED F R O M: Development Se rvices- Planning D EP AR TM ENT H E~D _ ..~. _/.~~~,~ SUBJECT: Consolidated hearing on appeals by Mclntosh and Associates of the Planning Commission's decision to deny extensions of vesting rights for Tract 6086 and Tract 608'7, Phases A, B and C, located south of Ming Avenue, east of South Allen Road, and adoption of resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision. (Engineer - Mclntosh and Associates / Subdivider - Castle and Cooke) (Ward 5) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision and denying the appeals. BACKGROUND: On May 20, 2004, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny each of these requests for an extension of time for vesting rights for Tract 6086, and Tract 6087, Phases A, B, and C. Mclntosh and Associates representing Castle and Cooke Development,. appealed the Commission's decision. There are two types of extension of time related to tract maps.. A developer may request an extension of time extending the approval of a tentative tract map. The second type of extension of · time is for vesting rights, which is the subject of these appeals. The following provides information in three topics: definition of Vesting Rights; explanation of an extension of time for vesting rights; and extension of time for a tentative map. ,Definition of Vestinq Riqhts: During the life of a tentative map, the subdivider with a vesting map is protected from changes in ordinances, policies, and standards. The map remains subject to the ordinances, policies and standards, including develOpment fees, in effect at the time the map application was deemed complete (SMA 66498.1b). The local agency can add conditions to the vesting map only if it determines that failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both in a condition dangerous to their health or safety or both (SMA 66498.1C). Recordation of the vesting map or a phase of the vesting map triggers a time frame of one year during which the developer of the recorded phase is still protected under vested'rights. This one ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page2 year may be extended an additional 12 months by the Planning Commission upon a timely request by the subdivider (SMA 66452.6(g), BMC 16.24.090 C.). Under City ordinances, the vesting rights on a recorded map would initially run for one year, and another one year if the extension were approved by the Planning Commission. ,Extension of Time for Vestinq Riqhts: As state above, a subdivider has vesting rights for a one year period beginning on the recordation date of a map or phase of a map. A subdivider may apply to extend the vesting rights of a recorded map (or phase) for one additional year (66498.5 (b), BMC 16.24.090 C.3.). Approval of an extension of time is a completely discretionary action by the City. No special findings are necessary to approve or deny it. On September 15, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 171-03 (effective date - November 14, 2003), which established a three phased traffic impact fee increase. If the vesting rights were extended for these subdivisions, the traffic impact fee for each new residence would be $2,466. If the vesting rights for this subdivision expire, the traffic impact fee for' each new residence would be $5,780. For the recorded phases of the tracts being considered, the total difference in the amount of traffic fees between the old and new traffic fee is $328,086. On September 15, 2003, (effective November 14, 2003) the City Council also approved Resolution No. 169-03 which increased the park development fees from $647 to $1,275 per unit. The total difference in the amount of park development fees between the old and new park fee for recorded phases is $62,172. The following table summarizes the amount of revenues lost on the permits that have not yet been issued for each tract or phase being considered, if the extension of time for vesting rights were approved. The cumulative loss in revenues of traffic and park development fees wOuld be $390,258. REVENUE LOSS SUMMARY iHACT # OLD NEW DIFFERENCE OLD NEW DIFFERENCE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC IN TRAFFIC, PARK PARK IN PARK FEE FEE FEE FEE FEE FEE 6086 $73,980 $173,400 - $99,420 $19,410 $38,250 - $18,840 6087, Ph. A $56,718 $132,940 - $76,PPP $14,881 $29,325 - $14,~.,i, 4. ~..~ 6087, Ph. B $46,854 $109,820 - $62,966 $12,293 $24,225 - $11,932 6087~ Ph C $66,582 $156,060 - $89,478 $17,469 $34,425 - $16,956 Totals $244,134 $572,220 - $328,086 $64,053 $126,225 - $62,172 Cumulatively, if the level of activity for extensions of vesting rights in 2004 is similar to last year's, and if extensions of vesting rights continued to be granted, it is estimated that the City would give up $3,245,136 needed for transportation and parks infrastructure improvements. No special findings are required to deny an extension to vesting rights on a recorded map. The state established the statutory framework to shield subdivisions temporarily from changing ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT regulations and exactions. The City is not obligated to .grant extensions of vesting rights on recorded maps. Rebuttal to Appellants' Letters: The appellant is correct that the life of the vested rights would be longer if a developer recorded phases over time rather than all at once. It isa developer's choice to create an assessment district, which may require recordation of all phases at the same time to enhance the Property's value to lien ratio. Creation of an assessment district benefits the developer because it provides a valuable funding mechanism and marketing tool by which improvements are constructed earlier for the convenience of the residents while shifting the cost to them through payment on the debt. The public benefits because the infrastructure is constructed sooner than if developer recorded phases over time, and constructed only those improvements necessary for that phase. By creating an assessment district, the developer is balancing his choice to use a financing mechanism and the time period in which the vesting rights remain in effect. Tracts 6086 and 6087 are not subject to any prior park agreement. Agreement #00-98 addressed Windermere Park (6-acre) and its service area that included Tracts 5928, 5936, 5946, 5954, and 5955, as shown on Exhibit "C" of the Agreement. These tracts are located east of Tracts 6086 and 6087. In fact, Castle and Cooke Development specifically desired that tracts west of Windermere Park not be covered in Agreement #00-98, and that the tracts be subject to the standard park land and development requirements as tracts in other parts of the City. This meant that as each tract recorded, it would pay an in-lieu fee for park land, and pay the park development fee with each building permit. A park land in-lieu fee was collected for both Tracts 6086 and 6087 prior to recordation df a final map. The issue of the Assessment District does not apply to parks because parks were not included as an improvement of the district. Due to a procedural oversight, the Planning Commission did not open a public hearing on these applications. By appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, the City Council will hold a public hearing where the appellant may submit testimony or the Council may remove the matter back to the Planning Commission for hearing. Extension of Time for a Vestinq Tentative Map: Generally, the life of a vesting tentative map can be affected by the State Subdivision Map Act (SMA), local ordinances (Bakersfield Municipal Code BMC) and legislative extensions. Depending on individual circumstances of each subdivision, a tentative map can have a life from three to 16 years. Eight years would be the typical life based on a three year initial life and five years worth of extensions granted by the city. During this time period, a subdivider may record {he map or phases of the map. Environmental Determination: In accordance with. Section 15061(b)(3), general rule, extensions of time are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. This request for extension of the vesting rights was not advertised and adjacent property owners were not notified. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page4 Conclusion: As shown above, it is estimated that a total of $390,258 in traffic and park development fees would not be collected if the extension of time for vesting rights were approved. This results in other City funds being needed to cover the costs for which fees were not collected. If no other funds are available, the City risks reduced levels of service and conflict with General Plan policies, which specify certain levels of service. Analysis done for the increases in traffic and park fees provide supporting evidence that the higher fee is necessary to provide the level of service consistent with the General Plan policies and design standards. Due to the loss of significant revenue, staff recommends denial of the extensions of time for the vesting rights, on these tracts. JE Admin\july\7-21-vr RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR VESTING RIGHTS OF TRACT MAP NO. 6086, AND TRACT MAP NO. 6087, PHASES A, B, AND C ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LOCATED AT THE ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND SOUTH OF MING AVENUE. WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 20, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the request to extend the vesting rights to Tract 6086, and Tract 6087, Phases A, B, and C, submitted by Mclntosh and Associates; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, Mclntosh and Associates filed a written appeal to the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, set the time and place of the hearing as Wednesday, July 21, 2004, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, Califomia, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council on said appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title .Sixteen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, testimony was heard during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, Tracts are generally located east side of South Allen Road and south of Ming Avenue, as shown on location map attached as Exhibit "A;" and WHEREAS, this vesting extension of time is exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); and WHEREAS, the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6086 was deemed complete on January 16, 2002, and recorded on Apd115, 2003; and WHEREAS, the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6087 was deemed complete on March 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, Phases A, B and C of Tract Map 6087 all recorded on May 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, Subdivision Map Act Section 66498.5.b states: "The dghts conferred by a vesting tentative map as provided by this chapter shall last for an initial time pedod, as provided by ordinance, but shall not be less than one year or more than two years beyond the recording of the final map .... " WHEREAS, as provided by the above-mentioned sectiOn of the Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.24.090 C.1 states the initial time pedod for vesting dghts is 12 months from the time a map is recorded; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.24.090 C.3 states a subdivider maY apply for a I Year extension of time before the initial time period set forth in subsection C.1, of this section expires; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.24.090 C.3 provides for the procedures to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to deny the extension to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, at its discretion, may approve or deny a request for an extension of time on vesting dghts; and WHEREAS, at said regular meeting held July 21,2004, the appeal relative to the request to extend vesting rights submitted by Mclntosh and Associates was duly heard and considered and the City Council found as follows: 1. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 2. Extension of vesting dghts for this subdivision would result in loss of needed revenues for transportation and park improvements'. 3. It is inapproPriate to extend the vested rights on this subdivision for one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. That the above .recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the extension of time is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. 3. That the requests for a one year extension of the vesting dghts for Tract 6086, and Tract 6087, Phases A, B, and C are hereby denied. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by' the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED HARVEY L. HALL Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: Exhibit A: Location Map S:l TRACTSivestingext~appealtcc res. doc July 6, 20O4 3 EXHIBIT "t~ll. TRACTS 601~ AND 6087 TRACT R-1 R-1 6086 , R-1 R-1 A. R-1 R-1 R-1 OAKS ~ T~CT wssr ^ a-~ 6087 CLUB t2 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 __ R-3 . NTOSH 0~.'f, ?.~ Fi! t,: 58 Ci~ of Bakersfield Bakersfield Ci~ Council · A~n: Pamela McCa~hy, CiW Clerk ~ 50~ Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 9330~ RE: Appeal of denial of requests to extend Vesting Rights for Tracts 6086 and 6087A, B & C (Government Code Section 66452.6 and BMC Section 16.24.090C) Request for Public Hearing Honorable Council Members: On behalf of Castle & Cooke California, Inc., we hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on May 20, 2004 to deny the extension of vesting rights for Tracts 6086 and 6087 Phases A, B and C. These items appeared on the May 20, 2004 Planning Commission agenda as items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. -~ All of the above referenced maps were considered for a one year extension of the vesting rights after the final map was recorded. · Tract 6086 was recorded on April 15, 2003. The Tentative Map 6086 application was deemed complete on January 16, 2002. Development rights "vest when the application is deemed complete. · The final maps for Tract 6087 Phases A, B and C were recorded on May 20, 2003. The application for Tract 6087 was deemed complete on March 27, 2002. The basis for the appeal is as follows: Staff presented the Planning Commission erroneous information in both the staff report and verbally during consideration of the items. The staff reports refer to two resolutions, which discuss the potential loss of revenue for Traffic Impact Fees and Park 6 6 1 · 8',3 4 · 4 8 1 4 Development Fees should these extensions be granted. The resolutions are City Council Resolution 171-03 for Traffic Fees and Resolution 169-03 for Fox 661 · 834-0972 Park Development Fees (both approved September 15, 2003 and effective 20o~ Whee~on Court November 14, 2003). Staff failed to mention that Tracts 6086 & 6087 are subject to a Park Development Agreemenl for Seven Oaks which cover~ all I. CA 93309 www. mcintoshassoc, corn n'~er~r @mctn fost~:~,oc corn of Section 12. This Park Development Agreement Was entered into by Castle & Cooke California, Inc. and the City of Bakersfield to pro~,ide for the · construction of the required city parks within Section 12. To facilitate the construction and funding of the parks, the payment of fees for Park Development were waived by that agreement. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has met its requirements for Park Development in Section 12 in accordance with that agreement. As for the Traffic Impact Fee increase, these Tracts are in an area known as The Buena Vista Project. This Project is the subject of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") which was certified by the City Council. The EIR identified traffic mitigation measures, both on a local and regional level. At the time the traffic mitigation measures were identified, the Phase II fee was in effect. Even though the identified mitigation in the EIR was below the Phase II fee, Castle & Cooke California Inc. voluntarily agreed to pay the then current Phase II Transportation Impact Fees. Furthermore, Staff was asked during the commission's discussion of these items if there was any reference in the revised Traffic & Parks Resolutions to Vesting Maps. Staff's response was ~no". Attached is a copy of Resolution #1 71-03 in which several references are made as to how Vesting Maps which vest prior to specific dates are to be treated. Specifically, "existing Vesting Maps which have their vesting date prior to the adoption date of this Resolution are subject to the rates in effect prior to this Resolution called the Phase II rates." No reference is made to the expiration of Vesting Maps. The Resolution literally states and intends that Vesting Maps approved prior to the adoption date of the Resolution are subject to the Phase I or II rates, not the Phase III fees. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has for the past ten years, processed and established Assessment Districts for the funding of major infrastructure improvements suCh as arterials and collectors needed for new projects. These tracts are part of Assessment District 03-1 and the projects financed included one-half mile of one half of Allen Road, one-half mile for one half of White Lane and approximately one-third of a mile for Chamber Blvd. The total amount of construction financed through Assessment District 03-1 was approximately $4 million. In order to increase the value of the land encumbered by the Assessment District, Castle & Cooke California Inc. was required to record all final maps so that the land would appraise at finished lot values. In addition, Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has posted improvement bonds to guarantee construction of the remaining improvements within those recorded phases. This has typically been done to obtain the appropriate 'value-to-lien' ratio required by the bond unden~vriter 2 and the City of Bakersfield with the understanding that these vesting rights would be good for two years after recordation, including the one-year extension. The staff report states uif the monies are not collected, the City would have to pick up any unfunded burden for those facilities or suffer further degradation of services,u This statement is erroneous, misleading and overlooks the fact that the revised fees do not apply to these "vested" tracts under the clear language of the resolutions.. The policy of granting extensions of time on recorded vesting maps has not officially changed in this applicant's view. The most notable aspect of a vesting tentative map is that it establishes a vested right, for a subdivider to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect on the date the subdivider's application for a tentative subdivision map is deemed complete. At the present time, it is unclear what the City's policy is on extension of vested rights. At the May 20~h hearing, the Planning Commission extended the vesting rights for Tract 6087 Phase D, Tract 6104 Phase 1, and Tract 6104 Phase 5. These were items 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 on the agenda, it appears there is no clear policy to be consistently applied as to extension of time for vesting rights for final tentative maps. It should be noted that if these maps were not part of an Assessment District, the Tentative Maps would be good for three years with two one-year extensions. Final Maps would not have been recorded until the lots Would be needed and building permits could be pulled, which would have automatically afforded Castle & Cooke California, Inc. several more years in the life of the Vesting Final Maps. The policies applied to Vesting Maps are the policies that are in effect at the time that the application is deemed complete. The City's policy at the time these Tentative Maps were approved was to extend the life of Final Maps for the additional one year time period, if requested. It would be inequitable for Castle & Cooke California, Inc. to lose it's vested rights by recording all phases of it's Tract Maps at one time in order to create a single fund for all public infrastructure and improvements required for consistent and orderly development. The alternative would be to create a funding mechanism for each phase of the development only when it is needed, which in today's market would fall well below the threshold established by the City and Bond Underwriters to successfully complete an Assessment District. As the Seven Oak's project has developed, Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has constructed over $11.5 million of arterials and collector improvements with an additional $6 million remaining to be cons~.ruc[ed. Because Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has constructed all ot~ 3 its arterial and collector improvements well in advance of any "need", they would now be penalized by the increased fees despite the' master planning and construction of improvements that benefit not only the project, but the entire community. The adjusted Parks and Transportation fee resolutions were adopted after extensive consultation with the development community. City staff gave assurances that the revised fees were in everyone's best interest and would have prospective application only. At no time did any City representative or employee state or imply that the City would deny discretionary extensions on vested development rights after the resolutions were adopted as a means to apply the' new fees. The Subdivision Map Act contemplates that some action or omission of the developer will cause a vested map to expire, not action taken by the local agency. Vesting rights are intended to protect the developer from later actions by the local jurisdiction which impacts the project and undermines the certainty intended by the Map Act that a developer will be able to complete the project. That ~certainty" allows the developer to expend considerable resources and incur liabilities to successfully complete the project. Here, the City has undermined that certainty by causing the expiration by denying the required extensions in contravention of its past policy and practice and in contravention of the stated intent not to apply the new fee structures to previously vested maps/developments. It must also be noted that at the May 20~ Planning Commission Hearing, Castle & Cooke California Inc.'s representative was denied the opportunity to present this information to the Planning Commission. At the April 1, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, an extension of Vesting Rights for Tract 6125 Unit 2 was considered. Enclosed is the transcript from that hearing. A public hearing was opened and anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition of Staff's recommendation was invited to address the Commission. No public hearing was opened at the May 20, 2004 meeting for consideration of these requested extensions. The applicant's representative was denied the opportunity to present pertinent information to the Planning Commission to correct the erroneous Staff Report and Staff presentation. In addition, the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission after the one-year extensions were denied is also flawed in that it states: "whereas at said regular meeting held May 20, 2004 the proposed vesting extension submitted by Mclntosh & Associates, was duly heard and considered by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission found as follows...". Proper procedures should be established and consistently followed in the future when considering extensions of time for ¥'es~.ing, Tefltadve and Final Maps. In this regard, [he appellant respec[fully 4 requests the opportunity to address the City CoUncil during the meeting where this appeal will be heard. Additional ar§uments in support of this appeal are attached for your review & consideration. We appreciate, your consideration of this appeal and respectfully request that the Planning Commission's denial of the one-year extension requests be overturned and the extensions be sranted. Sincerely, Roger A. Mclntosh RAM: tm p cc: Planning Commission Attachments L:~ORUM\TO,MIE~o~er's CorrespondenceYee impact ccci.doc JONES & BEARDSLEY, P.C. AWI'ORNB¥$ AT LAW ONE RntE~ W~.g ' 100~ S~ H~AV, S~ 350 ~sRs~, ~ 9~11 May 28, 2004 Honorable Mayor Harvey L. Hall and Members of the Bakersfield City Council David R. Couch, Vice-Mayor Susan M. Benham Irma Carson Harold W. Hanson Mike Maggard Mark C. Salvaggio .lacquie Sullivan Re: Appeal by Castle & Cooke California, Inc. of Planning CommiSsion's denial of a one-year extension of Vesting Rights on Tentative Tract Map CVTM") Nos. 6086 and 6087 Phases A, B & C; Hearing Date: May 20, 2004 Arguments In Support of Appeal and for a One-Year Extension of Vesting Rights Action by the Planning Commission · At the meeting of May 20, 2004, the Planning Commission refused,for thefirst time, to hear public/developer comments in opposition to staWs recommendation to deny the requested extensions. The appellant respectfully requests clarification and justification for this refusal as the Commission's policy prior to May 20, 2004 had been to allow pUblic/developer comments on requests to extend. See e.g. April 1,2004 heating, Agenda Item 5 (Extension of Vesting Rights on Tract 6125 Unit 2). · Denial of the requests to extend the vested rights for one year for Tracts 6086 and 6087 phases A. B & C was due largely to staffconcern that approval of these requests would result in the loss of traffic impact and park fees under the revised city fee programs (Resolution No. 171-03 (the "Traffic Resolution") and Resolution No. 169-03 (the "Parks Resolution") both adopted September 15, 2004 and effective November 14, 2004.) However, appellant maintains that it was not the City Council's intent to apply these revised schedules to maps which "vested" prior to adoption of the Resolutions and, therefore, this appeal follows. I C:\Documents and Senings'~nike~ocal Seflings~Temporaty lmcmel FilesV:)LKC~lttr to City Council. re exlension for veslin$.2004052.5.022.doc Legal Arguments in support of the appeal and in support of the request for a one-year extension of vesting .rights. · The Traffic Resolution states that the Phase III fees will apply only to those developments which vest after the (September 15, 2003) adoption date of the resolution? · . ALL OF THE ABOVE VTMs "VESTED" PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 (Therefore, they are subject to the lower "Phase Ir' rates). · The Traffic Resolution cannot apply to these VTMs as they were approved prier certification of the Kern River Ranch/Buena Vista Environmental Impact Report which states that all regional traffic impacts would be mitigated to a"less than significant level" upon satisfaction of the conditions of approval. These maps simply subdivide areas already covered and addressed by that EIR. · Subparagraph 13 of the enabling language for the Parks Resolution states that the new fee is to take effect 60 days subsequent to adoption of that resolution. This resolution was approved approximately I ½ years after the above VTMs "vested". Furthermore, the revised Parks fee schedule has no practical impact on these VTMs because "in-lieu" fees were waived as the developer agreed in the Park Development Agreement for Seven Oaks (which covers all of Tracts 6086 and 6087) to construct the required city parks. Planning staffcan confirm that Castle & Cooke has met its requirements for park development for these tracts in accordance with that agreement. At the May 20, :2004 Planning Commission me..efing, Roger McImosh was prohibited from making this clarification. ':. · Neither resolution contains language retroactively applying its provisions to tentative maps which vested prior to adoption of the resolutions. Equitable Arguments in support of the appeal and in support of the request for a one-year extension of vesting rights. · Castle & Cooke recorded all phases of its tract maps at one time in order to maximize the funding~for regional infrastructure which benefits not only the subdivision, but also benefits the entire community. This is the same infrastructure the Regional Impact Fee is designed to fund. Recordation of the final map is necessary to establish the property values of the lots within the development which enables a broader scope of off-site improVements to be constructed. I "WHEREAS, all developments which vest after the adoption of this Resolution will be subject to the Phase 1I! Transportation Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, those vesting maps which vested prior to February 10, i 997 and those non-vesting maps which had their local mitigation measures determined by the Planning Commission prior to February 10, 1997 are subject to the rates in effect prior to Resolution 140-96, called the Phase I rates; and WHEREAS. existing vesting maps which have their vesting date prior to the adoption date of this Resolution are subject to the rates in effect prior to this Resolution, called the Phase !! rates; and The City Council resolved: "2. That the CaPital Improvement Plan, Phase ! set forth in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved and adopted for all ~ex'e~prnev~t~ th.hr vested ~r~or to Februar)., 1 O, 1007. 3. That the Capital Impro.vement Plan, Phase il set forth as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to lhe date of this Resolution. 4. That the Regional Facilities List, Phase ili set forth in Exhibit "C", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to the date of this R~olution." (Emphasis added) 2 C:WJocuments and ficnings~mike~Lm:al Sctlings~Temporaty Interact Files~OLK~ to Cily Council. re extension for vestin&20040525.022.dou * All of these financing decisions were made after taking into consideration the City's historical practice of granting extensions on tract maps. · It would be inequitable for Castle & Cooke to lose its vested rights by ~ecording all phases of its tract maps at one time in order to create a single funding mechanism for all public infrastructure and improvements required to the benefit of the entire City, rather than creating funding mechanisms for each phased segment of the 'development only when the infrastructure and improvements therefor are needed. · 'Were it not for the need to establish the property values of' the. lots for purposes of Assessment District financing, several of the maps would have recorded at a much later time, in a "phased" fashion, thus giving Castle & Cooke an automatic extension of at least 12 , months and perhaps as much as 36 months to file the next map and maintain its "vested" rights. It was not Castle & Cooke's "choice" to record all phases at one time. Such action is not in its best interest where "vested" development rights are concerned. Rather:. (i) If Castle & Cooke filed multiple final maps, the life of the tentative map would be automatically extended by 36 months upon the filing of each phased final map if the sub-divider is required as a condition of approval to construct, improve or finance the construction of public improvements of $125,000 or more outside of the boundaries of the tentative map. (GC section 66452.6(a) and BMC 16.16.080) Each 36 month extension affects the remaining portions of the tentative map upon the filing of each final map authorized by section 66456.1. Castle & Cookg gave up these rights when it determined to maximize and consolidate the funding for the regional infrastructure improvements, a decision clearly in the City's best interest. (ii) Where the several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single VTM but the above amount of off-site improvements are not required, the one-year initial time period (BMC section 16.24.090(C)(1)) begins for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. · Over the past 5 years, Castle & Cooke has recorded 58 maps totaling i,418 lots within the Seven Oaks West project area. The length of time between "vesting" of these maps until final extension of the map rights averages 2 years and 8 months. This is well within the initial 3 year life span ofVTMs. (GC section 66452.6(a) and BMC section 16.16.080A and 16.24.080) Castle & Cooke is not a chronic applicant for time extensions. -Rather, this history demonstrates timely compliance with and completion of the mapping process. · The adjusted fee Resolutions (Parks and Transportation) were adopted after extensive consultation with the development community wherein City Staffgave assurances that the revised fees were in everyone's best interest and would have prospective application only (see the enabling language). At no time did Staff state or imply that the City would deny discretionary extensions on "vested" development rights after the Resolutions were adopted as a means to apply the new fees to VTMs that were previously approved and vested. Conclusion Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has complied with all statutory and procedural requirements for the requested one-year extension of its vested rights. Granting the extensions will not undermine the Council's adoption of the adjusted Parks and Transportation fees as (i) these VTMs and their development rights "vested" prior to the effective date of the Resolutions which adopted the adjusted fees, and (ii) the Counfil clearly stated its intent that the adjusted fees were not to apply to tentative maps which vested prior to the Resolutions' effective dates. 3 CADocumcnts taxi Sctt~ngs~mike~la~e.~l Sc~in~s~T~mpor~ Intcrnc~ Filcs~OLKC%Illr to Cily Council. re cxlcnsion tbr vgstin&20G10525.022.do¢ For these and all of the reasons stated herein, the applicant respectfully requests the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial and approve the requested one-year extensions as consistent with both the intent and spirit of the adopted resolutions. Very truly yours, Michael G. Allford MGA:ad 4 C:~Documcnts and Scttings~mikc~Local Scl~ingsWcmporaty Interne( FiI~s\OLKC~Itr to Cit~ Council re extension for vgsting.20040525.022.doc 05/25/2004 09:00 GG16642904 JONE.~g,I~SI-EY P,~ 03 P, !a, nning Commission, Thursday, April 1,200a - $:3.0 p.m. Ag~d~ No. 5 EXtension of Vesting Ri~t~ on Tract 6125 Unit 2 (Delmarter and Diefel Engineering) located at the northwest comer of Akers Road ~nd Hosking Road. (Exempt from CBQA) . (W~rd ?) Recommendation: Deny Ch~innan, Mr. David (]ay: Mr. Orady could wehave a st~report please? ~. ~y: ~. ~~, It~ No. 5 w~ a ~u~t W ~ow for a ye~ ext~ion of v~g fi~. St~ is re~~g d~ of ~t ~u~t We ~ve ~c~ ~ ~c s~ r~o~ ~ ~e wo~d be ~no~c ~u~c~ ~t wo~d be b~c by ~e pubic if we w~e to ex~d ~e ves~ng fi~. V~g fi~ ~ff~ ~m ~ ~sion of ~e md ~t on~ ~e map 2 r~rded &~ ~vc a ye~ to comple~ ~e ~s~ of ~r v~g fi~ ~d ~cy cm ~k for one automa~c ~emion md &~ ~ey c~ ~k for a con~u~ce. & ~s c~e, ~ ~e time h~ ~ out so ~s we ~ve ~ ~ ~ion, ~ey wo~d ~ be requ~ to pay ~e new ~c impa~ fe~ md ~o n~ p~k dcvelopm~t f~s for ~e r~ng ~es. We ~ ~~ dc~al of ~e reque~ for &e ~t~on ~bject to ~e ~o~a~on con~ in ~e s~r~ ~. Gay: ~ ~u ~. ~y. At ~s ~e is ~ ~yone ~ ~e au~ce who ~shes to ~ ~ ~sifion to St~s m~~on of d~ of ~e ex,ion who wm~ to ~ ~ ~sifion m S~s ~o~a~on of · o d~. Pl~e ~me f~. I see no o~, ~no ~ ~c au~ce ~t would ~e m ~ ~ fav~ or S~s r~~on of d~ of ~e ~t~ion of fi~ ~ Av~ of d~ of fi~ plebe ~e fo~d. ~ see~g no one at ~s ~e ~e pubgc h~g on ~s it~ is now clos~ R~ to ~e comm~ion~s for ~mmen~, ~si~ ~d a motion pl~e. ~. Sp~c~: I wo~d ~o~d ~prov~ of~e d~fl for ~e ~n~ce. ~. Gay: ~ is ~r ~e ~t~ion. ~. Sp~c~ All for S~r~mm~d~om ~. ~y: ~ ~u Mr. Sp~c~. I have a motion. C~ssione~ Bllison plebe. Do you have que~ons o~ ~m ~e motion? Vista ga~h Pro~ect~l~in~ Co~issio~ Mmain, g.20040~ 12.01.d°c Mr. SLUson: No, I would ~econd thaz. Mr. Gay: Okay. ! h~v¢ a mot/on by Commissioner $1~ncer, a second by Commissioner Ellison. This is ~ roll call vote. Madam Clerk. Madam Clerk: Commissioner Blocldcy? Mr. Blockley: Yes. Madgm Clc~k: Commissioner ~llison? Mr. Ellison: Yes. Madam Clerk: Commission~ Lomas? Ms, Lomas: Yes. Madam Clerk: Commissioner Spencer? Mr. Spencer: Yes? Madam Clerk: Commissioner Tkac? Mr. Tkac: Yes. Madam Clerk: Commissioner Gay?. Mr. Gay: Yes. Thc motion does stand. J:~'lient Files\Castle & COoke~uen~ Vista ILm~ch l~Ject~l~,mt~ Comm/s$ion Meoting~.0040~ 12,01.doc ~5/25/2004 09:00 S~1SS42904 JONE~~ . PAGE. 05 AGENDA REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY. OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambem, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL: DAVID GAY, Chairman MURRAY TRAGISH, Vice Chairman 'TED BLOCKL. EY BURTON P,. ELLISON BARBARA LOMAS JOHN S. SPENCER .~ ,,/'1 JEFFREY TKAC 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: 4. CONSENT CALENDER: 4.t Non-Public I-leadng Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of February 5, 19 and Mat;ch 4, 2004. 4.1b Apl~oval of General Plan Consistency finding for the aequisltlon of the water well site in Tract 6121located east of Jenkins Road, generally between-Brimhall Road and Palm Avenue. (City of Bakersfield). (F::x=mpt fnxn CEQA) (Ward 4) Group Vote 4.2 Public Hearing Item~ 4.2a Am3rove continuance to Anril 15. 2004 - Vestlrtfl Tentative Tract Map I~o. 6295 '(Porter-Robertson) Iocate~. on trte $outtteast comer o! Brimhall Road and River Ranch Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.S) * Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order. 05/25/2004 09:00 ~616642904 JONES~BEA~DSLEY P~iE 86 Agenda, PC, Thursday, April t, 2004 - Council Chamber, City Hall Pag~ Containing 22 lots for purposes of multiple family development to be zoned R-2 PUD (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-Planned Unit Development) and 'one lot for office commercial development to be zoned C-O (Commerdal and Admtnlstratlve Office) on 23.57 acres including a request for alternate street destgn, and request to waive mineral rights signatures by providing a drill bland pursuant to BMC 16.20.080 B.3. (Ward 4) 4.2b Remove Revieed Comprehensive Sion Plan (File NO, 03-14ii4} (Panama Lane, I.LC) from agenda due to pending legislation. The project is located on the north lids of Panama Lane, Immediately east of Slate Hkjhway 99. (Exempt from CEQA) Revision of an approved ~mprehensive sign plan granted in 2003 for a cemmerdal shopping center (currently known as Walmart/Lowe's) to include an adjacent commercial development' into the sign cleslgn program. The affected property is within a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone district and the existing center is zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development). (Wan 7) Group Vote _ 5. EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS ON TRACT 6125 UNIT 2 (Delmarter and Diefel Engineering) located at the northv~est comer of Akers Road and Husking Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 7) ~_./y~j / ,~.) Roll Call Vote: 5. PUBLIC HEARING - 'Tentative Parcel Map No, 10991 {Cannon Associates} located on the southwest comer of East Brunclage Lane and South Mount Vernon Avenue. (Negative Declare{Jun on ~ile) (Continued from Mamh ~-004) Cantalning three parr, els and one designated remainder for industrial development purposes on 2.07 gross ac, ms, zoned M-2 (General Manufe~uring) and a wnive~ of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC le.20.0SO B.4. (Ward 1) RECOMMENDATION: , Approve Roll Call Vote: PUBMC HEARINGS - Tentat~/~ Tract Maps 7,1 Vestinc; Tentative Tract Map No. 6256 (Porter~Robertson Eng.) located on the eouthwest comer.of Paladino Drive (extended) and Lampl}ght StreeL (Negative Doolaration on file) (ContJnued *from January 15, 2004,,February 5, 2004 and March 4, 2004) Ha~ 29 04 04:5~p H=]n~oshRsso= 66t8340972 ~- RESOLUTION NO. ~ " R.SOLUTIO. OF cou.clL oF A.,,~,,-....,,,=.n ADOPTNG THE 2003-2024 RE_GIO_.N.A~.. AND FAClUTIES UST, PHASES I, II AND III, ADOPTING THE NEXUS REPORT AND CERTIFYING THAT A FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES- WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code implemented a Transportation Impact Fee program for new development in order for new development to bear a proportionate share of the cost of the new or expanded transportation facilities required by such development; and .WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Nlu'nicipal Code requires that the City CouncO annually update the capital improvement plan for road construction funded by the impact fee program and adopt a proposed fee schedule; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code further requires that the fee schedule adopted by ~e City Council be adjusted annually by the Construction Cost Index; and WHEREAS, both the Facilities List and the Fee Schedule of the Transportation Impact Fee program have been re-evaluated to include a new planning horizon year of 2020 and the transportation network has been updated to include the latest development and land use trends; and WHEREAS, al~ developments which vest after the adoption of this Resolution will be subject to the Phase tll Transportation Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, those vesting maps which vested prior to February 10, 1997 and those non-vesting maps which had their Iocat mitigatlon measures determined by the Planning Commission prior to Felxuary 10, 1997 are subject to the rates in effect prior · to Resolution 140-96, called the Phase I rates; and WHEREAS, existing vesting maps which have their vesting date prior to the -'~ adoption date of this Resolution are subject to the rates in effect prior to this Resolution, called the Phase II rates; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield determined that the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update 'Final Environmental Impact Report approved and certified on December 11. 2002 adequately covers the environmental analysis and CEQA requirements for this project; and wHEREAS, the ava~ability of the Final Environmental Impact Report was noticed in the Bakersfield Californian; and Ha~ 28 04 04:51p ~cln~osh~$soc EG18340972 p.3 WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update FEIR includes the following: 1. The Notice of Preparation, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 'and the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Alt staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and Other documents prepared by the consultant relating to the project; and 3. Alt testimony, doCUments, and evidence presented by the City of Bakersfield relating to the project; and ._ 4. The proceedings before the City Council relating to the project and Final Environmental Impact Report including tes§mony and documenting evidence introduced at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a public headng before the City Council was advertised and held September 10, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein. .~ 2. That the Capital Improvement Plan, Phase ! set forth in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved and adopted for all developments that vested prior to February 10, 1997. P 3. That the capital Improvement P'lan, Phase II set fodh as Exhibit "B", is ...-?1- hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to February 10, 1997. - 4. That the Regional Facilities List, Phase 111 set forth in Exhibit "C", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to we date o! this Resolution. 5. That the map of the Core Area shown in Exhibit "D" is hereby approved and adopted. 6. That the fee schedule for Phases I, II and III set forth in Exhibit "E" is hereby approved and adopted. 7. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project has been completed in compliance with CEQA. B. The City Couno'l' hereby certifies that it has received, reviewed, evaluated and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental 2 ~ '"'" Hau 29 04 04:52p Hcln~oshRssoc 66L8340972' P.4 Impact Report for GPA 01'0973 and has found the analysis' and mitigation adequate for this proiect. 9. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Councirs independent Report for GPA P01-0973 reflects the City judgement and analysis for the necessary environmen[ai analysis for this project. 10. That the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. 11. That the City council approves the Slatement of Facts and Findings (CEQA Guidelines, 'Section 15091), Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093) as shown in attached Exhibit "F'. 12. The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted · pursuant thereto and a Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 71114 (c)(2)(b) of the State of California Depadment of Fish and Game Code. 13. The nexus report as Set forth in Exhibit "G" is hereby approved and adopted. 14. This ResolUti0~will become effective 60 days after it's adoption by both the City and the County, whichever is later. · " '. ' ............ o00 .......... Ha~ 28 04 04:52p Hc]n'toshRssoc 6S18340972 p.5 I HEREBY CERTIFY thai the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted.by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on _~£P 1 5 2003 .., by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBER COUCH, eENHAM. CARSON. HANSON, MAGGARD, SALVAGGIO. SULLIVAN ~ COUNCIL MEMBER. ABSTAIN; COUNCIL MEMBER _ ASSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER ~ CITY CLERK and Ex Officio(~le~k of the Council of the Oily of' BakersTie]d 'APPROVED / By ,, i~iARVEY,,L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. 'I'HILTGEN City Attorney Deputy City Attorney ~ ...... --. ....... $:~OJECTb~T~,F~hase 3~CC 9._10._O3~C~xe Trat~ tmp~ Fee res.doc DRAFT Minutes~ PC~ May 20r 2004 Page 2 Motion made by C(:{'mmissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to add agenda items 7.1 an(~8.3 to the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. 4.2 Public Hearing Items ~ ' _\ 4.2a Approve contind~nce until June 3, 2004 of Development Plan Review (Porter-Robertson~located on the southeast corner of Brimhall Road and River Ranch Drive. [~legative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 8.2a). ' · (Ward 4) ~ ' 4.2b Approve continuance distil June 3, 2004 of Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 6295 (Porter-Robertson) (~ard 4) 4.2c Approve continuance Until'~ul¥ 1, 2004 of Tentative Parcel Map 10928 (Pinnacle Engineeiing) (War~ 4.2d Approval of Zone Chanqe 03-151~Marino and Associates)(Ward 6) Public portion of the hearing opened. No or~ spoke either for or against the projects. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissi~t,ner Gay asked that consent item 4.2d be removed from the Consent Agenda. There wc~e no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by O~mmissioner Spencer, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Mot~ carried by group vote. 5. EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS One staff report was given for the following seven items. The recommendation was for denial on each of the seven items. A vote was taken on each item separately. Commissioner Gay stated that it is a concern of the development community whether or not adequate notice was given to the applicant that we could rescind his extension right? Mr. Grady said that we are not·rescinding anything. We are just saying that the rights the applicant had prior to recording the map should have been completed within one year of recordation. Since they haven't been, we are asking the developer to pay the current fees. Commissioner Gay asked if these were automatically approved in the pas~ Mr. Grady said yes before the park and transPOrtation impact fees were increased. Commissioner Ellison asked if the resolutions the City Council passed to increase the fees addressed the Extension of Vesting Rights for tract maps? Ms. Shaw said the resolution for the transPOrtation impact fee did not address the issue. There was no one from the Parks Department in the audience to answer the question concerning the increase in the park fee. Commissioner Blockley asked if similar requests have been heard and denied in recent months? Ms. Shaw said yes once and it was denied. Commissioner Tragish asked Roger Mclntosh (representing the applicant) when the assessment district was put together and how long it took to do that? Mr. Mclntosh said the maps have to be recorded before the district gees into effect so it was about a year ago. DRAFT Minutes~ PC~ May 20~ 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish said that he is inclined to vote for approving staff's recommendation for all of these applications but .by the same token, he does support granting the extensions for 5.5 through 5.7 because permits have been pulled on them. Commissioner Blockley asked if the tentative maps had not been recorded, would they be subject to the new fees? Mr. Grady said no. Commissioner Ellison said that the staff report states the city would give up 3.2 million dollars in the coming year by approving the extensions and that he would be supporting staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gay said he would support Commissioner Tragish's position. Mr. Grady said the development community knew the fees would be increased a long time before they made the change. The subdividers understand the map act more so than most people so they are not subject to changes in fees after they have committed to a certain development program, Commissioner Lomas commented that the previous Extension of Vesting Rights that was denied by the CommissiOn also had permits pulled on it. 5.1 Extension of Vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6086 (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to deny the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6086 with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.2 Extension of Vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6087 Phase A (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to deny the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6087 Phase A with findings set forth in the attached resolution* Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.3 Extension of vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6087 Phase B (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to deny the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6087 Phase B with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. DRAFT Minutes, PC~ May 20~ 2004 Page 4 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None : ABSENT: None 5.4 Extension of Vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6087 Phase C (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to deny the request for. a'one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6087 Phase C with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.5 ExtenSion of Vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6087 Phase D (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6087 Phase D with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas ABSENT: None 5~6 Extension of Vestinq Riqhts for Tract 6104 Phase I (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6104 Phase I with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas ABSENT: None 5.7 Extension of Vestlnq Riqhts for Tract 6104 Phase 5 (Mclntosh & Assoc) (Ward 5) Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Rights on Tract 6104 Phase 5 with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: *Commissioners Ellison, Lomas ABSENT: "None DRAFT Minutest PCr May 20r 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Ellison said that he voted no because he believes the fees should be collected for orderly development to provide for our infrastructure. ..Commissioner Lomas said she voted no for the same reason and that they had already set a 'precedent by denying the previous extension on vesting rights. *, 6. PUBLIC HEARING- Street Name Chanqe from Windsonq Street to Ashley Castle Way (Brian Allan Castle) (Ward 4) The public hearing had previously on May 6, 2004. Staff report given recomm~ ng denial. The following spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation: Charlotte & Brian Castle rebutted reasons for denying the request. One of the reasons given was fiscal responsibility and stated they are willing to incur the costs of changing the street signs. They also feel that the maps would not be a problem because with all the building going on in the area, maps are lng changed all the time. Ms. Castle stated that the second reason for denial was sound alike They do not feel this is a valid reason as they found 330 sound alike names in the )hone )k within 15 minutes of opening it. She then listed examples and stated that emergency ~ams are trained well and know the area in which they work. Ms. Castle said she doesn't think setting a I: s a justified reason for denying the request. They feel this is just a reason being used because isn't any other justifiable reason to deny the request. They do not think there will be a flood of requesting street name changes if this request is approved. Ms. Castle said they have exceeded the requirements by the city and they feel that based on this, this request should be granted. Joy Kinney, Joey Garza, Cindy Kinney, and Daniel Froehlich in favor of changing the street name. They feel that changing the street name would promote The street name will be a reminder to motorists and pedestrians to be extra cautious. Ms. Robinson spoke in favor of changing the street name. She said is vague. It seems to be a discretionary decision whereas she feels the policy should be Ms. Robinson said to base a decision on this street name request on a new policy would appropriate. She feels that.this street name change request would be a good opportunity to what the policy may be, such as, paying fees, streets that have no addresses or a certain of signatures, etc. Ms. Robinson said that given what has been said tonight, there is no denial. All of the issues have been argued and there is no foundation for denial. Brad Henderson, representing Pheasant Run Homeowners Association, spoke in of staff's' recommendation. Mr. Henderson said the property south of Brimhall is a designated ;rs association with their own governance of CC&R's and architectural landscape controls, are concemed about the ambience of the intersection. The association approved a placed but there has been an on-going buildup of a shrine of which they have had to bear of walking through or driving through there the whole time. They ask when is enough plaque has been placed on the wall that the association has to maintain. They believe there enough memorabilia there. There is no reason to start changing street names.