Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2005 B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, May 23, 2005 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. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 3. CLOSED sEsSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel-~-Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section 54956.9 - one caSe 4. CLOSED SESSION ACTION 5. ADOPT APRIL 25, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 7. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding appeals of extension of vesting rights - Rojas 8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: May 23, 2005 I AGENDA SECTION: Closed Session ITEM: TO: Planning & Development Committee APPROVED Sue Benham - Chair David Couch Mike Maggard FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: May 19, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Conference with Legal CoUnsel -- Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section 54956.9 - one case VG:do S:\COU NCl L\Committee~,DMINS\05-23.05 Potential.doc DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D- /~ ~ C~,...~. Sue Benham, Chair Sta:ff~ John W: Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting .was called to order at 12:04 p.m. Present: Counciimembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 12:06 p.m. the meeting adjourned.to Closed Session. 3. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with' Legal Counsel~Potential Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 - one case The Closed Session was called to order at 12:04 p.m. 4. CLOSED SESSION ACTION There was no reportable action. The regular meeting was, called to order at 1:15 p.m. 5.ADOPT MARCH 28, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 6.PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. DRAFT AGENDA SUIVIMA~Y REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 25, ~005 Page 2 7. DEFERRED .BUSINESS A. Urban forestry discussion and Committee recommendation City Manager Alan Tandy explained he has been meeting with Dana Karcher on how the City can work more closely with the Tree Foundation. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave an overview of the memorandum in the packet. The Urban Forester has resigned and staff is recommending replacing the position with a Parks Supervisor to oversee tree maintenance operations. Also, included in the proposed budget are two additional Service Maintenance Worker positions for Trees, and one Parks Technician position to assist with reviewing plans an~l meeting growth demands. The Parks Technician position will be paid by development fees. He outlined the steps that will be taken to produce a more effective working relationship within the department and with the Tree Foundation, which will also provide better service to the public overall. The steps included training for Parks and Planning staff on commercial landscaping. The new Recreation and Parks Director will be coming on board soon and will be working closely with the Tree Foundation. City Manager Alan Tandy explained that with Committee apProval the positions will be included for Council review during the proposed 2005-06 budget process. The Committee unanimously approved the steps as outlined and no further action was taken. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding strengthening the Hillside Ordinance (This item heard first) Planning Director Jim Movius provided a brief history on where the City is now with its current adOpted ordinance and the original ordinance proposed by staff. The Planning Director stated the current hillside ordinance has provisions for street grades, application requirements, and fire protection standards. It does include provisions for space around buildings and grading to be contoured to conform to natural slopes. However, the current ordinance is primarily a health, safety and welfare ordinance built around fire safety and access in contrast to an ordinance that would provide for slope and open space protection. There was an original ordinance proposed in -the late 90's that originally included more protection that the current ordinance. The Committee reviewed a draft ordinance blending the current ordinance with the original proposed ordinance. The language from the .original proposed ordinance was shown in italics. The Planning Director discussedthe.provisions of the hillside ordinance and issues of concern regarding topography, grading and setbacks. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D AFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 25, 2005 Page 3 Committee Member Maggard spoke regarding arrangements he has made with developers to do a different type of landscaping in the hillside area. For example, landscaping would include oak trees, boulders, and wild flowers along the slopes. He suggested language be included to reqUire this type of landscaping throughout the hillside area to provide a uniform appearance. Committee Chair Benham expressed she would like to include a provision to protect the view from Alfred Harrell Highway. Development Services Director Stan Grady explained any new ordinance would only apply to those developments that do not have vested maps. Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club, spoke regarding swimming pools on the edge of the slopes being not being visible, native plants and including Xeric trees and was in favor of a stronger ordinance. Michelle Beck spoke regarding fences on lot lines and was in favor, of a stronger ordinance. Craig Smith spoke regarding the proposed changes to the ordinance and was in favor of a stronger ordinance. Joanne Silva Newberry, Ann Williams and Nancy Lerma spoke regarding concerns about erosion of the hillsides and natural drainage. Maria Polite spoke regarding the need to protect.the beauty of the open space and preserve the trails for walking. Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County, said he was not Prepared to speak to the proposed changes and requested the Committee allow adequate time to meet with the industry. The Development Services Director explained there would be hearings on the proposed ordinance at the Planning Commission level and opportunities for public input are part of that process.. The Committee decided the best course of action would be to forward the proposed ordinance changes to the Council with a recommendation it be referred to the Planning Commission. Committee Chair Benham requested the recommendation to Council include an overlay zone from Alfred Harrell Highway to protect the view including lot line setbacks, concealing pools, fences and other structures. Committee Member Maggard requested the hillside slope design theme including trees, boulders, fences and Xeric plants be included in the recommendation to Council. The Committee unanimously voted to forward the ·ordinance changes to the Council with a recommendation it be referred to the Planning Commission and requested staff to prepare a report and include the above recommendations, and publish the notice. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 25, 2005 Page 4 B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding inconsistencies between zoning and the General Plan Development Services Director Start Grady pointed out the zoning areas to the Committee on a map that are' inconsistent with the General Plan. Some were in development areas and others were in undeveloped areas. There are about 2,620 acres or about four square miles where the General Plan and the zoning map are inconsistent. Many years ago urban renewal was done much differently. The property was zoned for higher .density and then they came back in and changed the neighborhood. So the property is zoned for multifamily, with a General Plan designation for single family. Zoning used to be the determining factor, but when the update to the site plan review process was done, consistency with the General Plan was made a requirement. The Development Services Director stated staff's recommendation is to make the neighborhood zoning be consistent with the land use-that is on the ground. So if the neighborhood is all single family homes making the zoning consistent, or if a block is multifamily making the zoning multifamily, so it would be consistent with the General Plan. The Development Services Director explained there are many ways to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan, but you will meet with resistance. The inconsistencies do not cause a problem, .until someone comes in with a project and the zoning allows a certain type of development, but the General Plan does not allow it. City Manager Alan Tandy explained the current workload in the Planning Department and requested staff time constraints be considered. The Committee unanimously approved staff's recommendation on making the zoning consistent with the General Plan when possible, but be sensitive to staff's time constraints. 9. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None.. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:36 p.m. DR'AFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 25, 2005 Page 5 Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Development Services Director Stan Grady; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Planning Director Jim Movius; Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; Building Director Jack Leonard; Assistant Building Director Phil Burns; and Development Services Principal Planner Jim Eggert Attendance-others: Brian Todd; Michelle Beck; Craig Smith; Mike Turnipseed, Ann Williams; Maria Polite; Lorraine Unger; Darryl Tucker; Dana Karcher; Nancy Lerma; Marjorie Bell; Beverly Banks; Stephanie Foe; Joanne Silva Newberry; Cassie Daniel; Ed King; and James Burger cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Com mittees\O5Planning&Developm ent\05Apr25surnmary.doc B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 20, 2005 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMJ.}"I'EE :.--/ THROUGH: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ,~ ! FROM: JOHN W. STINSON~,"J[S'SlSTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PENDING VESTING RIGHTS APPEALS The issue of vesting rights appeals is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee. This issue has been under consideration for some time and a significant backlog of appeals is beginning to occur. Currently, there are fourteen vesting rights appeals pending a. recommendation from the Committee back to the City Council. I have attached a listing provided by the City Clerk of each of the pending appeals which includes the tract number and the names of the developers involved. The Public Works Department is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to allow extensions of vesting rights for two tracts. The extensions of time allow the developers (Castle and Cooke and Centex Homes) to avoid the newly adopted Transportation and Park Development Fees. The difference between the old and new fees is $170,565 in lost revenue to the City. Also, Porter-Robertson is appealing one tract and Mclntosh and Associates is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny extensions of vesting rights on twelve other tracts (Developer - Castle and Cooke). If the Planning Commission's decision is overturned and the extensions of time for vesting rights are approved, the loss in revenue to the City between the old fees and the new Traffic and Park Development Fees for the non-city appeals would be $3.3 million (approximately $2.8 in traffic impact fees and $500,000 in Park fees). These monies are needed to pay for traffic and park improvements required by these developments and staff recommends the extensions not be granted. When' the Council was considering the fees, there was clear direction the fee schedules be developed in such a way that would pay for the needed infrastructure. Not granting discretionary vesting extensions was a logical step to ensure the needed money would be collected. Citywide there are other developments that may be requesting one-year extensions to be able to develop under the old fee. If ,the extensions of vesting rights continue to be granted, it is possible the City would give up additional fee revenues above and beyond the $3.3 million in Transportation and Park Development fees noted above. PENDING MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6128 PHASES 1-6 MClNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6111 PHASES 1-3 MClNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6127 MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT'6086 .. MClNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6087A MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT' 6087B MClNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6087C PORTER ROBERTSON APPEAL REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TRACT 6121 · APPEAL BY THE CITY (PUBLIC WORKS) REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS TRACT 6087d AND 6104 PHASES 1&5 MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO pC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6150, PHASES 1, 2 & 3 MClNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS' FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6151, PHASES 1 & 2 MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6185, PHASES 2, 6, 7 & 8 MCiNTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6199 MCINTOSH APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CASTLE & COOKE TO PC DECISION REGARDING VESTING RIGHTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6223, PHASES 1 - 7 S:\HEARINGS\MISC~REALSCHEDULE.doc May 18, 2005, 8:47 a.m.