The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 B A K E R S F I E L D NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that .the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, December 127 2006 at 1:00 p.m., in the City Manager's Conference Room, Second Floor of City Hall, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, has been canceled. DATED: December 5, 2006 John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager . ~....~ tr~?. ~.A8 ~ '.. .... ' 112/7/2006 4:02 P~2/7~006 4:02 PM SteveP~lbe LarW~doeB,~h ~4~6~1'40~ .. Co,er+lC9Ve'+l O~ oKOK · . '." . . '. .. · · . .' . .. · . ~ .' I~/7/~00G4:~PM R~rMcln~h ' ~4-0972 , ". Co~e,+l ' '~'.' 1217/20064:~ ~ ~ttn:Kim' , S~-61gg · ' . ' ' .'. ~ . · ' ". 12/7/20~02 PM EDITOR · ~5751S · Co~+1 · . · ' ~'' , ' ' 12/7/2006 ~ PM N~wsD~k . ~4-2~85' : . Cova~l ' ' ~'0K : . . ' . . ' ."' ' ',~' ' · ' · . ' ' 12/7/20~3:02PM CHAflLESWAIDE 325-7814 . Co~e~;1 . .... ' .'. ~{ ~ · . . .12/7/~3:02P~ K~daflM~rsha, · ~-29~ .' Cove,+1 · ' ' · ~ · ' · · 12/7/~'3:02P~ O~onPag~ ~-7~ ' Covel+l · .. ~'OK '.. · . ~ · ' .' ' . . 12t72~0~3:O2PM K~hyEdd~ ' 8~8-31~ Cever+l · · ~i ~ 12/7/~06.3.02'PM THE ~INORI~... 323-9~7 Co~+1 ~OK · · . ' .' ' ~ ' ' 12/7/20063~2P~ K~ACSPANISH... 327~7 C~ver+l ' .' 12/~/2006~02PM K~ITV-45KUZ...' 32~7537 C~va;l ' · ~OK ' · ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .~. ' '12)7/20063:~P~ KL~Y95F~,KN... 39~915 '~over+l '~oK ' ' ' ' · '' .' '" ".~ · ~ · 12/~/2006 3:~ ~ k~ : · 283-~B3 · .' · ' . ~ ~ ' ' . 12/7/2006 3:~P~ KGE~ TV-17 .' 28~1843 ' Cover+l · · '. · ' ' ~ · · · 12/7/20~ Y02 P~ K~RO TV-23 ~-5538 Cova+l ' ' i~ ~ · 12~7/20063:02~ KERN-KGEO~G:.. ~388 C~+1 ~0~ ' '. · · . '..' ~ · ' ·' 1~zT/~3:~P~ F~w-~9 · ~i.ge~0 "c~+~ . .. ~" ~ .. .; ...1~)7~:0~ ~o~ ', .' · ~.!3Sl.. ~ , · · 12/7~006 3:02 ~ EL'MEXICO 323-~951 ..: * : .'.. '~zz~:0~,~,~,~,... ~z-~zs~ ~ . . . ~ 12/?~6 ~02 ~ ~D BURGER '. ~5-75~9 .' Cpver+l ' ; · · ~ 12/7/~0B 3:02 PM EDITOR ' 324-9472 ' ' ' . .~ . ' ' ' 12/7~00B 3:02 P~ DIRECTOR . G33-1317 ' '.' Cover+l . ' ~ O~ ' .' . . ~ ~. ' . ' 12/7/~0~3:02~ BEALE~E~ORI...' G~1-9439 ' · · Co~er+l ' ~O~ ~::'''..... ' . '''" ' 12/7~06 3:02 P~ GOV. AFFAIRS D....5-2317 ' 2/1~06 11 03" .'EDITOR --'--' ~5-7519 Co.r+1 C.er+l '~" . No.we, A, Fa~ Numar ~=':=''"'='" .... ~'' : "?'~: -- ' 12/1~G11.03... Ne~Oe~k ~4-2685 Cover+l ' ' . · ~ ' ' ". 12/1/~0611:03... CH~LESWAIDE 3~-7814 Co~er+l · ' ' . ; ~' 1~/1~0611:03.~. Op~o~P~ge 395-7380 Co~er+l · . ~: . ' ' 12/1/~0611 03 K~RyEddy' ~8-3190 ' ~ver+l . ~ ~.. ]2/1~0611:03_. KW'~.C SPANISH ...' 327-0797. . Co.r+1 ' Typ~ ~' q~ ~ !irwin ~ot . . . . . · . .. . ....~ 12/7/20~4:02PM F~Pmter 327:1065 ~ver+l ' ~ OK · . 12/7/2006 3:02 P~ N~ De~k · ~4-2685 · · ' ~Yer+l ~ OK · · ~ . ¢ · · :. . . ...~ 12~/~06~PM GREATER~AKE 327875 Co'e+1 ' ~ OK ' · ' ' ' ~ B A K E R S F I .E L D NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee .of the City CounCil scheduled for Tuesda¥~ November 28~ 2006 at 1:00 p.m., in the City Manager's Conference Room, Second Floor of City Hell, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, has been canceled. DATED: November 16, 2006 John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager .' i""~ Tr~h ~ ' ' · · ~1/16/2~12:2...' EDITOR .395.7519 Cq~er~l · · . ' ~ All. ~ · ' . · 11/16~612:2_: NewsD~k · ' 3~-~ · ' · Co~er+l ' . · . '. · ': ~ ' '" 11'/1~/~0B1~:2.. '~RL~SWAIO~ ~-7814 '. · ' Co~er+l. ~ . : ~ OK' .' ·" . . . · ' · ~ · 11/1~00~12:2...; Omio~Pa~. · '. ~-7380 · Co.er+! · ' ' · · ~' ' ' /16/20061~2 KahyE~y · ' · ~-3190 · · · gov~r+l ' · ' i ~ .' ll/1G/2~12:2... THE MINORI~ ~-9~87 Co~e+l ' ' ·. ~ ~' .~oo,~:z.. ,w~s,~,s,'];. :~.o~.' Co.~r*~ · · ~ ' 11~G/200812:2.: K~TV-45KUZ.... 328-7537 ' ~v6r+t · · ' ~OK ' ' · ' ' . .'~ ~' '. :' : l~zls~zmsl~:z.: KLLY9SF~-KN:.. ~-16i5 · Co6~,*~.' : · ~ · .''' · 11/ G/2~G122 K~ · ~3-29~ · Cover;1 · '' ' ' · ' ~ ' · ' 1 /1G~006122 KGET TV-t7' ' 283-1~3 ' ' ~ve+i · ~ OK ' ' ' ' ' · ' ' ' · ';~ ' ". { ~ 11/1G/2O0G122..] KERD~V-23' ~-55~ Cover%1 ' ' '. · ' ~ ' /16/20061~2 ~RN-KGEO-KG'..' 32G-0~. Core,+1 ' · ' ' ' ~ · ' · ' ' l /1G/200G 1 ~ KBAK TV-29' ' ~G1 98 0 ' Cove +l' · ' ' .. ':, ~' .' .ll~/200'6~zz.. EDmTOR: ']. 32513Sl .' CoJ.,+l eOK .' · ' ( +.' ll/1G)20~12:Z:. ELNEXI~O . ~1 C~ve,~l ' ' · '.. '.' ~ ''.. 11/1G~122 GREATERB~E 327-8~i ' ' '~ova+l ' '~OK · .' · ' · ' ' · ·' '. · '. ~ '. '. ' '11/iG/200G1~2].~ ~enda)~J[shall ' ~28~29G3. C~e~;1 ' ' . ' ' .~" '' 11/1G)2~122 EDITOR · 32~-9472 C~va+l' '' '.' ~ ~ ''.... '~ 11)1G~12:2... DiR~CYQR. 6.~.~3~7 . 'Core,+1.. OOK .' . .' '. ' ." · .' · ~ ~ ll/1G/2DOG122. B~LEME~ORI. G31-9439 C~e~+l ~OK ' ' '.' ' ' ' ~ ' '' 11~6)~0612:2,.' GOV. AFFAIRSD... 835-2317. "' 'Co~e)~l ' ' · · ·.' ~,., -"~i~'-- ~ ..... --- . m ' ' ' ~ ' 11/9~DG4:15PHEDITOR ' ~5-7519 . ~v~+l ' ~OK''. . ' ' ) ~' . ' ' .' . 11~064:15P~ N6wsD~k 334-2685 ] Co~+1 . ' ' ' ~ .'. ll/g/~0G4:15PM C~RLES%VAIDE ~5-7814 Cov~+l · ~OK · ' · . ' ''. . · ' ' · · '. ~ · lly9y2o0~4:lsP~op~o,P~g, ..ms.73s0 '~' c;~.,+~' eOK' "' ". :' '" ')~,: " ~ ~ ' · · 11/9~D0~4:15P~ K~da)l~m~ 2B3-2963 ' Co~er+i · . · · · ( ~" 1~/g/~064:15P~ K~Edd~ '. 8G8-3190 ' ]'" Cover+l'. ' ~.OK . . . ' '. ' · " ' ' ) ~; '" ' .11/~/20064:15P~ THE MINORITY...' ~3-9287. ' . Cov6r~l ' ~ OK ; ". .... ' ~'~} .", ~ ' · .] . li/9/2~0G 4:I~PM KWACSPANISH 327-0797 ' '~ve,+l · '. ~" 11/9~0G415P~KU~-45KUZ'..328-7537 ' ' Cover+~ '. '.. ' ' ." ~" . ~. ~:' ' ' .ll/~200G4:lSP~ KLLY~FM-KN..i ~3-1915 ' C~ver+i ' ~OK . . ' ' ' ' '. ". ' ' ~ : 1i/g/2~064:15P~ K~ · : 283-29~3 ' 'Cover+l . .' .~:: · ~/9)2~06 4:~5P~ KGET'TV-~7 ' · 283-1843 :: Co~r+J ~'OK . · · . '' ' ' , ~ · ' 11/1B/2~12:3.: C~h~Butl~' ' . ~7319 · . Eo~+l ' · 'OOK' ' · ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' . · ' ~' 11/16~00612:3. FredPorte~'' ~7-~065 · ~r+l. OOK .' .-.". ' .' ' '· ~ '' ' 11/16/200612.3...' 'SteveDeB~ch · ~-~006 · ~f+l ~.OK .' · ' '~. . 11/16)200612:3... Rog~rM~l~t~h 8~972. .' C~r+l · .~OK'. ' . · . ' ' ' · . ' ~" , . . ~ .~' · . · . .11/16~612:2... CHARLESWAIBE 3~-7814 · .' .Co,r*1 ~OK . . - '.' . .~ ".'.'' .~h~12:~:_ ~.4.,"~.h.,' ' ' · ~ ~ ' 11~6~00612:2...' K~ACSPANISH ;' · ' '( ~;' ·' ' ···11/16/200612:2 KLL~M-KN ~3-1915 ' C~r~l' · ~OK ' '' ' ' ' '' ' . , ;. '~;' .11/16/200612:2,. KGETTV-17 '~-1843 ' Cover+l. '. ~OK" · . . ' ' · ' ". '. { ~ ' ' ' ' ' 11/16~12:~.. KER0 ~-~3' ~3-5538 ' Cov~r+~ ' ' · ' ~ ~ '. ' ' 11~6/2~612:2... K~RN-KGEO-KG..: ~60388' ' ' ' CoCer+3 · ' '. ' ~ ~ ' ' · · 11/16/2~612:2..; KBAK~-29 '.861~9810 ''. Co'r+1' '. ~ .' · 11/16/200612:2... DA~DBURGER ~-7519 , ".' ' · ' . · 11/16/2~612:2.... EDITOR ' 324-~72 ' · ~Co~er+l ' .~OK ' ~" · ..'. .~ .11/16~61~:2,.. DIREC{oR' ' ~-13t7 · ."Co~r~" · ~OK'..' ' '" . ." . . B A K E .R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: ,John W. Sfinson SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield ~uesday, November 7, 20061 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 OCTOBER 17, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on space needs/Borton Petrini & Conron Building - Tandy 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN~Council Committees\06 Planning&Development\p&d 06 xxx xx agen.doc Planning and Development Committee Special Meeting of November 7, 2006 Per Alan, the agenda was amended and additional backup was included. Delivered packets to: Clerk's Office - Mayor and Council Clerk's Office - Public Packet Alan John Ginny Nelson gaul Stan Don Faxed agenda to media - confirmation attached Faxed agenda to Planning & Development contact fax list - confirmation attached Provided two agendas to the Clerk's office for posting (web and public board). E-mailed agenda to: ' Department Heads Assistants Planning and Development e-mail contact list Planning and Development staff contact list George Martin and Vanessa Claridge (George's assistant) Friday, November 03, 2006 1:58:46 PM B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE pLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, November 7, 2006 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AMENDED AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS (REGARDING CLOSED SESSION) 3. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel- Potential Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 (one case) 4. CLOSED SESSSION ACTION 5. ADOPT OCTOBER 17, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 7. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on space needs/Borton Petrini & Conron Building - Tandy 8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Planning&Development\p&d 06 nov 07 amended agen.doc "i' ~ Main' 'I~ · · .11/~1:45P~ Go~e,~lair... ~5-23~7 L ~ Trosh' ~" ' ' 11/3/20061:45 PM Da~idBurg~r-Ba..' 395-~9 ' l'pg~ ~'~ ~' .' '' .11/3~00~:45PMN~Dir~-U... 334-2~7 ' lpg~ ' ' '~OK '' ' "'~ ~':~'~ ~ ~. :' · 11/3/20061:45 ~M N~D~e~-K... 327~797 l~g~' ~OK · , .~'~ ~ ' ·..,~00~:~ ~,-~,~,~ ~ ' ~,,....' ,~ o,.. '. '., · . ' '~ ~' I ~ ~ '. '11/3/2006 1:45PM BealeLibr~' . G~-9439 .1 pg~ ' · · { '~ · .. H/~00~SP~.~di*~-E ~ ~ ~'. 11~3/20061:45P~ N~D~t~-K... 3~8- . '. .~ ~' · 11~/2006 45~NewsDh~o.-K. ' ' ' ~ ~' ' ' 11/3)~0061:45~'~n~n-~kers~..: 3~7380 lpgs · · ~OK ' ' ' . . . . ' ~ · 11~/200G ~:45 PM '.'.~ ~ ' . ~' . 11~/20~1:45P~ ~a~elRa... ~2963 · '. 1 pgs · ~ ' : 11/3/200G 1:45 ~' New~ D~ec~or - K... ~63 · · · . ' 11~/20061:45P~ BIA "' · ~-1317 1 pg~ 'i '. · - '~' ' ' 11/3/200~1:45 PM'CharlesG.'~aide ~-78~4 ' 1 pg~ '. ~ OK . ' ' ' . ' '. ' ' ' ' "~ ~ . ... : ~ ' . ' ' 11/3/20~ 45PM New~D~eco -K ~3-1915 · . . ' 11/3/2006 1:45 PM i . ' '~ · '. '. ' ' ' ~1~1:~5P~ ~.. · ; ~ ." · 11/3/~1:45PMThe~orit~C~... ~3-~7 ' lpg~'" . OOK' . . .'.' · ' ' : ' 11/3/20~145PMN~sE~o-Bak ~7519 l'p~' ' .... · . .... · . .. ..... ..... · . : :. . .. · .....~ ... ...~ . .... .. . · . :... . . .: . ~ ....: ;[,..~ - :..... :. .: ..: : ..:... . -~ , .:..: .- · ~Main ~l · ~ Tras[ ~ 11/3/2~ 1:46 PM Roger Mclnt~h 8~-0~2 Cover+l ~ OK 11/3/~ 1:46 P~ Te~ St~ ~-4251 ~ver+l O 0K ~ All ~ 11/3/~ 1'46 PM. Steve DeBr~P ~3-4006 ~ 11/~20061:46 PM Pauline L ...... 871-4008 Cove,+l · ~ Mist~ 11/3/20~ 1:46 PM RonBrumme(( 32~.8215 Eev~*~ ~.OK 11/~/~06 1:46 PM' fr~ Po,~ 327.1~5 C~*1 ~ OK ~ 11/3/200G 1:4G ~ d~n FaHgatter 324-2323 Cov~+l ~ 11/3/2006 1:46 PM' ~thy B ut~ 32~19 C~+I ~ 11~/2006 1:4G~ Scott Blunck GG4~2 Core,+1 ~ OK ~ 11/3~00G 1:46 PM Mark ~th ~2-5444 Cov~+l ~ OK ~ 11/3/2006 1:46 PM' T~ Caro~ella 631-2693 Cover~ ~ OK ~ 11~006 1:46 PM Bmbara Patrbk 868-3677 Cover+l ~ OK Planning and Development Committee Special Meeting of November 7, 2006 Sent confirmation e-mails and made confirming phone calls to David and Sue that Mike had ok'd the date. Delivered packets to: Clerk's Office - Mayor and Council Clerk's Office - Public Packet 'Alan John Ginny Nelson Raul Stan Don Faxed agenda to media - confirmation attached Faxed agenda to Planning & Development contact fax list - confirmation attached Provided two agendas to the Clerk's office for posting (web and public board). E-mailed aqenda to: Department Heads Assistants Planning and Development e-mail contact list Planning and Development staff contact list George Martin and Vanessa Claridge (George's assistant) Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:59:05 PM B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson / SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield TUesday, November 7, 2006 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 OCTOBER 17, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS' 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on space needs/Borton Petrini &- Conron Building - Tandy 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Planning&Development\p&d 06 nov 07 agen.doc I1/1/200611:13 ... Government Affair... 635-2317 1 pgs ~ OK I1/1/2086 11:13 ... News Directoi - K... · 327-8~7 1 pg~ ~ OK I1~/20~ 11:13 ... E~tor - El Mexicalo ' 323-6~1 1 pgs O OK I1/1/200B 11:13 ... E6tor - El Po~lar 325-1351 lpgs ~OK ~45488167( 11/1~06 11:13 ... OD~on - B ake~sfi..: ' ~5-7380 11~/~0Gl1:13... New~Directo~-C_ 334-2~ ]p~ OOK A~45488167; 11/1/~0611:13 ... Clear ~annel Ra.... ~3-29~ 1 pgs ~ O K A~45488167~ 11/1~611:13... Editor-Baker~fieL. 324-9472 11~/200611:13... NewsDirecto~-K... 393-1915 1 pgs ~ OK A~454~167[ 11/1/~611:13...' News Director - C 327-8751 1 pg~ 11/I/200611:13_. New~Dir6ctor-K.'. 328-7537 ~ pg~ .~ OK A~4~88167 11/1/~6 11:13 ... The Minorit, Con&_ ~3-9287 .1 pgs O OK A~45488167~ 11/1/2~6 1.1:13,.. News D,ector - K 2~-1843 lpgs ~OK A~45488167, 11/I/20~ 11:13..: News D~ector - K ~3-5~8 1 pg~ 11/1 ~6 11:13 .. News Editor- B ak... ~5-75t 9 1 pgs ~ OK A~4~8~167~ i r ~ This document ...... t t° the printer ~[ i ';'' ." ".. ':"*~ · ,D ...... t nCtroe: 'Mi ..... ft Word- Document2' ,..'...' · . ~¢J Printer n~me, '~s~DM MGR 8200N' ~ · . . ' . ~ Total pages 1 i:~'Trosh'~ 'IF 11/~/200611:14... RogerM~lr~tos~- 834-0972 Cover+l ' ~ oK ALA45488197i i..'~AIl' ! ~. 11/1/200611:14... Terrle$~oller . 3E;~4251 CeYer+'~ ~..0K ALA45488197 11/1/200611:14 . · SteYe DeB~ar~ch 323-4006 £over+l ~)OK ALA45488197 i.:~'C~url~ ~ 11/1./2~0611:14 ,.. PaulineLarwo~l 8714008 CoYe~*l ~ O1~ ALA4548819?E ~ Misc, '~ 11/1./200611:14_. RonBrummelt 324-8~15 Co¥e~+1 ~) OK ALA45488197; · i ~ 11/1/200611:14._ FredPor~er 327,1065 CoYel+l ~ OK ALA45488197,~ ~ I ,J.~ ~ fqll ' -" ,r ri I'I '~ i ri I{' '~' 11/1/200~ 11 14 ... John Fa]lgatte~ 324-2323 Co~,er+l I~ OK ALA4,5488197( ~' 11/1/20~6 11.14 .' Cath? Butle~ 325,7319 CoYer+l ,~. 11/1/206611:14 Scott 8bnck 664-G042 Cover+l .~.OK ALA45488197! ~ 11/1/2013611:14._ Ma[k Smith 8S2.-5444 CoYer+l ~ OK ALA454881'$7i 'l~ 11/1/200G 11:14 ... ' Torn C~osella 631-2693 Covbr+l ~ 0~, ALA45488197~ ~~ 11/1/200611:14._ Barbara Patrick 868.3677 Covei+l ~) OK ALA45488157( ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: October 25, 2006 I AGENDA SECTION: Deferred Business ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ DATE: October 16, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY ~J'~'~:~"~. ~ CiTY MANAGER //~/ SUBJECT: First Reading of an ordinance approving a Negative Declaration and amendirlJ9 zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone, Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. (Ward 3) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends first reading of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: On October 11, 2006, City Council considered first reading of an ordinance which would amend the existing regulations governing hillside development. After the extended public hearing was closed, Councilmember Maggard made a motion proposing changes to staff's ordinance. Staff has attached maps that diagram the difference between the proposed ordinance recommended by Staff and changes recommended by Councilmember Maggard. First reading of the ordinance was continued, by majority vote, to this meeting. For Council's review, the Administrative Report for the October 11, 2006 CounCil meeting is attached, along with the back-up material presented at said meeting. As further supplement, Staff has attached the following exhibits: A) DKS Property- Visual Resource/Slope Protection Designations in Proposed Ordinance. B) DKS Property - Visual Resource/Slope Protection Designations Applicable in Motion Made by Councilmember Maggard. (Alternate motion). C) Negative Declaration. In addition, Staff has the following comments in response to some of the testimony made during the public hearing on October 11, 2006. First, an impression was left that Staff did not meet with property owners and interested parties affected by the ordinance. This is not true. Fifty-three (53) days prior to the July 6th Planning Commission meeting, Staff sent out 890 notices to property owners in and around the area thought to be impacted ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT by the proposed ordinance. Several owners and individuals asked for meetings with Staff. Below is a list of people that Staff met with, the number of meetings held with each, and whether or not they would be affected by the Visual Resource and Slope Protection portions of the ordinance: Nickel Family (3 meetings) - property is affected Phil Gaskil (2 meetings) - property is affected S and S Homes (3 meetings) - property is affected McMillin Homes (1 meeting) - property is affected Keith and Mack Buyers (2 meetings) - property is affected Ed Coyn's Engineer ('1 meeting) property is not affected BIA (2 meetings) President and representative from local CELSOC (Consulting Engineers and Land Surveys of California) organization (2 meetings) Second, an allegation was made that some individuals would lose all their property under the proposed ordinance. This is a false statement. The property owner most impacted is the 40 acre DKS (Downs') property. Again, this is property within The Canyons project area. In other words, the DKS property does not have a separate project before the City. Nevertheless, the compromise motion made by Councilmember Maggard significantly reduces the impact of the ordinance on the DKS property. A comment was also made that all of the property owners within The Canyons project would lose all of their money spent on The Canyons project and associated studies. This too is false. The studies are still applicable whether or not the Hillside Ordinance is passed. Finally, the testimony and slides presented, show that the vast majority of the proposed Canyons project is not impacted by the Visual Resource Designations and the Slope Protection areas. However, if the proposed Hillside Ordinance is not approved, The Canyons and every other project in the impacted area could amend or submit plans with houses being built on the faces of the bluffs and slopes over 15%. In all, seven people spoke in opposition to the ordinance and twelve spoke in favor. The compromise motion by Councilmember Maggard proposes that the DKS property be excluded from the Visual Resource Designation entirely. In addition, the S/ope Protection Designation would substantially shrink so that only 300-350 feet of the propertY adjacent to Morning Drive would be impacted. The specific motion by Councilmember Maggard, which remains before the City Council for consideration, is as follows: Motion to approve the ordinance for first reading as it is presented and has been posted with the provision to exclude from Exhibit B-l, the Visual Resource Designations for the area south of what is commonly known as Sand Canyon to the south boundary of the DKS property on the west side of Morning Drive, and for this same area, reduce 'the coverage of the Slope Protection area to only apply ' to the area approximately 300-350 feet west of the centerline of Morning Drive as diagramed by Mr. Grady. The maps attached to this Administrative Report demonstrate the difference between Councilman Maggard's motion and the proposed ordinance. If the motion by Councilmember Maggard is approved, the maps attached to the ordinance will be amended to reflect this change and the ordinance will be brought back for second reading at City Council's November 15, 2006 regularly scheduled meeting. JM/dlc ATTACHMENT A DKS Property- Visual Resource/Slope Protection Designations in Proposed Ordinance. ATTACHMENT B DKS - Property - Visual Resource/Slope Protection Designations Applicable in Motion Made by Councilmember Maggard. (Alternate motion). ATTACHMENT C Negative Declaration NEGATIVE DECLARATION wv~.cLbak~r~Id, ca.~ The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures. PROJECT NO. (or Title): Amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: May 17, 2006 COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: July 6, 2006 MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):. BMC 17.66 Amendment Page.*~ of 15 $:Willside C~evelopmentt2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Project (title & No.): Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, .HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone 2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 3. Contact Pers°n (name, title, phone): Jim Movius, Planning Director (661) 326 - 3733 4. Project Location: Northeast Bakersfield 5. Applicant (name and address): City of Bakersfield 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.): The City of Bakersfield has an existing Hillside Development combining Zone Ordinance originally adopted in August 11, 1999. This project amends the existing ordinance to provide additional requirements addressing protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. 9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): _ In northeast Bakersfield, the topography has been shaped by the Sierra Nevada Mountains drainage patterns and the uplifting geological forces that created the mountains. The results of these geological actions are that northeast Bakersfield has dramatic bluffs along the Kern River Valley, and hills that have been identified by the City of Bakersfield to be areas of "Visual Resources". While some hillside areas have been developed without the benefits to the City of the proposed amendments, many hillside areas remain that would be affected by this ordinance amendment. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is;nticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 2 of 15 S:W~lside Development~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental f~actors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.): [] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology / Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology / Water Quality [] Land Use / Planning [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation / Traffic [] Utilities / Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a ne.qative declaration will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case becaus~ revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitiRated ne.qative declaration will be prepared. [] I find that the proPosed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required. [] I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or neqative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or ne.qative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impOsed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature . Date Printed name BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 3of 1§ $:Willside Developmentt2nd Draft May 06Weg-Oec Ini~al Study. doc ....... =~ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the. information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simplY does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate Whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant ' with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entdes when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation' of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation.measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering', program EIR, or other CEQA proCess, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier' Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) 'Impacts AdeqUately Addressed. Identify which effeCts from the abOve checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were' addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the.project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources' for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information SourceS: A source list should be attached, and other sourceS used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; .however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 4 of 15 S:Willside ~. velopmentt2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc Environmental Issue L*.~. Significant Potentially With .Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inco~l)oration Impact Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [] [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highWay? [] [] [] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of. substantial light or glare which would 'adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [] [] [] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts, to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept· of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project; [] [] [] a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [] [] [] c) Involve other changes in the existing envi~'onment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? [] [] r-~ IlL AIR qUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project; ' [] [] [] a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [] Cl. [] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality [] [] [] standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U·S. Fish [] [] [] and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of [] [] [] Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through [] [] [] direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the [] [] [] use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [] [] [] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [] [] [] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Cause a substantial adverse change in'the significance of a historical resource as defined in [] [] [] §15064.5? b)pursuantCause atoSUbStantial§15064.5?adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource [] [] [] c)feature?DirectlY or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic [] [] [] BMC 17. 66 Amendment Page 5 of S:~Hillside Developrnentt2nd Draft May 06Weg-Oec Init'al Study.doc Less Than Environmental Issue Signifi~,nt Potentially W'~h Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor~)oration Iml)act Impact d) · Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fon'nal cemeteries? [] [] [] [] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project; a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo [] [] [] '[] Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No.42) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] I~ [] iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including.liquefaction? [] [] [] [] iv. Landslides? [] [] [] [] b) ·Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [] [] [] [] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, [] [] [] [] subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city's most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? [] [] [] [] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste · water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [] [] [] [] VII. 'HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transpo;t, [] [] [] [] use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the [] [] [] I-'~' environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [] [] [] [] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant [] [] [] [] hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a [] [] [] [] safety hazard for People residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would the.project result in a safety hazard · for people residing or working in the project area? [] [] I--I' [] g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [] [] [] [] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are [] [] [] [] intermixed with wild lands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER CIUALITY: Would the project; a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [] [] [] [] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have [] [] [] [] been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial [] [] [] [] · erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of [] [] [] [] surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [] [] [] [] f) Othenvise, substantially deg?de water quality? [] [] [] [] g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [] [] [] [] h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [] [] [] [] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [] [] [] [] B/~C 17.66 Amendment /~age 6 of 15 · $;U-////side Deva/oprnent~n~ Dra~ ~fa)' O~We~-Dec In/l/a/Study. doc Environmental Issue L,ss Th~ Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant rio Impact Incor~ration Imj:~ct Impact j) InundatiOn by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow?. [] [] [] r'~ ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project; a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] [] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or r~gulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal [] [] [] [~ program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [] [] [] ~' X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) · Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the [] [] [] . [] region and the residents of the state? · b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [] [] [] [] Xl. NOISE: Would the project result in; a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the [] [] [] [] local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? " b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? [] [] [] [~ c) A substantial permanent increaSe in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [] [] [] ' ~'~ d) A substantial temPorary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [] [] [] ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose [] [] [] [] people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [] [] [] ~ POPULATION AND HOUSING: *Would the project; · a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new [] [] [] [~ homes & businesses) or ind rect y (e g, through extens on of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [] [] [] F~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [] [] [] ~ XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services; i. Fire protection? [] [] [] ~ ii. Police protection'~. '0 [] [] ~ iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? [] [] []. F'~ XlV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities [] [] [] ~ such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [] [] [] F-~ BMC 17.66 Amendment. ,Page 7 of 15' S:Willside Developrnent~nd Draft May 06Weg-Oec Initial Study. doc . · * Less Than Environmental Issue Significant : Potentially With Less Than ~' Significant Mitigation Significant Ho Impact Incor~orauon Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project; a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety dsks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a' design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment faCilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause.significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm Water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and lOCal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? · XVlI. MANDATORy FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: " a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the-quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have iml~acts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed-in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 8 of 15 S:Willside Development~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Ini§al Study. doc EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. AESTHETICS a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone includes the preservation of views on identified hillside areas from specified freeways, expressways and arterial roadways in Northeast Bakersfield.. The intent will be to preserve scenic vistas and resources. No impact identified. b. See I.a c..See I.a d. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone is applicable to areas in Bakersfield already identified for development. The amendment has no component that addresses light or glare, and implementation of the amendment will not contribute to additional light or glare in the area. No impact identified. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside DeVelopment Combining Zone does not affect prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of st~tewide importance because it affects hillside areas not used as farmland. No impact identified. · b. See II.a. c. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zon. e would not significantly impact development potential in Northeast Bakersfield so that development would be displaced to agricultural land, resulting in a loss of agricultural resources. Approximately 146 acres in Northeast Bakersfield would be affected bY this amendment's requirement of setbacks for buildings for both visual preservation and to prevent hillside instability and landslides. These requirements Would not result in displaced development that could be replaced by agricultural land, because the appeal of developing on hillsides with slopes and vistas is not replaced by the flat lands required by agriculture. Areas restricted from development by the amendment for · slope protection (approximately 1178 acres) are those which would be difficult to develop, such as steep slopes of hills and ridges, resulting in little developable land that could potentially be displaced. The conversion of farmland as a result of displaced development is less than significant. II1. AIR QUALITY a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development combining · Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment will not directly impact air quality, nor will the amendment result in significantly less density in the area which could contribute to greater energy consumption and increased pollution. No impact identified. b. Seelll.a ' - .c. See III.a d. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No impact identified. e.The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside BMC 17.66 Amendrnent . Page 9 of 15. S:V-lillside Developmentt2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Inib'al Study. doc ., inStability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in the creation of objectionable odors. No impact identified. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in an impact to biological resources. No impact identified. · b. See IV.a. c. See IV.a. d.' See IV.a. e. See IV.a. f. See IV.a. · V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside DevelOpment Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection frOm hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in an impact to cultural resources. No impact identified. b. See V.a. c. See V.a. d. See V.a. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a.i. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and' White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 · (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, faultrupture, liquefaction, and landslides. Future structures proposed within the Hillside Development Zone are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the 'most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere t° all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. In addition, the amendment to the Hillside Ordinance provides setback requirements from the face of slopes that promote slope stability and decreases the probability of landslides. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. a. ii. See answer to Vl.a.i. a.iii. See answer to Vl.a.i. a.iv. See answer to Vl.a.i. BMC 17. 66 Amendment Page 10 of 15 S:Willside Development~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc b. See answer to VI.a.i. c. See answer to VI.a.i. d. See answer to VI.a.i. e. City standards require the installation of sanitary sewers with residential development projects. No impact has been identified. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in the exposure of the public to hazardous materials.' No impact identified. b. See answer to VII.a. c. See answer toVII.a.. . d. See answer toVll.a.' e. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter.17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone does not affect areas located by airports or airstrips. No impact identified. f. See answer to VII.e. g. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code; Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside DeveloPment combining ' Zone provides would not interfere with anY local 'or regional emergencY response or evacuation plans. The original Chapter 17.66 contained provisions for fire apparatus access rOads; eme~;gency secondary access, fire scape plant selections and defensible space. The amendment preserves these requirements. No impact identified. h. See answer toVILg. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. The amendment to Bakersfield MuniciPal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in impacts to water quality or the creation of waste water discharge. No impact identified. b. The amendment to BakerSfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in an impact to groundwater supplies. No impact identified. c. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone requires drainage systems and grading which prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage. The City of Bakersfield's requirement for grading plan approval process will prevent on and offsite erosion, siltation and flooding from becoming a significant impact. d. See answer to VIII.c. e. See answer to VIII.c. f. See answer to VIII.a. BMC 17. 66 Amendment Page 11 of 15 S:V-lillside Oevelopment~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc g. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone does not affect areas within a 100-year flood hazard area or any potential for inundation as a result of the failure of a levee or dam h. See answer toVIIl.g. i. See answer toVIIl.g. j. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development.Combining Zone does not affect land located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The amendment does not affect land located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mud flow. No significant impact is noted. · IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone affects new development along ridge tops and on hillsides which by there geological features physically divide communities. However, nothing in the amendment seeks to physically divide existing communities. No impact is noted. b. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and is an amendment to the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts or inconsistencies with said policies or zoning regulations. No impact is noted. c. See answer to IV.a, IV.e., IV.f. X. MINERAL RESOURCES ' ' a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that. address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in the loss of mineral resources. No impact identified. 2. See answer to X.a. Xl. NOISE a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in a potential increase in noise. No impact identified. b. See answer to XI a. c. See answer to XI a. d. See answer to XI a. e. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone does not affect areas located by airports or airstrips. No impact identified.. f. See answer toXI e. BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 12 of 15 S:Willside Development~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from .hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in a potential increase in population. No impact identified. b.The amendment would affect vacant, undeveloped land. No homes would be displaced. No impact is noted. c.The amendment would affect vacant, undeveloped land. No people would be displaced. No impact is noted. XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES '\ a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD,~Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside DeveloPment zone. The amendment does not result in a potential increase in any public . services. No impact identified. i. See answer to XIIl.a~ ii See answer to XIIl.a. iii.See'answer toXIIl.a.. iv. See answer to XIII.a. v.. See answer to xIIi.a. XIV, RECREATION a. See answer to Parks, (Xlll.d.). . b. See answer to Parks, (Xlll.d.). XV, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in a potential increase in traffic or transportation support systems. No impact identified. b. See answer to XV.a. c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. d. See answer to XV.a. e. See answer to VII.g. f. See answer to XV.a. g. See answer to XV.a. BMC 17. 66 Amendment Page 13 of 15 $:V*tillside Developmentt2nd Draf~ May 06Weg..Dec Initial Study. doc XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. The amendment to Bakersfield Muhicipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in a potential increase in water use, wastewater generation or solid waste generation. No impact identified b.. See answer to XVl.a. c. See anSwer to XVl.a. d. See answer to XVI.a. e. See answer to XVl.a. f. See anSwer to XVl.a.. g. See answer to XVl.a. XVlI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, HD, HillSide Development Combining Zone provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The amendment does not result in the degradation of environmental quality, but instead requires.the preservation of scenic resources. The amendment does not result in an impact to biological resources. No impact identified. b.As described in the response above, the amendments has no impacts that Would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. No impact ideritified. c.As described in the responses above; the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. -BMC 17.66 Amendment Page 14 of 15 S;Wtlls~e Developmentt2nd Dra~ May 06Weg-Dec Initial Study. doc BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST 1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan., City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution NO. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003 2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) ft 1989070302, by Robert Be/n, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, .2002 3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan .Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) ft 1989070302, by Robert Be/n, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002 4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991 5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994 6.Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern 7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code 8. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code 9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000 10. Guide for Assess ng and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, january 10, 2002 as updated 11.Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by: David Taussig & Associates 12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures 13. City Of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan 14. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan 15. Kern.County, California - Soil Survey 16. Kern County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan 17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan (below Lake Isabella) 18. Department of Conservation - Kem Countylnterim Farmland (1986) 19. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas 20. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps 21. Riverlakes specific Plan, as amended BMC 17. 66 Amendment S:tHillside Development~2nd Draft May 06Weg-Dec InitiaYStudy. doc Page 15 of 15 ADMINIST TIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: October 11, 2006 I AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing I ITEM: ~,(~, TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: September 18, 2006 ' cITY ATTORNEY ~.',.~'3..,., ' CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 'Public Headng and first reading of an Ordinance approving a Negative Declaration and amending Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone, Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. (Ward 3) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Negative Declaration and first reading of the Ordinance. BackRround: -. On September 7, 2006,. the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 in favor of recommending the Amendment to the City Council. In 2003, City Council directed Planning Staff to examine the potential long term effects of. development along the bluffs in Northeast Bakersfield. In March 2005, City Council requested staff recommend ways to clarify and strengthen the Hillside Ordinance. In April 2005, the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council met to discuss the existing ordinance and to propose changes. The committee reviewed and considered changes concerning hillside stability, lot and fence setbacks and the use of landscaping. From the committee's input, Staff composed a draft amendment to the existing Hillside Ordinance. The first draft of the Amendment was available for public comment in May, 2005 and input on the draft was heard at a City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Public Headng on June 2, 2005. In response to comments and additional information gained from the City's consultant team and review of additional ordinances from other jurisdictions, clarifications and changes were incorporated into this second draft of the Amendment that was heard at a Planning Commission Public Headng on July 6, 2006. There were 2 % hours of comments given at the Public Headng on July 6, 2006, after which the Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission continued deliberation until September 7, 2006 and voted to approve the ordinance and recommend same to the City Council. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 6, 2006, the public had another opportunity to comment on the draft amendment to 'the ordinance being considered at this City Council meeting. In opposition was a group of speakers representing General Holdings and the Canyons, including two attorneys from Young and Wooldridge, two landowners that are a part of the Canyons project, October 5, 2006, 9:44AM pe S:~Dana~admin~2006~Oct~10-11.HD. doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT and 'two consultants giving technical support to the Canyons project. Also speaking in opposition were Chad Vega and Karen Norton, Kern Citizens for Property Rights; Michael Turnipseed, Kern County Taxpayers Association; Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation; one citizen of Bakersfield, and one property owner in Visalia. In favor were: James Nickel, Nickel Family, LLC and Rio Bravo Ranch; Dave Dmohowski, Building InduStry Association of Kern County; Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club; Charles White, Kern River Valley Revitalization; Marcie Cunningham, Kern Equestrians for Preservation 'of Trails; Michelle Beck, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee; 3 citizens of .Bakersfield and I citizen of the Kern River Valley. This proposed amendment to the existing ordinance ("Amendment") provides additional requirements beyond the existing ordinances' focus on grading, street grades and fire protection. In following the direction of the General Plan policies, the Amendment addresses protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The changes to the existing Hillside Development Ordinance include the following: · Requires additional information'on topography, geology, slopes, drainage and fire safety. · Identifies "Visual Resoume AreaS" along ridgelines for protection · Identifies "Primary and Secondary Viewsheds" which, in tandem with visual resource areas limit the view of structures from major roadways. · Identifies Slope Protection Areas which have unique visual characteristics and slope constraints. Requires erosion control measures and setba~s for property line, fences and structures 'adjacent to open .space areas. Requires 25 foot setback from open space areas not governed by visual resource/viewshed criteria. · Protects visual resources on the perimeterof development visible from major roadways. The City's General Plan lists the following issues regarding hillside development: · The aesthetic value of open space areas and the impact of development on public viewsheds should be considered · Cut-and-fill grading techniques employed to accommodate development alter the natural topography and ridgelines To 'address the issues, a goal was established to ~Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning area." To that end, four of the ten policies adopted in the General Plan's Open Space Element address hillside development: Policy 2: Development of the ridgelines within the planning area should consider natural aesthetic value and topographic constraints. Policy 3: Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complimentary to the natural topography. Policy 4: Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of the natural topography and ridgelines. .Policy 6: Development on or adjacent to bluff areas should complement the aesthetic integrity of such areas. October 5, 2006, 8:57AM pe S:~Danatadmin~200610ct~10.11.HD. doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT The Implementation Measure in the Open Space Element that corresponds to these policies is: Implementation 2: Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of Bakersfield regulates development in areas of excessive slope in Northeast Bakersfield. Kern County's existing ordinance will be augmented as necessary. The proposed ordinance Changes address the issues identified in the General Plan. An extenSive search of hillside development regulations from other jurisdictions produced regulations from 15 California cities and counties. An additional research tool was the "Overview of Hillside Development Terms and Concepts" prepared by LSA Associates, INC in 2002 which evaluated not only California communities with similar ordinances, but cities and counties in Colorado, Texas,_Arizona and New Mexico (14 total). Most ordinances limit density throughout an area based on slope and protect ridge tops from development. The propOsed ordinance protectS a limited number of key ddgelines and the face of specific bluff and hill faces but is less limiting to development when compared to other ordinances. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield Public Works hired two consulting firms to give background information and practical experience working with hillside ordinances. WRA Engineering provided experience in hillside development from a civil engineering standpoint and helped to craft the slope stability portions of the amendment. TCLA, Inc. provided input on open space and hillside stability landscaping, specifically providing "theme planting" drawings, erosion control and viewshed protection through landscaping.. Califomia Environmental Quality..Act (CEQA) provides a Categorical Exemption for UActions by Regulatory Agencies fOr Protection of the Environment" (State of California CEQA Guidelines 15308) that exempts this Amendment from the provisions of CEQA. However, in response from comments heard in the public hearing for the first draft of the Amendment on whether an Environmental Impact Report was required for the Amendment, staff prepared an Initial Study. Based upon an initial environmental assessment, staff has determined the proposed project Will not significantly affect the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and amending Zoning Ordinance, ChaPter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone, Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. October 5, 2006, 8:57AM pe S:~Dana~admin~2006~Oct110-11.HD. doc ~ COMMITMENT TO DEVELOPMENT "RIO BRAVO" ANNEXATION 1977 NORTHEAST SEWER TRUNK LIN '1996 NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT 2003 FIRE STATIONS ONGOING ANTI DEVELOPMENT? RESOURCES CONSULTED 28 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES CITY OF BREA CITYOF SANTA CLARITA CITY OF MURIETTA LOS GATOS CITY OF PALM DESERT MONTEREY COUNTY CITY OF' SAN BERNARDINOCITY OF CLAREMONT CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY OF 'PASADENA CITY OF SANTA ROSA LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOWN OF TIBURON BRECKENRIDGE CO. CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE CARLSBAD CITY OF ASHEVlLLE EL PASO TX. GLENDORA FLAGSTAFF AZ. LAVERNE PHOENIX AZ. MORGAN HILL CITY OF SAN DIEGO SANTA FE N.M. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SANTEE SCOTTSDALE AZ. ' COMMON THEMES · ;i ~, ~ LIMIT GRADING IN HILLSIDE AREAS -DENSITY LIMITATION BASED ON SLOPE ~'~ -SLOPE DENSITY AVERAGING ~. -OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS -SLOPE PRESERVATION ;. · VIEW PROTECTION - ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA - VIEWNISTA PRESERVATION - RIDGELINE SETBACKS - RIDGELINE PRESERVATION CONTOUR GRADING HILLSIDE ORDINANCE' OBJE'CTIVES SAFE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT VIEWSHED/RESOURCE PROTECTION LANDSCAPE VISION PROVIDE OPTIONS OR DEVELOPERS PUBLIC INPUT JUNE 2, 2005 2 HOURS JULY 6., 2006 2.5 HOURS SEPTEMBER'7, 2006 1 HOUR 5,5 HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY .! JUNE 2, 2005- COMMENT CATEGORIES ·APPLICABILITY' ·CACTUS PRESERVE ·CONTOUR GRADING ·CUTAND FILL ~ ·DEFENSIBLE SPACE ·DEVELOPMENT PLAN ·DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ·ENVIRONMENTAL ·DRIVEWAYS .CONCERNS ·FENCING ·VIEW PRESERVATION ·RESOURCE PROTECTION ·LANDSCAPING ·NOISE ·QUALITY OF LIFE ·RECREATION ·PROPERTY RIGHTS ·ROOF CONSTRUCTION ·SETBACKS ·SLOPE STABILITY ·VALLEY FEVER ·VISUAL APPEARANCE FOCUS OF JULY 6,.20'05 COMMENTS INTENT OF ORDINANC TAKINGS ISSUE CEQA CRITERIA CANYONS PROJECT SAFE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT HILLSIDE STABILITY - TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - SLOPE CATEGORIES - PRELIM NARY GRADING PLAN - SLOPE EROSION CONTROL PLAN - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS - GEOLOGY REPORTS . SAFE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE/EROSION - DRAINAGE PLAN/REPORT - SLOPE CATEGORIES - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - SETBACKS - EROSION CONTROL PLANTING SAFE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT FIRE SAFETY - SLOPE CATEGORIES* - SETBACKS* - OFF SITE INFORMATION* - KEY BOX REQUIREMENTS SAFE .HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT FIRE SAFETY (CONT.) - ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - CONSTRUCTION IVIATERIALS - PLANT SELECTIONS - DEFENSIBLE SPACE - FIRE RETARDANT NETTING* VIEWSHED/RESOURC PROTECTION VIEWSHEDS AND VISUAL RESOURCE AREAS . CONSIDERED FOLLOWING FACTORS: VIEWS FROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED MAJOR ROADWAYS MAJOR GEOLOGIC FEATURES OF THE AREA -. OBSERVATION HEIGHT AND VIEW ANGLES STRUCTURE HEIGHTS ON THE TOPS OF. RIDGES DISTANCE FROM OBSERVATION POINTS TO STRUCTURES ANGLE OF VIEWSHED AND/OR ELEVATION .OF THE RIDGE .COMPARED TO THE OBSERVATION POINT THE LENGTH OF TIME THE RESOURCE IS VIEWED FROM THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ::"~:VI'.EW'SH E DS:ANiD~'.~::VISUAL RESO U~RCES · ':':~::'.DESIGNATED CLASS I VISUAL RESOURCE: I I PRIMARY I :1/2. MILE VIEWSHED i ........... ' ...................... ~ :~ ?~ ~:~ ~ ' ~! ~ ..... f:~ '~, I HEIGH3': OF DESIGNATED CLASS II VISUAL RESOURCE. i i I ~ SECONDARY i'! 1 MILE ~ VIEWSHED SLOPE PROTECTION AREAS 15% SLOPE AND ABOVE SIGNIFI'CANT BLUFF AND RIDG FACES OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW FROM MAJOR ROADWAYS THE LENGTH OF TIME THEY ARE VIEWED City e! Bakerlftetd .~:.. : ViewJh~ed Sit, dY':::'., ' iNORTH ' Hazards of Hill Side Development Phil Bums, Building Director Building Code CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE EXOERPT~ FROM CHAPTER 18 TOP OF SLOPE , , ~ STRUCTURE . ~ . ~ ~ / TOE OF ~ .~' ' H/3 BUT NEED NOT' H / '~ / SLOPE ./' ~ ' EXCEED 40 FT. · -- H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 F'[ (4572 mm) MAX FIGURE I~I-1--SE'rBAOK DIMENEION8 Hillside Construction T~picol Building Setbock Building Ploced to Close to Slope Proposed Ordinance Provides Minimum Setback (25' +5'= 30') Provides additional, site topographic information Provides color slope map Provides preliminary grading plan Provides soils reports geotechnical and/or geological. Provides concept drainage plan,. Types of Landslides Rotational landslide Translational landslide Block slide Rockfall f TOpple Debris flow H .I Debris avalanche Earthflow Creep Lateral spread Typical Landslide La Conc'hita 1995 La Conchita 1995 La Conchita 2005 Laguna Beach 2005 Laguna Beach 2005 MulhOlland Drive, East of 1-405 ' ORDINANCE NO. · AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING SECTION .17.66, HD, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE OF TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE · BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE ' WHEREAs, Northeast Bakersfield contains topographic and· geological features .unique to the City of Bakersfield; and .' .. ' WHEREAS,.said features are worthy of protection [rom viewshed,'aesthetic, erosion and stability impacts which are.associated with some development practices; and · ~: WHEREAS, the proposed' amended ordinance mitigates such impacts through.· · i'~...., -the protection of identified visual resource areas, 'viewsheds,. setbacks, landscaping and .' '" " · - application information requirements; and 'WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Open Space Element ... goal, poliCies and implementation.measure are as follows: ,~ ~ G°al: ·"Conserve andenhance the unique aspects of open space within the.' planning area." that end,· four of'the ten policies adopted in the General . Plan's Open Space Element address hillside development; · PolicieS: Policy 2:'.DevelOpment of the ddgelines within the' Planning area should· consider natural aesthetic value and topographic constraints. Policy 3: Hillside·development should exhibit senSitivity and be complimentary to the natural topography. Policy 4: Require the uSe of grading techniques in hillside 'areas that. · preserve the form of the natural topography and ridgelines. PoliCy 6: DeveloPment on or adjaCent to bluff areas should Complement - the aesthetic integrity of such areas. Implementation Measure: Implementation 2: Hillside Management ordinance for ' the. City of Bakersfield regulates development in areas of eXcessive · ~ slope in Northeast Bakersfield.. Kern .. County's existing ordinance will be" · ' augmented as necessary; .' and ., · WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Open Space policies support·the protection of topographic features and views unique to the area and development· of an ordinance to accomplish this goal; and WHEREAS,· preparation of the attached amendment to the Hillside Development Combining Zone included consultation with qualified professional engineers &Xperienced with hillside development, review of similar regulations from over 29 other jurisdiction located in California and the western United States; professional planning design documents; and public comments submitted to the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, the City COuncil'through its Clerk set October 11, 2006, at the hour of 6:30 p.m~, in the Council. Chamber of City Hall; Bakersfield, California, as the time and Place for the Council to.hold a public hearing and ConSider the prOpoSed °rdinanCel and wHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary,· did set, THURSDAY, June 2, 2005 at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of CitY Hall, 1501·Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Planning Commission to hear testimony on said ordinance amendment, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manne[ prOvided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield 'Municipal Code; and · WHEREAS, testimony in suPPort, in oppositi°n'and other comments on said · . prOposed ordinance amendment were giVen during the June 2, 2005 hearing; and wHEREAS,, the Planning CommiSsion referred the Comments from the June 2, 2005 hearing to staff for review and if needed, response; and ·· WHEREAS, the'law and·regulations relating to the preparation and adoPtion of Negative DeclarationS, ·as Set forth in' CEQA and the City' of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and · WHEREAS, a Negative DeclaratiOn Was advertise,,d'and' posted on MAY18, 2006; · '. and - , * wHEREAs, the Planning CommisSi°n, through its Secretary, did Set, THURSDAY, July 6, 2006/at the hour of 5:30' p:m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall;' 1501 Truxtun AVenue, Bakersfield, JCalifornia, as the time ·and Place for.a public hearing before said Planning Commission to hear testirJnony On said ordinance amendments· and ·notice of tiie public heari·ng was given in the manner pr°~ided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and · . . , ' .. ' WHEREAS, testimony in suPport, in opposition, and other Comments on said· ordinance amendment were given during the July 6, '2006 hearing, after whiCh the hearing was ·. closed·to Public testimony; and .. · WHEREAS, the-Planning commiSsion continued the hearing. until August 14, 2006 and August 17, 2006 at which time the Planning Commission continued the hearing until' September 5, 2006 and SePtember 7, 2006;' and' ~ WHEREAS, the Planning commission cOntinued the hearing on September· 5, 2006 and SePtember 7, 2006 at which time ·the Planning cOmmission considered all written and verbal testimony, and comments submitted by the public, and responses to those comments presented by staff; and ·~ · · ~ WHEREAS, at said public hearings held june 2, 2005, July 6,'2006, August 14, 2006, August ri 7·, 2006, September 5; 2006 and September 7, 2006 the amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code 17.66 HD, Hillside Development Combining *Zone, was duly heard and considered, and the Planning Commission found as follows: 1. All.required public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. Based Upon an initial study environmental assessment, staff has determined that the proposed project will' not significantly affect the physical environment and the issuing a Negative Declaration for the prOject is adequate. 2 3. The projeCt proposes an amendment to a City ordinance implementing the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies regarding hillside development' and'suppods the proteCtion of topographical features and views unique to. Northeast Bakersfield. 4. The proposed amendment to the Hillside Development Combining Zone permits' development in hillside areas subject to a varietYof factors which Will ensure the 'health, welfare, and safety of the public.. 5. Based on the absence of evidence in the 'record as required bY secti°n 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effeCts, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this projeCt will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of .. significance with regard to wildlife .resources and, therefore, must be granted a !'de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the State of Califomia Fish and Game Code. AdditionallY, the assumption of adverse effect is.rebuffed by the above-referenced absence of evidence in the record and the Lead. AgencY's decision to' prepare a Negative Declaration for this prOjeCt. '6. The'proposed amendment to SeCtion 17.66 HD, HillSide. DevelOpment Combining Zone of the Municipal Code is consistent with the4vletropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. · SECTION 1. · NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:., 1. All of the foregoing recitals, incorporated herein, are I~ereby found to be 'true and correct. 2.. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted. '3.' Section 17.66 HD, Hillside Development COmbining Zone.of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield is hereby amended as more specificallY described in attached SECTION 2. . This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the' Bakersfield Municipal Code 'and shall become effective not less than thirty (30)days from and after the date of its passage~ 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, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES:· COUNClLMEMBER. · ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER. ABSENT: ' COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA A.i 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 ~Attomey By: Exhibits: A. Proposed.Amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code 17.66 HD, HillSide . Development Combining Zone pe \ S:~Z°neChange\NewZC\CC\HD CC ordinance. DOC. 9/22/2006 :EXHIBIT "A" Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance . HD Zone ChaPter 17,66 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE 'SectionS: 17.66.010' ' Purpose. and intent 17.66.020 Applicability 17.66~030 Maximum grade of access · 17.66~040 Deve]opmen~ plan requirements 17.88;080 Key boXrequirements 17.88.070 DdVeway requirements - 17.66.080 "Fire apparatus access roads 17.66.090' Emergency secondary acCeSs ':17.66.100 Bridges. ' '17..66.110 Address markers. · 17.66:120 Building construction' 17.66.130 Roof repair or replacement 17,66.135 Fencing 17.66.140 Fire scape plant selections ... '17.66.150 Defensible space 17.66.155 Landscaping 17;66 160' Drainage ...... 17.66.170 . Grading 17.66.180 Appeals NOTE: Underlined italics represent proposed additions to the existing ordinance, streak-eats represents, deletions. Regular print is wording that currently eXists in the ordinance. Illustrations or exhibits are additions to the existing ordinance. Chapter !7.66, Page I 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title17, Zoning Ordinance · . HD Zone 17.66.010' PURPOSE AND INTENT The pUrpose of this chapter is to define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resoume of the City and.to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside. instability.and landslides. The HD (Hillside Development) zone district is an overlay zone. The regulations established by the HD. district are in .addition to those uses allowed and the regulations of the base.zone · district. ' Development projects within the HD zone shall b® sub/ect to review-to ensure hillside/open space development policies in the general plan are inCOrporated into the pro/ects. In addition, the City Council shall adopt development'Standards by resolution or.ordinance which aid in the implementatiOn of .qeneral.plan policies and ordinances and provide detailed written or Pictorial depictions re.qardin.q policy and/or ordinance intent: The following provisions of this ordinance are intended to apply to' areas zoned HD." " This overlay zone will generally be .applicable to those larger contiguous areas generally. - erage natural slOpes of. 8% or more (see Exhibit A ) ;cfc; t° thc c,~d cf'th!= These regulations shall be imPlemented when the City considers applications.for apply .~. ~" "" "-"=""~" -"'"~""" tc grading, building permits, parCel mapsl tentative tract maps,. conditional use permits, zone changes; general plan amendments and' site plan 'review. A. Permit deve/oPment/n HD areas that m/nimizes erosion' and ,qeolOgic hazards and provides for the protection of the pu~l/c health, safety, and welfare.' . B. ~rotect views ~¥ identi~in~ "~rimaq/' and~ Secondary V/ewsheds~, '"Vis.al ~esource ~reas' and "Slope Protect/on Areas'~ w/th/n theHD zone (~xhib/t g-1 - · and B-2-/arqe Sca/e exh/bit ava//ab/e for viewing at P/anning ~epartment and - on the City,of ~a~ers~e/d's website: www.~akers~e/dcity, us)~. These areas are de§ned as fo//ows: Chapter 17. 66, Page 2 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal COde - T'~te 17, Zoning Ordinance .... HD Zone 1. "PrimarY Viewsheds' are those locations identified alonq freeWays, expressways or arterial roadways from which no structures or portions thereof are visible on a designated "Class I Visual ResoUrce Area', fora · distance of% mile (Illustration1), except as may be allowed under 17.66..040 P.4 "VIEWSHE DS. AN D?VISUAL R:ESOU RcEs 2. "Seconda~ Viewsheds~ are those locations identified alon ~ freeways,.... expressways or a~erial roadways ~om which no more than 50~ of the he(qht of a structural elevatiOn is visible on a '~lass II Visual Resource Area" for a distance of a mile (Illustration 2), except as may be allowed under 17. 66.040 P. 4.. ' ":i'L~UST~TjON 2. VIEWSH EDS AN D:.VJSUAL R.ESOURCES , Chapter 17. 66, Page 3 10/11/06 BakerS§eld Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance HD'Zon~ 3.' "C/ass ! Visual Resources Areas" are designated rid.qee and hilltop areas which require a structural setback qreat enough so that no portion of a structure is visible from a "Primary Viewshed." 4.. "Class II Visual Resource Areas" are de~iqnated ridge and hilltop areas which require a Structural setback great enough so that no more than 50% " of the height of a structural elevation is visible from a "SeCondary 5. "SloPe Protection AreaS'* are those mapped s/opes of 15% or greater (Exhibits B-1 &' B-2~ within the HD zone area that, due to physical. ~ constraints, aesthetic value and visibili~from ma~or rOadways, are to be left -'. ' in their natural state with 'no structures or fences allowed on the slope faCe~ .;.. ' ' Areas identified.as "Slope Protection Areas" shall be identified as lettered ' non-buildable ~lots on subdivision maps. C. Encouraqe development design that will: ~, . .. '. 1. Allow for orderly and sensitive development at a'densih/.that respects and is · ' reflective of the natural terrain. 2. Encourage grading techniques that blend with 'the natural terrain, minimize earthmovinq activities, minimize visual impacts of lar.qe cUt and fill slopes,. prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage and provide for the preservation of Unique and sLqnificant natural landforms ·and ridgelines " 3. Reduce Water us® in ·slop® replantingand retention by enCOuragino (Tradin~ ' . design that minimizes manufactured slopes. 4; MaximiZe'the positive impacts of site design, gradingi landscaping, and building desLqn Consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan.. " 5. Maintain the inteqrih/and natural characteristics of mai°r landform, · .' vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualitieS,. . and open space. 17,66.020 APPLICABILITY 'This oveday district shall apply to areas zoned HD (Hillside DeveloPment). · ' A. The fo/lowing provisions are intended to apply to parCels or portions thereof within the HD zone.. Development subject to these regulations includes grading, building permits, parcel maps, tentative tracts, conditional use permits, site plan reviews, general plan amendments, and zone changes. As areas are annexed to the City and'zoned HD, Exhibits A and B shall be amended as appropriate. Chapter 17.66, Page 4 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance . . · 'HD Zone B.Encouraqe developments intendinq to annex to the City to conform to the standards of this ordinance. ~ · . C.Exceptions. This chapter shall not be applicable to the follOwinq activities or proiects: · '.. - . 1. Modification of or addition to any pre~existing single family dWelling or accessoq, structure that predates this ordinance. This exemption shall · not include an increase in the number of units or chanqe in use. · 2. Fire breaks and fire roads required by the Bakersfield Fire Department.' 3. Recreation trails for pedestrian,` equestrian, or multi, use purposes. 4. Lot line ad/ustments. 5. Landscaping on single familY.parcels;. ~' ... 6. Modifications to yard, height, lot area and fence/wall requlations..'. 7. Public Works pro/ects determined'by the City. Council'to be necessan/ for the public health, safety or welfare which, by implementation of this. ordinance, would create an Unfair cost to the community. 8. Where it can be.demonstrated that the impositiOn of the standards in this ordinance would render an existing parcel (parcel created prior to adoption of this ordinance)'of land unbuildable and create a loss of all .economic use, or where the development exhibits innovation and/or' . exceptional community' benefits which cannot be realized through imposition of the standards contained in this ordinance, development consistent with the general plan.may be allowed, sub/ect to the following provisions: a) . The proposed development shall serve the intent and purpose of the HD zone and general plan policies regarding hillsides. b). The proposed development shall be subject to the approval of a Planned Unit Development zone, Planned Commercial · .. Development zone, Development A.qreement, Optional Des~qn Subdivision or Specific Plan. 17.66.030 MAXIMUM GRADE OF ACCESS ;.,. Maximum grade of streets, publiC or private, and other access easements shall be determined in accordance with "A Policy on Geometric Desi.qn of Hi.qhways and Chapter 17.66, Page .5 10/11/06 . Bakersfield Municipa! Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance... . HD Zone . streets,'' American AssociatiOn of State HighwaY and TranSportation Officials ~ (AASHTO) 1990, for.design of maximum.grades for arterials,'collectors and local streets. 4'7 ~ /~Ah ~"~/~kI'T'/'M ID /~-Dhnlld/~- ~ This.Section moved to 17;66.170 GRADING, ~,~ ,.,.,.-,,.,, ,~..,,,+ .... ~ ,-, ,+ .-,~..a +',m s!opc'c ..... ~;'"'" '~ n +,-,^+';,-, k,-.~,.,~+ ,,,h;,..k -, ..... ~,-...,~ +,-, 17.66.050.040 DEVELOPMENT pLAN REQUIREMENTS The following, as applicable, shall be .shown on all development plans a~appliea~e . /,.,,,,, ..... ;,~, o,.,,,,,;,,,, ,.,.,~n associated with planned commerCial developments, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, tentative tracts, site plan reviews, and ." applications for single family.dwellings not already reviewed as part°f parce! mapS'°l~. .. · '. tentative tracts: A. ToPography. . · · " . B. Access road Width and percent of grade. - . C. .Landscape and vegetation details. ' D. Structure location. · .. · · E. Overhead utilities. .. '" - F. Building occupancy class. · G. Type of ignition-resistant construction of structure. H. Roof classification of buildings.' I. ' Water supPly System. .. .- J. Fuel loading and model, available'from City of Bakersfield Fire Department, and · data to verify classiticati°n of tiro-resistive vegetatiOn. · K.. PropoSed seWers. L. 'Drainage concept plan. - M. As deemed appropriate by the City, at the time. an applicant applies for a tentative map, conditional use permit, site Plan review, general Plan amendment, zone chanqe or grading plan apprOval, the applicant shall submit the fo/lowing: ... 1. A site or plot plan drawn to scale of 1" = 100' or larqer, reflecting the proposed project, including property lines and recOrded and proposed easements, private roads, public r~qhts-Of-way, and pad elevation of all lots.~ 2. A topographic map of the pr°iect site which shall also extend off-site a Chapter 17.66. Page 6 lOll ~/06 BakerSfield MuniCiPal COde- Title 17~ Zoning Ordinance HD Zone minimum of 300 'feet in distance unless a greater distance is reqUired by the City.Engineer to incorporate the topography of all abuttinq properties as it relates to project site. The map shall be draWn at the same scale as the site plan and shall be based on contour intervals no greater than 10'feet except where steep terrain warrants a greater contour interval as approved by the Planning Director. 3. A slop® map of the property depicting natUral slope categories of lO, 15, . 20, 30 and 40 percent and over with contour lineS shown.. . 4. A PreliminarY grading plan'Prepared by a registered civil engineer which , .. includes the heiqht and width of all manUfaCtured slopes, ~proposed ' ' retaining wall locations and heights,, proposed drainaqe patterns,~ · .. ' ~; methods of storm water retention/detention and identification of areas that will remain in a natural State. Off-Site contoursfor adjacent, unimproved areas within 300 feet of the pro/ect's boundaries shall be ' .. depicted: Ifthe adjacent property is impreved, pad elevations, street grades, waft sections and any approved or existing imProvements shall be shown. Cross sections will also be required from Primary and ' Secondary. .Viewsheds. ' 5. ' No less than two. cross sections (number to' be determined bY. the Planning DirectOr) which completely traverse the property at ' al:)i)roDriately spaced intervals in locations where topographic variation is the greatest shaft be prepared.by a registered civil enqineer. · The cross sections shaft clearly depict the vertical variation between natural and ' finished grade and shall extend 300 feet beyond the Project boundaries; 6. A slope erosion control/reveqetation plan shall be prOvided with all subdivision applications,'site plans and grading plans and shaft. incorporate the provisions of SeCtion 17.66.155 Landscaping. 7. In instances wh~re roads. CrOss or traverse natural drainaqe courses, des~qn shall include natural materials and bank prOtection (Iftustration3 ). ' Des~qn treatment shall be described or diagramed on plans submitted. Chapter 17.66, Page 7 10/11/06 BakerSfield'MUnicipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance .. HD Zone !I~LusTRATION $ DRAINAGE CHANNEL R.OAD cROSSING STONE RIP:RAP TO PRE~/ENT. .. · GR~Ui~ID~/'ER ' EROStON '~. RUTTING. 'i~'R:~ 8.' If required for fire 'safety, additional information on :the Plan beyond the- . property lines related to slopes,· vegetationl fuel breaks, water suPply systems and access ways (driveways, secondary aCcess, etc:) shall be . shown 'to the satisfaction of the Fire..Chief. N. In addition, the Planninq DireCtor, Building Director or City Engineer mat/ .. require submittal of any or all of the following:~ . · :1. A geotechnical report which shall contain, but n°t be limited to, data -' regarding the nature, distribution and' strengths of existing soils, ~ · conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, .desLqn criteria for any identified corrective measures and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. This` investigation and report shall be performed by a'ProfeSsional civil engineer who is experienced in the practice of soil mechanics and who is · registered With the State of California. Where the site includes slopes .. exceeding 2:1, the geotechnical report shall include a slope stability analysis, if the proposed development is in an area of concern, the report shall include the method and criteria formitiqation of slope instability. 2. A geolOgy report which shall include, but not be limited to, the surface and subsurface ~eology of the site, degree of seismic hazard, Chapter 17.66, Page 8 10/~1/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code - T/t/e 17, Zoning Ordinance . . . HD Zone Conclusions and recommendations regarding the. effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, opinions and' recommendations coVerinq the adequacy of the sites to be developed,. .the potential of s/ope failure within or adjacent to the Site and des(qn criteria to mitigate any identified geologic hazards. This investigation. and report shall be completed by a certified engineering geologist who is experienced in the praCtice of en(Tineerinc/ ¢eolo(~¥ and who is reqistered with the State of California. 3. A.drainaqe concept report which shall include, but not be' limited to, the . hydrologic conditions on the site, possible flood inundation, downstream flood hazards, natural drainage courses, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of the sites to be developed, and des(qn criteria to mitiqate any identified hydrologic hazards consistent with these requlations. This report shall account for all runoff and.deb~is from tributary areas.and' ' shall provide consideration for each lot or dwellinq unit site' in a proposed development proiect. The report shall also take into account all pre_ and i.. , post-developed flows and shall provide, evidence that the.proposed prO/ect will not burden ad/acent and/or, downstream properties with flows and/or velocities in excess of the pre-development condition. The report , - will examine the effects ofdrainaqe patterns on the erosion potential that I . could cause 'damaqe to 'planned or existinq structures and ensure that no drainage that could cause erosion will be directed to 'slope faces. In · addition, the drainage concept report shall show the construction phasing for the pro~ect and shall show how the drainage through or" .' around the proiect will be hand/ed on an interim basis, including any proposed temporary facilities. This investiqation ·and report shall be Completed by a registered Civil Enqineer experienced in the science of '-' hvdroloov and hydrologic inVestigation. The drainaqe conceptreport is subiect to the review and approval of the Cib/ Engineer. 4. A computer generated three-dimensional qraphic representation of th® 'pro~ect site may be required if deemed necessary for reason of clarity.. Areas identified as "Slope Protection Areas" shall be identified as lettered non- buildable lots on subdivision maps. .. · P. Structures shall be set back from the top of slopes a distance which is consistent' · with the followinq: 1 Determined to possess an adequate factor of safety, as determined bY the ' findinqs of a geotechnical report required in 17. 66.040. N. 1 and approved. · by the citv and; 2. If the site is an area identified as a "Visual Resource Area'; structures shall meet the visibility criteria as established by an identified "Primary" or "Secondary Viewshed". ~.,, Chapter 17.66, Page 9 10/11/06 Bakers§eld Municipal Code- Title '/7, Zoning OrdinanCe HD Zone 3. On buildable lots placed at the top of manufaCtured or natural slopes ad/acent to parks Or.oPen space~'the minimum rear yard setback for above ground structures shall be 25'feet unless greater setback is reqUired · pursuant to this ordinance or for public health, safety or welfare (Illustration 4~. .4. The Planning 'Commission may allow a lesser setback at a Public hearing associated w~th a subdivision if it can be shoWn to the satisfaction of the City that alternative methods of viewshed protection such as mounding. · landsCaping, etc., can provide for an' equivalent solution to the protection · of the' viewshed. S~qht line distance and cross section analysis or other methodologies'that provide a true representation of alternative viewshed ' protection methods will be required to determine the adequacy of .. . alternative viewshed protection.methods. No setback shall be reduCed, · regardless of any alternative presented, that-does not provide an' ' adequate setback as provided in P. 1. above,· or as may.otherwise potentially endanger the public health, safety or Welfare. · Q.. To encourage consistent'maintenance of slopes for erosion control and · aesthetics; property lines are to be placed at the top of manufaCtured or natural slopes to be left as open space, park area or in a natural state and shall be 'located a minimum Of 5 feet back from the top of the slope (see Illustration 4). Additional setback mai/be required for fire Safety or to accommodate trails consistent with an adopted trails plan. Chapter 17.66, Page 10 lOll ~/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance HD Zone .- This Wording Moved To 17.66.040 M.8. 17.66... .0G0 'KEY BoX REQUIREMENTS .~ access roads with private Securi~ gates shall meet the requirements of 15.64.320 · ' Section.902.2.4.3 ~ anY pa~ of a building is more than 150 feet from the gate entrance. 17.66.070.070 DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS . Driveways shall be at least 12 feet Wide with a minimu~ unobstructed height · clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Ddveways Over 150 feet in length shall· have turnarounds with a minimum turn radiUs not less than30 feet and .an outside turning · radiUs of not less than 45 feet: DriveWays in excess of 200 feet in length .and less ' than 20 feet in width Shall be required to have turnouts, as dete~ined by the Fire Chief, in addition· to tumamunds. Turnouts shall be ~nstm~ed of an all weather mad. su~ace, acceptable to.the Fire Chief, at least 10 feet wide by 30'feet long. In addition, ' · driveways ~om any private gates shall meet the requirements of 15.'64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 1'7:6 .080 FIRE APPA TUS ACCESS ROADs · When required bY the Fire Chief, all roads.SUbiect to Fire DepaRment apparatus ',-cads shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum height clearance of 13 feet6 inches. This will accommodate the I°ads and tuming radius and a grade traversable by tim apparatus not to exceed the maximum as approved by the Fire Chief. Dead end roads in excess of.150 feet in length· must be provided with tumamundA aS . approved by the Fire Chief. ·Driveways ~om any private gates shall meet the requirements of ~5.64.320 Section 902.2.4.3. Chapter 17.66, Page 11 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code - Trl[e 17, Zoning Ordinance . . HD Zone 17.66.!00.090 EMERGENCY SECONDARY ACCESS An emergencY secondary acceSs shall be required-when it is determined by the Fire Chief that .access by a single mad might be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit ingress or'egress.. Plans for emergency secondary aCceSs roads shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and .approval. prior to their construCtion and shall meet the requirements of 1'5. 64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 17.66.!!0.100' 'BRIDGES.' " Vehicle Icad limits must be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and private 'rOads. Bridge design'loads shall be established bY the Public Works Director. 17,66, ...,,.1101 ADDRESS'MARKERS All buildi~igs shall have a Permaneritly pOsted addreSs readily legible from the Public Way. Otl~erwiSe, the'addresS muSt be placed at each driveway entrance and be visible from bOth'directions of travel: Address signS along one way streets shall also be · visible fh3m both directions of. travel. ·Where multiple addresses are required at a · single driveway, they. Shall be mounted on a post, and additional signs.shall be posted at lOcatiOns Where driveways divide. Where a roadway provides, aCcess solely to .a ~ single commercial or industrial business,'the address shall be placed at the nearest road' intersection providing access to' the site~' .. 17.66.' . BUILDING cONSTRUCTION ' Roofs for bu/Tdings in "Visual ResOurCe Areas" shall be earth toned'to blend in with' surrOundin.q landscape. In no case shall they. be h~qhly reflective. ~ " Class A or class B nonCOmbustible roof COvering or roof assembly shall be reqUired. ~ NOtwithstanding the-afOrementioned, no wood.shake or WOod shingle roofs will be. permitted. For. roof COverings where the-profile allows.a space between the roof ' coVering and roof decking, the space at the eave ends shall be fire stopped to preclude entry of flames or embers. One-hour rated fire-resistive construction shall be required fOr eave assemblies Or noncombustible assembly approved by the Fire Chief and Building DireCtor. Protection shall be required on the exposed underside by materials approved for a minimum of one-hour rated fire-resistive construction. Fascias are required and must be protected.on the backside by materials approved for a minimum one-hour rated fire-resistive construction or 2-inch nominal dimension lumber. .. Construction shall meet Urban and Wi/d/and interface standards established by the State of California as they apply to this area or any area develoPed and subject to wildland fire conditions. Chapter !7.66, Page 12 10/11/06 BakerSfield Municipal Code- T'~e' 17, Zoning'Ordinance . . HD Zone i' Exceptions: ACcessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet in floor area when located at least 50 feet from any habitable structure.. Roofs' shall have at least Class 'C roof covering, Class C roof assembly of an approved noncombustible roof covering. No. ' wood shake or wood shingle roofs will be permitted for roof coveringS where the profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking'; the space at the eave ends . :. shall be fire stopped to preclude entry of flames or embers. Earth toned roofs are . ' required if within a '¥isua/ ResourCe Area~. " ROOF REPAIR .OR' REPLACEMENT Roof covering on buildings or struCtures in eXistence pdor to the' adoPtion of this chapter that are replaced, or have 25 percentor more rePlaced in a 12-month pedod, shall be replaced 'with a roof covering consistent with Section 17.66.130.120. " 17. 66. f35 . FENCING Fencing ~d[acent to parks and open space shall be Placed at least five (5) feet back ' from thel. top of slope and shall be earth tone or black in color and allow visUal ' * ' penetra~on (see Illustration 4). Materials such as wrought iron and vinyl fencing may be used. Wood fencinq is not all°wed'in thisinstance. Fence location and deSiqn detail,s. ' shall be submitted with development plans includin.q subdivisions and .qradinq plans_ Solid walls mai/be required adjacent to parks when deemed appropriate bi/the City. - 17.66. .50.'/40 FIRE SCAPE PLANT SELECTIONS Every tract and parceimap shall contain an ,adviSory notice" Within. the conditions of approval recommending.that Property oWners use plant materials which arefire resistant.. A comprehensive list is available from the Fire Department (see Table 1 .- · : refer to the end of this chapter). ' *: ~ 17.66,! 0,150 DEFENSIBLE SPACE · Maintain around and adjacent to. any such building or structure a firebreak made by removing and Clearing aWay for a distance of no less than 30 feet on each side thereof or t° the property line, whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetationor other ~ combustible growth. This section does not apply to single specimens of trees, ~'. ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not · form .a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth.to any building or 'structure. Chapter 17.66, Page 13 10/11/06 · Bakers§eld MuniCipal Code - Title 17, Zoning OrdinanCe . . HD Zone i-/cc 470 · '17.66.155 LANDSCAPING . -.A_. LandsCape areas to be maintained by t~e Gi~ shaft provide a mix of native . oak~sycamom~wildflower~shrubs and boulder clusters ~ installed to rosemblo a natural distribution blondin~ into tDe sO~oundin~ area. (llluStr~fions "" : 7). Final plans, inClUding 'irr~qation system, ·shall be approVed b~ the RecreatiOn ';,, &.Parks Depa~ment. Des4qn Contont shall retain natural ~ora and sito C~amctor as much as possible. " Illustration 5 .. ' '* ~ '"' ~:~;.~iLk,W~i~.~?~;:.~;:~:.. .:..::..-~ ' . :L:/ ;~.:~j~ :~:j.~"L:..: IIlustr~ion Chapter 17.66, Page 14 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title' 17, Zoning Ordinance . HD Zone Illustration 7. ~ · -Xofiscopo plont soloct~ons os oppmvo~ b~ t~e ROcrOation ~n~ PorRs Depa~ment shall be used to reveqetate disturbed areas outside of lots; unless~ Ci~ ordinances, cr resolutions, or conditions of approval state othe~ise_ ~ ~e retardant erosion control ne~ing or other materialapproved by the Ci~' - ~creation and Parks Depa~ment ~hall be installed as required by the Ci~ ~e~eation and Par~s Depa~ment to prevent erosion. ' . ~ .... D~ In ·order to assist in Protecting s/opes ~om soil·eroSion and to ·facilitat® siqnifi~nt "" reve~e tation, an.i~qation system approved by the Public·Works Depa~ment and Recreation and Parks Depa~ment shall be installed on all slopes with required planting.· Components and operation of the i~qation sYStem'shall be desiqned to maintain s/ope stabili~ and integri~ and provide the abili~ to mOnitor and maintain an irrigation sYStem on a slope. In all cases, the emphasis shall be tOward usinq plant materials that will eventually not need· to be i~iqated. Water and energy consewation techniques shall be utilized inclUdinq, but not limited to," · such items as drip i~igation and alluvial rOckscape. 17.66. 60..DRAINAGE·. All PropoSed drainage facilities shall respect the natu~l terrain, prese~e existing ma~or drainage channels in their natural state or enhance them to create riparian type systems that provide for drainaqe and for diversification of p/ant and animal life and be desiqned in such a manner as to minimize soil erosion and to othe~ise prese~e the public health, 'safe~ and we/fare. The followin~ standards shall.apply to all/ands sub/ect to this· a~icle in addition to the requirements of Title 16 (Subdivision OrdinanceS. 1. The overall drainage system shall be completed and made operational'at the earliest pos~ible time durinq construction in accordance with the approved drainage concept repo~. Chapter 17.66, Page 15 10/11/06 Bakers§eld Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance HD Zone 2.' When deemed necessarv by. the City Engineer, th'e applicant shall enter .into a "Grading Improvement Agreement", securing each phase of grading and drainaqe facility construction. Said security shall be sufficient to install the required drainage facility, to restore the (Tradinrl area to a safe and stable condition, ~nd to revegetate the cut or slopes or provide other permanent erosion control measures. · 3. Other than for street gutters, all drainage.shall be conveyed Within ~. ... closed conduits unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Analysis and design of erosion Control measures shall be'approVed by ·. · the City Engineer... -' '.. .. " . 1.7.66'.!80.'/717' GRADING. thc "~"~' ''¢ *~';'4 "~'""*"'~ 'All new cut and fill slopes exceeding 10. feet in heiqht on '.the perimeter Of a subdivision ad/acent to parks,~open space or arterial and collector streets, and interior to a subdivision adiacent to parks and open space shall be contour graded (Illustrations 8 - 9J so that their ultimate appearance will resemble a natufai slope. Contour grading shall consist of a combination of slope curvature, as Well as variable slope gradients along the length of the slope..The Building Director shall have the final determination that the final grading plan retains as much 'natural slope as possible considering the proposed imprOvements and other required codes. Chapter 17.86' Page 16 10/1~/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance · . HD Zone · iI'LLUSTRATION g THIS " NOTTHIS .. CONVENTION:AL SITE PI.,;AI~INING . · B_.~. Grading shall reflect the natural 'contour of the existinq terrain. The. following .. .qradina standards shall apPly to all land subiect to this article, in addition, to.the gradina requirements of the governing document currently in use:. 1. Extensive grading shall be discouraqed. .-. " :~ 2. ·Where grading is necessary, ,the following principles of contour qrading shaft be employed: a)' Graded slopes on the exterior of subdivisions shaft be' rOunded · and shaped to simUlate the natural terrain. '. ..... b)' Grading Shaft follow the natural contours aS much as possible. c) . Graded slopes shaft blend with naturally occurrinq' slopes at a' radius compatible with the existinq natural terrain. d) Graded slopes outside the public r(qht-of-Wa¥ and maintained by a Home Owners Association Shall be reveqetated with at least a mixture of native grass seed or shrubs as recommended by the Chapter 17. 66, Page 17 10/11/06 BakerSfield Municipal Code - Title17, Zoning 'Ordinance ...... · HD Zone RecreatiOn and Parks Department; Planting may be waived by the Recreation and Parks Department for slopes that, due to the .~ . ..:? amount of rock'material or Poor soil, will not support plant growth: in'this case, alternative methods of protection and/or aesthetic . miti~qation may be examined or required at the discretion of the Recreation and Parks DePartment. .. ' e) For graded sl°pes within the public r(qht~of-wa¥ or publicly, maintained landscape easements, an. erosion control and landscaping concept plan shall be submitted to the Recreation." and Parks Department for approval. f) unless a flatter Slope is otherwise reCommended'in a soil invest~qation, the steepest manufactured slope allowed shall not. exceed 2 unit horizontal to 1 unit vertical. All manufactured .. - slopes steePer than 5 unit horizontal to 1 unit vertical shall have a " type of slope 'protection as appr°vecf by'the City Engineer, · · Building Official and/or the Recreation and Parks Department (as' applicable) .... g) Only'slopes within public rights-of-way or easements constrUcted to City standards and accepted for maintenance by the City of . · ' Bakersfield shall be maintained by a city maintenance district. All. other slopes shall be maintained by the prOperty oWner or private aSsociation'unless approved by the ReCreation and Parks · Department. .... . APPEALS A... A determination by staff of the'provisions of this Chapter may be appealed to the planning commission. The action of staff shall be final unless, within 10 ~ · days of their decision, the applicant or any other person apPeals in Wdting to · the Planning CommiSsion by filing such aPPeal with ithe Planning Director and. Paying. appropriate fees. B~ A'determinati°n ·by the Planning Commission or Board of Zoning Adjustment· ~·.. pursUant to this Chapter may. be appealed to'the City Council pursuant to the·. · · aPpeals ·Procedures of Chapter·16.52 in the case of subdiVision map approvals, or Chapter 17..64, in the case of modifications, conditional, use permits, or zone · changes. .. C. · On appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission may grant modificatiOns · from the provisions of this Chapter where the appellant Cleady demonstrates a practical difficulty in carrying out a specified provision. In granting the modification, the City Council or Planning Commission shall first find that the Strict application of.a specified provision is impractical and that the modification is in cOnformance with the intent of this Chapter .... that the modification does Chapter 17.66, Page 18 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal 'Code - Title 17, Zoning Ordinance · . . . HD Zone not lessen any fire protection or other pUblic safety*requirements and/or serves to/~rotect views as required by' this chapter. Chapter 17.66, Page 19 10/11/06 Bakersfield Municipal Code- Title 17, Zoning Ordinance . HD Zone . Chapter 17. 66, Page 20 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - Planning & Development Committee Summary From: Jean Parks To: Jim Movius Date: 10/24/2006 1:48 PM Subject: Planning & Development Committee Summary Jim, John requested that ! e-mail the draft agenda summary of the October 17th meeting to you.. When you have time, could you read it and let me know if anything needs to be changed. All comments are welcome. John said it looks okay to him, but that he may have missed technical issues there was so much input at the meeting. When you have time it's aL'cached. Thanks. Jean file://C:~Documents and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 1 ~ 3ean Parks - Summary Report From: Jim Movius To: Jean Parks Date: 10/24/2006 2:46 PM Subject: Summary Report Jean: T made some recommended change, s in underline/line-out format. file://CSDocuments and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 10/26/2006 I5 A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was Called to Order at 1:03 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT AUGUST 22, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on draft ordinance regarding development standards for large (big box) retail centers Planning Director Jim Movius explained over time the Council has referred three separate issues regarding big box shopping centers to the Committee. 1) Urban Decay. The Council has already taken action on this issue by adopting a General Plan Policy. 2) Aesthetics. The City does not have design standards, other than minimum landscaping, on how large commercial developments are to look. 3) Circulation and road frontaqes. Committee Members have indicated there should be regulations requiring large shopping center sites to be located where arterials and collectors provide good circulation. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 2006 The proposed ordinance relates to the second issue on design standards for large (big box) retail'centers and covers the time frame when the developer/owner already has entitlements on the property and the project is going through the site plan review process or PCD. Principal Planner Jim Eggert reported staff has contacted other cities and reviewed their ordinances, which address the aspects of big box shopping centers, and handed out pictures to graphically depict the results achieved. The proposed ordinance applies to large, commercial developments over 50,000 square feet and would apply to single tenant or multi-tenant projects to provide more walkable, aesthetic, and user-friendly developments and to avoid the big-box look. The proposed ordinance covers: · Architectural character and design · Parking lot design · Pedestrian circulation · Community space Committee Chair Mike Maggard spoke regarding how the ordinance would apply to remodeling of shopping centers and asked if the ordinance Could address control of maintenance and trash in parking 10ts. Principal Planner Jim Eggert explained the ordinance covers remodel or expansion of existing centers triggered by a 50 percent or larger building expansion or change of use applications especially with a PCD, which allows for upgrades such as facades and aspects to improve the site. Staff would have to add somethinq to the ordinance if the Committee desires some aspects of the ordinance to apply with a change of use. Staff will check with the City Attorney on how control of maintenance and trash, which is not a zoning issue but falls under code enforcement, might fit within the ordinance. Lorraine Unger spoke in favor of the ordinance and commented on the negative look of merchandise when it is stacked out in front of large shopping centers. Scott Blunck, Castle and Cooke, had questions and made comments regarding signage and parking ratios versus community space'. Committee Member David Couch responded the ordinance provides developers with a list of choices and only requires two of the elements. The list included: 1) pedestrian plaza or patio with seating; 2) transportation center; 3)covered window shopping walkway along at least 75% of primary building; 4)outdoor playground area; 5) water feature; 6) clock tower; or 7) any other deliberately shaped area and/or focal feature or amenity that enhances the community and AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 2006 public spaces of the center. Planning Director Jim Movius recommended the third issue regarding circulation be icm:,luded addressed under the Commercial Policies of the General Plan as circulation needs to be addressed earlier in the de~ entitlement process, before site plan review. Committee Member David Couch made a motion to forward traffic circulation around (big box) shopping center sites to the Planning Commission to be address as a text amendment to the General Plan Commercial Policies at the next available General Plan cycle and then on to the City Council, and to forward the proposed ordinance for large (big box) retail centers to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. The Committee also requested that Development Services Director Stan Grady send a letter to Kern County Planning and Development Services Director Ted James informing him of the proposed ordinance and circulation text (General Plan Policy) being forwarded to the City's Planning Commission. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Attendance-staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Deputy City Attorney Bob Sherfy; Associate Attorney Michael Richards; Planning Director Jim Movius; Principal Planner Jim Eggert; and Public Works Civil Engineer Jim Holladay Attendance-others: Planning Commissioner Barbara Lomas; Kevin Burton, Young Wooldridge; Scott Blunck, Castle and Cooke; David Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; and Daphne Phump, KUZZ News cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council URBAN DECAY THRESHOLDS GENERAL PLAN POLICY · Require new commercial development to evaluate it's impacts on existing commercial uses as set forth in the implementation measures ( measure #s will be cited here ). IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: · Require Urban Decay Studies for commercial shopping centers over 250,000 square feet in size. · Require Urban Decay Studies for superstores. A superstore is defined as a retail store that will occupy more than 90,000 gross square feet and twenty percent (20%) or more of the gross floor area is devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. The term "superstore" shall exclude wholesale clubs or other establishments selling pdmadly bulk merchandise and charging membership dues or otherwise restricting merchandise sales to customers paying a periodic assessment or fee. · At time of site plan review, if an Urban Decay Study has not yet been prepared and a project meets or exceeds the thresholds listed above or additional information would make preparation of a new or revised Urban Decay Study prudent, an Urban Decay Study must be prepared. Phased submittal of a PCD plan will require that assumptions regarding size of the entire project be made to enable the City to determine the need for an urban decay study. · Require Urban Decay Studies with Project Level EIRs for projects containing individual commercial land use or zoning designations in excess of 20 acres. An Urban Decay Study may also be required for projects meeting this criteria being evaluated with a Program Level EIR at the discretion of the city. · If an Urban Decay Study has not been submitted, the City shall require a PCD or PCD Combining zone on all commercial projects over 20 acres in size. Designations within specific plan areas are exempt from this requirement. S:\Urban decay thresholds\Thresholds 5-3-05.doc URBAN DECAY TRESHOLDS Advisory team DUANE KEATHLEY 633-3816 duane.keathley~cbre.com JOHN BROCK 395-0541 jbrock~Bynuminc.com MICHEAL BURGER 587-1010 burger~bakersfieldappraisers.com SCOTT UNDERHILL 862-5454 sahill~asuassociates.com GARY GRUMBLES 326-1141 Gary.grumbles~lennar.com Staff Jim Movius 326-3992 Stanley Grady 326-3733 Robert Sherfy 327-3721 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Organization:Company/ Address: Phone: Fax/e-maih. Subject: B A K E R S F I 'E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLLCALL 2. ADOPT AUGUST22,2006AGENDASUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation on draft ordinance regarding development standards for large (big box) retail centers - Movius 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT -.~r'~.] ~ 10/13/2~0611:4... EDITOR ' 395-7519. Cove~l '. ~OK '. _ . . . '::. ~A~. ~' ~ ' ' .' 10/13/200611:4... N~De~k · 3~-8~5 .. Cove[+l ' OOK.' ' ' ~' ' · ' '¢~ ~ ' . : .. .1~/13/2dOG11:4,.: ~,RLESWAIDE ~]7814. ' Co~er+l .' · :'~ OK · , · ' ] ' . · '. ' ' '' ~ · 10/13/200~11:4.,. O~nionPage ~5-7380 .''. Cover+l '. K ' . ''. ' jj ~ ' '.lD/13Y2qOGll'4. 'K&thyE~y .~lgo .. ~vAr+l ' ~OK '' . .. ' [m ~ ; ; .. ld/13/200611:4.. THEM'INORITY.L ~-9~87. ' 'C0ver~l.' · '~'0K.. '. ' .' ~ ~ · ' '10/13/2006.11:4..: 'K~I~V-45KUZ. ~-~37' · ~+l · .'OOK · ' ''' '' · . ' .' · '' . .']~ · 1D/~3/200611:4... K~AOSPANISH ~78797 · · Cove+l . '~ OK · · ' · · · ' · · · ;' ~m ~ ' . 1~/13/2006114 KLLY95FM KN' ~1915 ' 'C0ver~l" OOK · ~ ' '. ' " ' ~ . · . 10/13/200611:4.. ~ · '.. 283-~ Core,+1 · . ~OK . .' . . · · ' · ' · · ' '' ' ' ~; ~. · ' . 10/13/200611:4... KGET~-17' · 28~1843 ~ve~+l. ~OK ' · · .' ' · ' . · .' ~ · 18/13/2D~611:4... KERDTV-23 323-~' Cove~;1 ".. ~'DK '. ~' '' ' · ~ · 10/i3/2D06'11'4 K~da Ma ~) ' 283-2~ Core,+1 ' ' ' · ~ OK · ' ' ' ' ' · ' ~.'.'.. ' 10/13/200.611:4... ~AKTV-~'. esla810 ' bo~.,+~ OOK '.' · ' · ... · ·' · ~ ' "' 10/137200611:4] EDITOR .' - 325-i351 '. Cover+l ~OK ' ·' ' ' : · . . ' · ~ ' ] ' · .' 10/~3~2D~'11:~].' ELMEXI~LO' ~2~-6951 ~ver+l ' e OK ' ' · '. * · lO/~/~0, U:4...~REA~.B~:.' ~27-~Sl ~,+~ OeK' ' ' ' '" :'. · ;' "~ · ' ' '" ~' ' : ' '.10/!3/2D06~1:4].. DA~D BURGER 395-~519 ' Cover+l · ~ OK ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ~ . ~.~ 10/13/280611-4.:.. EDITOR . · 324-9472 ' Co~+l' ~ oK '. ...... .' · · · 2. ' ..; q ~ · .. ' ~.' 10/13/200~11:4..; DIRECTOR. ~-1317 · . C~er+l ' ~ OK ' ' ' ' '' '~¢ . · . . ~ 10/13~Gl1:4]. BEALEMEMOR):] ~1.9439' g~er+l " '~OK' · ' ' ' ' ~ ' · 10d3/2~6t1:4... G~.AFF~IRS D.;. 635-2317 ' . C~9~+1' ' ~ OK. · ' . . ' "' · :. ~ . ' ~ 10/5/20~ 2:24 PM Renee N~son ' 859-8107 · Cove~+l · ' ~ Phone Line Problem '. · ' . . '.. '.~ ~ ' ' ' ' 10~/200~ 2:20 PM ED TOR . ' 395-75 9 · Cover*l ' ' ' ~ OK · · . . ' · ~ '' 10~/200G ~20 PM Ke~da, M&r~~ ' · ~3-2963 Co~e*l .' ' "~ OK .' ' .' · ' · ' ~ ~ ' ' 10/5/2006Z~N~sOe~k ~4-2685 ' ' ' Cover+l ' OOK ' ' " ' :' ' ' ' ~;~; ' ' ' ' ~' ~ · ' 10~/20062:~4 ~RLESWAiDE' 32S-78~4 . ' Co,er+l .~OK'' ' ' ' .. ·'' . ' ' ~ '. ' ' · 10/5/2006 ~ PM O~io;)Pag~ · 395-7380 ~ · Co~e+l' ' · ~OK .' · '. .' · ' ' '" · ' ' ~ ' 10/5/20062:20PM K~h~Eddy ' ~-3190 ' ' ' C~er~ O OK ':' '. ". ' ;" ' ' .~} ' ~ 10/5/2d0~2:2OPM THE~INORITY..: 323-9287 Co~e+l' ~OK · · · 1; '..' .' ~ '..' ' 1D/5~062:20PMKWACsP~ISH..~327-0797 ; Co~,+i' OOK . ~'. '..' . ' '. ''' : ~' ' 10/5~ 2:20 PM K~I TV-45 KUZ..; 3~7537 ' ' Cov~+l ' ' ~ OK ' . ' : .... · ' ~ ' · 1O/SY~062:2OPMKLLY~5FM-KN... 393-1915 . Core,+1 ' ~8K' ..'' 1'' · ~' ' · ; · 18/5/~20 PM k~ ; · ~3-2~B3 Core,+1 · O OK ' ' · ". ' ' '.. '," .' ~ 10/13~Z006 1~:2.. T'o~ C~o~la ~1~26~ Cove~l ~'OK "~ ' · ~l ~ 101~200612:2.. M~kSmil~862-5444 ~ ~ 10/13R00612:2... RmBrummett R4-8215 ·' .' ~:.'"i ~ IO/l~ZOOG 12:2... · Terr, S,olle, ~Z51 Cover+l ~OK · ~' ~ 1~/13/2~611:4....~ARL~SWAIDE 325-781~ C~e~*l ~ OK ' .' .' " ' ~ 1~2~6~1:4... K~' ' ' · ~63 Co~ei*l ' · ' ' ~ 1~/1~2~11 4KGET T~- 2 ~843 :' ~ ~: 10/13/200611 4 'ED T0R ~5-1351' · ' . .' ~ 10/13/Z0061i:4:. ELME~LO 323-~9~1 .' · '~ 10/13/200~]1:4..~ GR~ER B~E... 327-8751 Co~1 ' I : ' ' ~ ~ 10/13/~0Gli4 EDTOR 324-94>2 Co~e~+l ~ ' ~ ~i~ 10113~6 1~:4..~ DIRECTOR'. 6~-i 317 Co~r+l ~OK . DMINIST TIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: October 11, 2006 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ DATE: September 18, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY (-'-//]'/t:~(- CITY MANAGER ~/~'~ SUBJECT: Public Hearing and first reading of an Ordinance approving a Negative Declaration and amending Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone, Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. (VVard 3) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Negative Declaration and first reading of the Ordinance. Back.qround: On September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 in favor of recommending the Amendment to the City Council. In 2003, City Council directed Planning Staff to examine the potential long term effects of development along the bluffs in Northeast Bakersfield. In March 2005, City Council requested staff recommend ways to clarify and strengthen the Hillside Ordinance. In April 2005, the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council met to discuss the existing ordinance and to propose changes. The committee reviewed and considered changes concerning hillside stability, lot and fence setbacks and the use of landscaping. From the committee's input, Staff composed a draft amendment to the existing Hillside Ordinance. The first draft of the Amendment was available for public comment in May, 2005 and input on the draft was heard at a City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Public Headng on June 2, 2005. In response to comments and additional information gained from the City's consultant team and review of additional ordinances from other jurisdictions, clarifications and changes were incorporated into. this second draft of the Amendment that was heard at a Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 6, 2006. There were 2 % hours of comments given at the Public Hearing on July 6, 2006, after which the Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission continued deliberation until September 7, 2006 and voted to approve the ordinance and recommend same to the City Council. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 6, 2006, the public had another opportunity to comment on the draft amendment to the ordinance being considered at this City Council meeting. In opposition was a group of speakers representing General Holdings and the Canyons, including two attorneys from Young and Wooldridge, two landowners that are a part of the Canyons project, October 5, 2006, 9:44AM pe S:~Dana~admin~2006~Octt10-11.HD. doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT and two consultants giving technical support to the Canyons project. Also speaking in opposition were Chad Vega and Karen Norton, Kern Citizens for Property Rights; Michael Turnipseed, Kern County Taxpayers Association; Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation; one citizen of Bakersfield, and one property owner in Visalia. In favor were: James Nickel, Nickel Family, LLC and Rio Bravo Ranch; Dave Dmohowski, Building Industry Association of Kern County; Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club; Charles White, Kern River Valley Revitalization; Marcie Cunningham, Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails; Michelle Beck, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee; 3 citizens of Bakersfield and 1 citizen of the Kern River Valley. This proposed amendment to the existing ordinance ("Amendment") provides additional requirements beyond the existing ordinances' focus on grading, street grades and fire protection. In following the direction of the General Plan policies, the Amendment addresses protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. The changes to the existing Hillside Development Ordinance include the following: · Requires additional information on topography, geology, slopes, drainage and fire safety. · Identifies "Visual Resource AreaS" along ridgelines for protection · Identifies "Primary and. Secondary Viewsheds" which, in tandem with visual resource areas limit the view of structures from major roadways. · Identifies Slope Protection Areas which have unique visual characteristics and slope constraints. · Requires erosion control measures and setbacks for property line, fences and structures 'adjacent to open.space areas. · Requires 25 foot setback from open sPace areas not governed by visual resource/viewshed criteria. · Protects visual resources on the perimeter of development visible from major roadways. The City's General Plan lists the following issues regarding hillside development: · The aesthetic value of open space areas and the impact of development on public viewsheds should be considered · Cut-and-fill grading techniques employed to accommodate development alter the natural topography and ridgelines To address the issues, a goal was established to "Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning area." To that end, four of the ten policies adopted in the General Plan's Open Space Element address hillside development: Policy 2: Development of the ridgelines within the planning area should consider natural aesthetic value and topographic constraints. Policy 3: Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complimentary to the natural topography. Policy 4: Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of the natural topography and ridgelines. Policy 6: Development on or adjacent to bluff areas should complement the aesthetic integrity of such areas. October 5, 2006, 8:57AM pe S:tDana~admin~OO6tOctt10-11.HD. doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT The Implementation Measure in the Open Space Element that corresponds to these policies is: Implementation 2: Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of Bakersfield regulates development in areas of excessive slope in Northeast Bakersfield. Kern County's existing ordinance will be augmented as necessary. The proposed ordinance Changes address the issues identified in the General Plan. An extensive search of hillside development regulations from other jurisdictions produced regUlations from 15 California cities and counties. An additional research tool was the "Overview of Hillside Development Terms and Concepts" prepared by LSA Associates, INC in 2002 which evaluated not only California communities with similar ordinances, but cities and counties in Colorado, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico (14 total). Most ordinances limit density throughout an area based on slope and protect ridge tops from development. The proposed ordinance protects a limited number of key ddgelines and the face of specific bluff and hill faces but is less limiting to development when compared to other ordinances. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield Public Works hired two consulting firms to give background information and practical experience working with hillside ordinances. WRA Engineering provided experience in hillside development from a civil engineering standpoint and helped to craft the slope stability portions of the amendment. TCLA, Inc. provided input on open space and hillside stability landscaping, specifically providing "theme planting" drawings, erosion control and viewshed protection through landscaping. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a Categorical Exemption for "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment" (State of California CEQA Guidelines 15308) that exempts this Amendment from the provisions of CEQA. However, in response from comments heard in the public hearing for the first draft of the Amendment on whether an Environmental Impact Report was required for the Amendment, staff prepared an Initial Study. Based upon an initial environmental assessment, staff has determined the proposed project will not significantly affect the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and amending Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.66, HD, Hillside Development Combining Zone, Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. October 5, 2006, 8:57AM pe S:~Danatadmint2006tOctt10-11.HD. doc August 28, 2006 Dear/ir. Nipp: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair of the Planuing and Development Commtttee,.requested tlmt we send a Committee packet to you as you were.not'able to attend the Committee.meeting on August 22,"2006, A packet is enclosed, as well as a business card from John Stinson, Assistant City Nanager, should you have any.questions. Jean Parks Secretary for John W. Stinson B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, August 22, 2006 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 JULY 10, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Response to comments made by Mr. Gordon Nipp - Grady B. Staff update and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial to collector- Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Landscape standards for block walls - Hoover 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 3ean Parks - Re: FW: Today's Planning and Development Meeting From: Alan Tandy To: Alan Christensen; David R [PVTC] Couch; John W. Stinson Date: 7/20/2006 1:22 PM Subject: Re: FW: Today's Planning and Development Meeting CC: Caroline Reid; Jean Parks; Stan Grady I suppose we can mark it as correspondence received after the meeting and have it sent out with the summary minutes, and I will forward to Stan Grady. thanks >>> "Couch, David R [pv'rc]" <david.r.couch@smithbarney.com> 7/20/06 1:09 PM >>> Can this be made part of the record of our last P & D committee mtg as requested? Thanks. ..... Original Message ..... From: Caroline Reid [mailto:creid@bak.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:37 PM To: Couch, David R [PVTC] Subject: Today's Planning and Development Meeting I wanted to enter this in the discussion today but did not feel that public comment was encouraged. Please forward this to whomever and ask-that it be in the record. Thanks. Caroline Reid file://C:LDocuments and Settings\jparks\Local Settings~Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 7/20/2006 My name is Caroline Reid. I live at 8716 Willow Spring Court, 93312 My phone is 588-2665 I am here to request that the City Council and the Planning Department pursue avenues available to effect a change in current laws regarding neighborhood notification of projects requiring a hearing. My neighborhood will be heavily impacted by traffic (despite what the Traffic Department says) coming from the new apartment community being built at Coffee and Brimhall. Traffic from that community will be using residential streets to leave home and return home. I did not hear about this problem until the time period for public comments had passed (because I live more than 300' feet from the project). Driving through the neighborhood you will see at least 12 homes for sale on the streets that will be heavily impacted by this inCrease in traffic. Originally the property was zoned for medical office buildings. Then a developer decided to have it rezoned and build a water park. The neighborhood objected and the water park was not built. The same builder (who walked the neighborhood trying to talk people into wanting the water park) is now building a large apartment community and emptying his gated residents into an entire neighborhood of families with children that will be dangerously affected by the increase in traffic. For some reason he didn't walk the neighborhood to get input about the apartment complex. He obeyed the 300' law, as did the Planning Commission, but they forgot to consider the high probability of a negative impact on the neighborhood. I am monitoring this problem very carefully. The law must be changed so that when an entire neighborhood will be affected by a project, the entire neighborhood will be notified. It's common sense and it's Common decency if city government is to be respected and taken seriously. July 10, 2006 .~uly 10, 2006 City of Bakersfield Planning and Development Committee 1501 Truxton Ave Bakersfield, California 93301 Re: Policy/Ordinance regarding public notification of development Dear Committee Members, ! would like to say, "Congratulations" to you for your willingness to consider a very needed adjustment to the City's public notification policy/ordinance and to recommend it to the City Council for approval. This will be a tremendous unifying step of openness in the planning application and review policy in our community and our on-going growth. ! do not know who handles the City's Public Relations, 'but your consideration of this needs to be promulgated to the community as an encouragement to all of us who view the current City Planning public notification policy as the "too"-step, "too early to tell and too late to do anything about it!" After having attended a few Planning Commission meetings in the last year, ! feel that much of the planning backlog and delays that are currently manifested with many projects, is the lack of sufficient time-sensitive public input/notification that seems to be built into the City's planning, process. 'Let me explain. The developer has been in contact/relationship with the City staff over several months. Homeowners may hear of things through the "grapevine" but rarely get the formal word of the last step. of approval until they get a 10-day notice of the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, if it can be found that there are sufficient objections from those notified (of course, ! am now speaking of those within 300 feet of the subject tract/project, and who somehow get their heads together), 'it requires an immense amount of effort to pull together a mostly diverse and unattached neighborhood into a .cognizant ~and viable~ unified .group to' .be' .able .to-meet. with.a, developer, .express concerns, get a response from the developer to those concerns, and then try to resolve the issues before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. !f those impacted cannot resolve the issues with the developer, then they get three to five minute sound bites at the podium. And, ! might point out, "objectors" usually do not have an opportunity to rebut the -developer% -responses .to- their-statements. !n- addition; the"neighbor~s'' efforts to meet with' a developer is especially difficult when the developer is from out of town, and when Staff has already made a determinate and recommended approval.. There is another factor that is unfair to the general public and especially those who will be impacted by specific development and growth applications/proposals. ! call it the a "'relationship deficit." This deficit is created' when contractors/developers/builders establish close relationships with City Staff through one or several applications for-projects and the ensuing process, that may entail many meetings with the Qty over several months. When "Joe Public" does not have the advantage of relationship with the City, one can easily see that much of the development and growth process becomes business done by familiarity - many times on a first name-basis with developers, owners and private engineers, but usually not including the impacted public. A public notification policy that is quickly and expediently enacted after initial applications would help to eliminate that "deficit." T realize that some property owner-developers would rather be secretive/clandestine about what they intend to do with their land. Tn fact, some Planning Commissioners have mentioned that in recent meetings. However, we need less cloudiness and' more openness from everyone right now, especially when the City Staff, Commission and Council are under .the .tremendous..pressures. of .growth. and development .management and approval, tt may behoove the City to establish a liaison position that would do nothing but put applicant- developers together with the impacted public immediately after an application has been submitted and after an initial signing has been posted on-site. It is also important that the City Staff does not slip into or contribute to, what some see as a "keep-it-a-secret" mentality. ! think ! can-say; having previous .experience from' within- the government, that .there'.is a- commonly understood tension between "the public's right to know, the public's desire to know, and the public's need to know.." However., ! feel that a position on the side of openness is the wise, prudent, fair and public-serving thing to do. If you disagree with that position, then I would remind you that a major problem with the general public's view of publiC officials is that they are not '"PubliC'" enough and'cannot be trusted'to serve with that kind of open attitude. ! encourage you. to. recommend reasonable incremental, improvements-to the City's. public notification policy that expands and clarifies it not just in linear distances and newspaper notices, but in early sign-postings at project locations, and early expanded mailings to impacted property owners to allow them adequate time to communicate and confer with each other and with developer-builders. This will help resolve many issues before they come before the. Planning. Commission and the City Council, thereby saving 'much time and energy. Sincerely, Will Winn 5809 Meadow Oaks Ct. Bakersfield, CA 93306 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date / ~6~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Organization: Address: Phone: Subject= pUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: I(~ ~ ~-..~ ~C(.,I c~_ .~[ d. 0 ~)/', , Phone: Subject: BAKERSFIELD 12' 10" 4" X4" OR 6" X6" POST (BREAKAWAY 27.6" BLUE = PANTONE #293c PER GREEN = PANTONE #347c CALTRANS STD.) 6' s95o6 Page I cfi Bruce Deeter ~ Re: Paladino Dr. From: Bruce Deeter To: Steve Hollis Date: 7/7/2006 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Paladino Dr. CC: 3ack LaRochelle; Steve Walker Mr. Hollis - after discussing your question with the PW Director this is what we can say. Yes, it is quite possible that west bound Paladino jUst west of Masterson will remain striped with just for lanes for some time. At some point, should the volumes dictate, we will stripe a third lane and can not relinquish the ability to do so. It may be 5 years, 10 years 15 years, there is no specific assurances in that regard. Until the time the third lane is needed we would leave the outside lane as a wide bike lane/parking lane as proposed in the concept pla9. As you may know paving of that outer lane and installation of the curb and gutter and sidewalk on the north side is the individual property owners responsibility. The requirement to do so would only occur if you or one of your neighbors subdivided their property. Of course, they could always do so voluntarily. The fee program only provides for adding the second lane. So until that extra lane is added, your frontage would be similar to what is there now. Bruce Deeter Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering Division City of Bakersfield Public Works Dept 1501 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield, CA 933'01 (661) 326-3958 (661) 852-2118 (FAX) email: bdeeter@ci.bakersfield.ca.us website: www.ci.bakersfield.ca.us/cityservices/pubwrks/TrafficEng/ndex.htm >>> "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> 6/29/2006 2:57 PM >>> I haven't had a chance to talk to all of the neighbors about the realignment. But the few I did talk to have asked the following question. Unless I'm confused, Paladino Dr. east of Masterson is a four lane collector. Would it be an option to keep just the west bound lanes down to two lanes and therefore not have to realign the median and shorten the landscaping on the south side? I'm not sure which direction would need the most lanes for traffic flow, but it seems there would be less incoming traffic from the area myself and my neighbors live since it is 'less densely populated. By keeping the lanes at two, it would allow the extra area for deceleration, acceleration lanes and a wide enough area for backing in trailers. Again, I'm sorry for the delay, but I would appreciate your views on this proposal. Steve Hollis 661 343-1912 shol!.is.@ w_o_r!d_o..,net '. file://C:~Documents and Settings\bdeeter~Local Settings\Temp~{PGrpWise\44AE1ACACITYDOMcitypol... 7/7/2006 Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - RE: Special Planning & Development Committee Meeting From: <barbaralomas~sbcglobal.net> To: "'Jean Parks'" <Jparks~bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 7/5/2006 4:17 PM Subject: RE: Special Planning & Development Committee Meeting Thank you, I'll be there. From: Jean Parks [mailto:Jparks@bakersfieldcity.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:58 AM To: Barbara Lomas Subject: Special Planning & Development Committee Meeting A Special Planning and Development Committee meeting has been scheduled for Monday, July loth at 1:00 p.m. in the City Manager's conference room (due to scheduling conflicts with the next regular meeting date). The "Increased Public Notice on Development Projects that Require Hearings" is scheduled to come back under deferred business and we would like to invite you to attend. file://C:~Documents and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 7/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting From: "Sue Benham" <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> To: "Jean Parks" <Jparks@bakersfieldcity. us> Date: 6/22/2006 8:49 PM Subject: Re' Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting Jean, Maybe we should try to find a date before Mike leaves on July 177 I'm not looking at my calendar right now, but do you see any dates available? Thanks, Sue ..... Original Message ..... From: Jean Parks To: ~e?__h.~_.m__@ s b c g I o b _a_[..__n_e_._t. Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:11 PM Subject: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting Sue, John asked me check on moving Planning & Development Committee meeting up one day to Monday, July 24th. However, in checking calendars, Mike Maggard will be on vacation from July 17th thru July 25th and then going directly to the League meeting. Would you like to try to find another date for the July 25th meeting? Or, would you like to wait and cancel when it gets closer? Or, move it to the 24th if okay with David? Please advise. Thank you. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 6/23/2006 From: . <SBENHAM@sbcglobal.net> To: "Jean Parks" <Jparks@bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 6/27/2006 9:45:13 AM Subject: Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting I could do it the 10th, but not the 13th. Isn't Mike out of town that week? --- Original Message --- From: "Jean Parks" <Jparks@bakersfieldcity.us> To: <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting >Sue, >Sorry for not getting back to you sooner-waited for John to return >today. After checking the calendar, Monday, July 10th or Thursday, July >13th at 1:00 pm are possible dates for Planning and Development if >either works with your calendar. I have not checked with David or >Mike. >Jean >>>> "Sue Benham" <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> 6/25/2006 8:45 PM >>> >Jean, >I'm out of town from July 29-August 12. >Thanks, >Sue > ..... Original Message ..... >FrOm: Jean Parks >To: sbenham@sbcglobal.net >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:45 AM >Subject: Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting > >Sue, >Conferred with John. The staff he needs to prepare for the meeting >will not be back in time to have a meeting the second week of July. >Could we try for July 31' or August 1st? How is your schedule? That >would still leave 3 weeks until the scheduled meeting on August 22. >Jean > >>>> "Sue Benham" <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> 6/22/2006 8:44 PM >>> >Jean, liJean Parks - Fwd: Change of Contact Info Page 1 It From: Rhonda Smiley To: Alan Christensen; Alan Tandy; Amber Lawrence; Jean Parks; John W. Stinson; Para McCarthy Date: 6/27/2006 10:04:36 AM Subject: Fwd: Change of Contact Info FYI ...... >>> "Brian J. Todd" <Land-Use-Consultant@bak.rr. com> 06/26/06 6:05 PM >>> Dear Friend: For your convenience, I am enclosing my change in contact information. Please call on my if you need professional help with a project, review of an ordinance, fee analysis, school impact fees, or general representation in local government affairs in Bakersfield or Kern County. Cordially, Brian Todd BRIAN TODD CONSULTING Government Affairs and Legislative Advocacy Services "13 Years Serving Land Owners, Developers and Builders" P.O. Box 1578 Bakersfield, CA 93302-1578 <mailto:Land-Use-Consultant> Land-Use-Consultant <mailto:b~bak.rr. com>@ <mailto: b~,bak, rr. com> bak.rr.com (661) 428-0965 >Maybe we should try to find a date before Mike leaves on July 177 >I'm not Ioo,king at my calendar right now, but do you see any dates >available? >Thanks, >Sue > ..... Original Message ..... >From: Jean Parks >To: sbenham@sbcglobal.net >Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:11 PM >Subject: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting >Sue, >John asked me check on moving Planning & Development Committee meeting >up one day to Monday, July 24th. However, in · checking calendars, Mike >Maggard will be on vacation from July 17th thru July 25th and then going >directly to the League meeting. >Would you like to try to find another date for the July 25th meeting? >Or, would you like to wait and cancel when it gets closer? Or, move it >to the 24th if okay with David? >Please advise. Thank you. Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting From: "Sue Benham" <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> To: "Jean Parks" <Jparks@bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 6/25/2006 8:50 PM Subject: Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting Jean, I'm out of town from July 29- August 12. Thanks, Sue ..... Original Message ..... From: Jean Parks To: s be n h a m @ s~b~g!o~b_a._.i., tie. t Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting Sue, Conferred with John. The staff he needs to prepare for the meeting will not be back in time to have a meeting the second week of July. Could we try for jUly 31 or August lst? How is your schedule? That would still leave 3 weeks until the scheduled meeting on August 22. Jean >>> "Sue Benham" <~b~_n_b~_~.@_sbcg.lobal.net> 6/22/2006 8:44 PM >>> Jean, Maybe we should try to find a date before Mike leaves on July 179 I'm not looking at my calendar right now, but do you see any dates avail@ble? Thanks, Sue ..... Original, Message ..... From: Jean Parks To: sben ham@_sbc_global, net Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:11 PM Subject: Rescheduling Planning & Development Committee Meeting Sue, John asked me check on moving Planning & Development Committee meeting up one day to Monday, July 24th. However, in checking calendars, Mike Maggard will be on vacation from July 17th thru July 25th and then going directly to the League meeting. Would you like to try to find another date for the ~luly 25th meeting? Or, would you like to wait and cancel when it gets closer? Or, move it to the 24th if okay with David? Please advise. Thank you. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 6/26/2006 Planning and Development Committee Meeting - 25' April 2006 Please accept my apologies for being unable to appear in person. I am submitting the two attached sketches to add some clarity to the concerns previously outlined. One sketch shows Harris Road and Akers Road directly connecting many neighborhoods to Silvercreek Park. In contrast, the deleted collector segments of Pacheco and Progress Roads show how access to Silvercreek Park is limited to arterial streets such as Gosford Road and Panama Lane. The other sketch shows some of the characteristics of each type of street. Both Harris and Akers are designated collector streets with widths, speeds, and traffic volumes that make them seem relatively safe as bicycle routes. These routes seem aligned with the goals of 'walkable' communities. Pedestrian and bicycle routes along Gosford Raod and Panama Lane do not have the same cachet. The 0nly 'guaranteed' through streets in new developments are Collectors and Arterials. Although both forms exist on the general plan, collectors seem to need special protection. A simple policy change to uphold the status of Collector Streets is all that is being requested. With such a policy, City staff would recommend deletion of Collectors only when non-traffic benefits are fully considered. I hope these bits of information are useful, and assist in your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ted Blockley AIA ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March 8, 2006 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent I ITEM: lA. nnn. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ DATE: February 16, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY ~ CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: Report from the Planning Commission regarding request for direction on increased public noticing for development projects requiring hearings (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the memo from the Chair of the Planning Commission and refer this issue to the Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND: At the January 19, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed increased public noticing for development projects requiring hearings. The attached memo from Barbara Lomas, Chair of the Planning Commission, discusses the City's current notification policy and contains recommended revisions to the policy. Based on input Commissioners have been receiving from the public, Chairperson Lomas is of the opinion that due to the City's growing population and increased public interest in development, the current notification procedures may better serve the public if the notification radius were expanded. It is recommended by the Planning Commission that the notification radius be expanded from the current 300 feet to 500 feet. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that the notice be posted on the project site by the applicant within 15 days of application submittal in order to better inform affected neighborhoods of upcoming projects. In order to implement the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to the City's notification policy, amendments to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 (Zoning Ordinance - Hearing Notices) and Section 16.16.060 (Subdivision Ordinance - Public Hearing) would be required. It would also require adoption of an administrative policy by the Planning Department to apply the expanded notification radius to General Plan Amendments. The Planning Commission has stated it is willing to offer assistance in developing policies and ordinances and conducting hearings, as appropriate, on Council's direction. February 16, 2006, 1:38PM S:\Dana\admin~2006\Mar\3-8-pc noticing policy.dot B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORAND'UM , January 31, 2006 TO: Honorable· Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council FROM: Barbara Lomas, Planning Commission Chair ~ SUBJECT: Request for direction regarding increased Public Notice on development Projects which require hearings. ' . The planning Commission is concerned that with the City's growing population and~public . interest in development, the City should evaluate its hearing notice procedures, ctiri-~ntlY, the City provides notice as required bY law, however, based on input we hear from the Public this procedure appears inadequate in some instances. The Planning Commission requests that the City Council refer the issue of public notice to their Planning and Development Committee for consideration to expand notice procedures. The Planning Commission recommends that the notice radius be expanded from 300 feet to 500 feet and that the property be posted by the applicant within 15 days of application submittal to · notify neighborhoods of the proposed project (see attached). This revision to the notification process would require amendments to Bakersfield Municipal code sections 17.64.050 (Zoning Ordinance - Hearing NotiCes) and 16.16.060 (Subdivision Ordinance'- Public Hearing) and adoption of an administrative policy by the Planning Department to use this notice procedure for General Plan Amendments also. The Planning Commission offers assiStance in developing policies, ordinances and conducting hearings as appropriate based on Council direction. J/VES:LMoviushNPH Direction memo\jm POSTING OF PROJECT AREA Within 15 calendar days after submittal of a General Plan Amendment, zone change or subdivision application, the applicant shall post a sign(s)giving notice of the proposed project . The notice shall be posted on each street frontage of the subject property. One sign shall be posted and evenly spaced for each 300 feet or less of street frontage. The sign shall remain posted until the City has taken final action on the proposed Project, or the application is withdrawn. The size of each sign shall be 4'x 8' with a minimum of 6 inch letters. The content of each sign shall include at a minimum the following language. NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDENT, ZONE CHANGE OR'SUBDIVISION From: To: · (Use Plain Language) OR. To construct single family/multiple family dwelling units · ' (Number) Questions? Developer's Phone Number · Bakersfield Planning Department Phone Number Case # S:/Forms/Posting of Project/12/23/05/jm From: Rhonda Smiley ~ To: John W. Stinson Date: 3/23/2006 10:34:07 AM Subject: Planning and Develoment Committee FYI - Sue has approved the meeting cancellation for this.month, as Mike M. can not attend. Athis request, I called Steve Hollis.to let him know it would be postponed for another month. In the meantime, Steve Walker has prepared a report as a result of the e-mail Hollis had sent previously. Raul and Steve will be prepared to speak at the next meeting. Hollis asked to receive the meeting agenda via e-mail at 2 addresses: shollis~,direcway, com shollis~,worldoil.net Also, there was a P&D referral from Sue last night to explore limiting the # of GPA cycles and coordinate other concepts within the committee. I'll put Walker's report and related material in your P&D binder. CC: Jean Parks Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - Planning and Development From: Amber Lawrence To: Jean Parks Date: 3/20/2006 3:32 PM Subject: Planning and Development CC: Alan Tandy; John W. Stinson Mike says he is falling behind at work and does not think he can make it to next week's meeting. He asks that you run the agenda by Sue and ask her if she believes that it could be handled without him. Thank you. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jparks\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HTM 3/21/2006 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~).._-- ~-~; ~O ~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: 6 ~ ~'' ~ ~-t~"~ ~._ ~"~o ~,. ~"~. ~"-~- .'~l "~ Phone: ~ ~- ~ ~ Fa~e-mail: ~ ~o~0~'~ ~ Subject: ~ ~ ~. ~e ~ Planning and Development Committee Meeting 1/31/06 Outline of Staff assignments 1. Park Standards - Committee Recommendation: Staff to meet with volunteer committee to discuss possible costs and benefits of changing the park standards and credits. Review to include pocket parks, community parks, maintenance issues, cost and revenue alternatives including homeowner association funding, maintenance district fees and park fee credits (one or two meetings) Committee to include: David Couch, Brian Todd (BIA), Bruce Freeman (Caste & Cooke), Dana Karcher (Tree Foundation), Dave Domohowski PDL Consultants), Dave McArthur (NOR Parks & Rec), Donna Carpenter, Bill Cooper (Kern River Parkway Foundation), Matt Pontes (Kem County Parks &Rec), Dianne Hoover. 2. Planning, development and funding of community parks, regional parks, bike paths and trails - Committee Recommendation: Staff to proceed with second recommendation to focus on a trails plan for developing areas and a.report back on use of rail corridors for trails. Also to review providing developers credits for providing trail corridors. Departments assigned: Parks and Recreation and Planning to determine scope of trails plan for developing areas including cost and staff time needed to accomplish and possible use of credits for dedication of land for trails. Public Works to provide information on use of rail corridors for trails. 3. Subdivision Tree Requirements - Committee Recommendation: Staff to take committee and public comments back to Planning Commission subcommittee regarding their proposal. To include possibly using lineal footage as standard for how many trees would be required, voluntary vs. mandatory sidewalk standard, right of way, cost and maintenance issues, funding of maintenance through homeowners assoc, maintenance districts, special tree assessment, and liability issues. Staff to meet with BIA and Tree Foundation and determine ways to solicit public input. Departments assigned: Parks and Recreation to refine maintenance costs and funding alternatives. City Attorney to determine alternatives to limit city liability. Parks and Recreation and Planning to work with Planning Commission committee and meet with BIA and Tree Foundation discuss public input options. 4. Hillside Ordinance - Committee Recommendation: Staff to continue work on ordinance with Planning Commission and include analysis of viewsheds from bike path, soccer park and trails as applicable. Departments assigned: Planning to continue to work with Planning Commission on ordinance refinements and complete viewshed analysis as requested by Committee. PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under PUblic Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the ,Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: ~'~AI~I:,~.~ ~:~d~"~' ~ '~,'~ ~,~ AdUre, : Phone: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: ~"~'~ !/~- Address: Phone: Fax/e-mail: Subject: L./.....~_. ~), ~ ! / PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date J/~' [ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majodty vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date /- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~.~ ~jt~' ~{/t,~W' Company/ .T_~/~/~iAj/~£~~ {~/~-' ~. Organization: Address: ~/~O~ ~-~' ,~. ~ ~[ Phone: ~ ~' ~ ~ ,~-~_~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: ~. ~'~ [['~-~t~[~'l~'~,. PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date I.'~. ~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson@ bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 1 lk vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, ' Steve Hollis file://C:X,Documents and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .]ohn W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee schedUled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://C:'~Documents and Settings\jwstinsonXLocal Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006' Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 11 k vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based.on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:XDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501Tru~un Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052fax jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 11 k vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large pementage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinsonkLocal SettingsXTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you' need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstJnson@bakersfieldcib/.us] Sent: Wednesday, .January 25, 2006 3.0:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinsonkLocal Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again, the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, 'February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 1 lk vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If notfor the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .~ohn W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us] Sent: Wednesday, .January 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://CSDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss. Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM - Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 11 k vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinsonkLocal SettingskTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .lohn W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcJty. us] Sent; Wednesday, .lanuary 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again, the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 1 lk vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. · The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local SettingskTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity. us] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 John W. Stinson - RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. IIIII From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us> Date:. 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again, the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 1 lk vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://CSDocuments and Settings\jwstinsonXLocal SettingsXTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~'~-~ Company/ Organization: Address: ~i~C~) ~/~-~t'~o ,~. Phone: (~( ~4~-IC::~ ~-Z.- Fax/e-mail: Subject: ~c~\<:~.o~n,o PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Council Meeting Date You are invited to address the Council under Public Statements on any matter related to City business. Comments on matters set for a hearing this evening will be received during the hearing on that matter only and no Public Statements Speaker's Card is necessary. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, Sot any one subject. Council may, by majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken other than referring the issue to a committee or staff. Any person who has not notified the Clerk by filling out a Speaker's Card shall not be allowed to address the Council during Public Statements, unless approved upon motion by the Council after being notified of the name of the person and. the subject matter to be addressed. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the City Clerk before the meeting begins. Address: /4D 7~ 0 /'~__,~'J~/~ ~'. Telephone: <~o~-~.~) / Subject-(be ~peci;ic)~ ~:~ ~i,~'"..,(~ /"*o~2 ~..o /* .//'/ Agendi~ Item # Staff: White: Clerk Yellow: Mayor Pink: Manager Gold: Dept. M.C. 2.04. 110. G.C. Section 54954.3 (a) & (b) From: Amber Lawrence To.- Jean Parks Date: 1/17/2006 11:11:55 AM Subject: Planning and Development Sue asks that you contact Mike and David, and see if they would mind moving the 31 st meeting to 2:00. She had something come up at work and it would be a problem for her to be here at 1:00. Please contact her with the answer. Thanks. CC: Alan Tandy; John W. Stinson City of Bakersfield Planning and Development Committee Volunteer Park Standards Committee PHONE FAX CELL David Couch 326-3765 Councilmember Dianne Hoover 326-3014 City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Brian Todd 633-1316 633-1371 BIA of Kern County 1415 18th Street- Suite 420 Bakersfield CA 93301 Bruce Freeman 664-6544 Castle and Cooke P.O. Box 11165 Bakersfield CA 93389-1165 Dana Karcher 325-6650 331-8352 Tree Foundation of Kern 2300 Truxtun Avenue - Suite 207 Bakersfield CA 93301 Dave Dmohowski 510-8311 Project Design Consultants (Landscape Architects) Dave McArthur 392-2000 North of the River Recreation and Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield CA 93308 Donna Carpenter 837-0000 Sikand Engineering 4017 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield CA 93309 Bill Cooper 393-0763 Kern River Parkway Committee Matt Pontes 868-7021 Kern County Parks and Recreation PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2006 N~EET~NG SCHEDULE ~ P~anning Development ~<~eetir~gs Committee CITY COUNCIL ~ BEG]NS (~ 5:15 P~ ~ C~TY COUNCIL BUDGET PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED AT 6:30 P~ Monday% ~ Noon, Wednesday's ~ 5:15pm Hearing Holidays - Cfty Ha]~ Closed Jdnt C~ty/County ~eet~n9 JANUARY FEE MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE ~2 ~3 ~ 20 2~ 27 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER { DECEMBER F S S M T W TH F S 3 4 I 2 ~; ~ 3i 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 14 15 16 ~~;~ 171 18 19 20 21 22 23 31i Adopted December 12, 2005 GENERAL PLAN PARKS ELEMENT CHAPYP-R X!- PARKS ELEMENT STATUTORY REQUIREMEN'r~ The Parks Element is an optional element of the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code' Section 65303. Cities and counties often prepare them due to the concerns of providing sufficient park land for residents, establishing a relationship bet'ween park Space and the city's entire open space resource, and development. The Parks Element sets policies and minimum standards for the amount and quality of land devoted to parks. Park land is generally defined as any usable area of land or water designated on state, regional or local open space plans as open space or park land and is activelY used for park and/or leisure recreational purposes with or without charge. O~VERVIEW OF EX, IS'rING CONDITION,~ Parks are generally categorized as either local or regional Local parks generally range from 1-2.5 acres (mini-parkS), to 5-10 acres' (neighborhood parks), and approximately 30 acres (community parks). Local parks generally serve a popuIation within a three- quarter mile radius. Regional parks, on the other hand, can range anywhere from 20 to 1,000 acres, and serve a population living within one hour's distance. The Park Classifications and Standards Section discusses specific policies which establish minimum acreage requirements, utilization, and typical development improvements. Historically, park facilities within the planning area have been supplied by the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, Bear MOuntain Recreation and park District, school districts, colleges, and, most recently,. private developers. The provision of regional parks has been primarily the responsibility of the County of Kern. Figure Xl-1 shows the location of all public parks in the planning area, including local and regional parks. Figure XI-1 provides an inventory of acreages and facilities at all of these locations. PARK RESOURCES 1. Local Parks The City of Bakersfield Geographic Information System shows the current park service. level at 1.88 acre per 1,000 population. This assumed the projected Year 2001 population for the metropolitan area of 402,! 00 people. LEGEND '~ .......................................... , , ~ ~ ~ [ .... ~ ./'-v/ Ci~ ot Bakersfield MetrOpOlitan. Bakersfield Parks I~F__~ __--. ~.'-_~ ....... ~- Xl-2 FIGURE XI-1 CHAPTER Xi PARKS ELEMENT The following table shows the current park acreage/population ratio. Local Park Type Metropolitan Area National Standarrl Mini-parks .0663 ac/l,000 .25-.5 ac/l,000 Neighborhood Parks 1.88 ac/1,000 1-2 ac/1,000 Community Parks 4.94 ac/1,000 5-8 ac/1,000 2. Community Park Centers A community park center is defined as an outdoor and indoor recreationai facitity providing large spaces for a wide range of organized community meeting and sports activities. The nationai standard for community parks and/or centers is I per 25,000 population. With an estimated 2001 population of 402,100, the planning area contains three recreational centers (totaling 81.35 acres),' Martin Luther 'King, Jr. Community Center, Silver Creek Recreation Center and Riverview Community Center. Smaller meeting room facilities dO, however, exist at Greenacres, Heritage, Belie Terrace, Rexland and Sears Parks. 3. Regional Parks The planning area's two regional parks, Kern River County Park and the 'Metro Recreation Center, provide a combined 1,119 acres of regional recreation space. This represents a ratio of about 4.7 acres per thousand population~ ot~er regional parks located oLd. side the planning area, including Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area and Tehachapi Mountain Park also serve planning area residents. PARK CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Development under the following park classifications and standards would'address spatial and topographical requirements, tand availability, types of improvements, service area, funding and maintenance costs. Loca[ parks are to be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 usable acres per 1,000 population. 'Usable" means area that people can use with an emphasis on active and. group ..use. it includes essentially flat land that can be developed for facilities and activity areas. It is not land in very steep slope, land with unusuaily POor soii conditions not suited for park development, land areas subject to periodic flooding, land with unique habitat worthy of preservation or water bodies unsuitable of park recreation _uses or areas impacted adversely by adjacent or nearby land uses. 1, Mini-Parks Mini-parks function as small neighborhood parks in residentially developed areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where acquisition of sufficient acreage for standard neighborhood facilities is prohibitive. The minimum size standard for public mini-parks is 2.5 usabte acres. Mini-parks may also be located in areas to serve commercial uses. CHAPTER Xl -' PARKS ELEMENT ........... ' ....... "" Development improvements of mini-parks would typically consist of playground or tot lot area and equipment, picnic tables, barbecues, fountain, !andsc'aping and security lighting. 2. Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks provide both active and passive recreationat activities for surrounding residential development. The minimum site size standard for neighborhood parks is 10.0 usable acres. The location should provide adequate street frontage, parking and good accessibility. The service area covers the neighborhoods 'within three- quarters (3/4) of a mile of the park site. Development improvements include a variety of "' facilities including single and/or group areas, barbecues, fountains, playground area and equipment, tennis and/or game courts, open turf area, landscaping, parking and security lighting, restroom facilities, parking lots and picnic areas. 3. Community Park Centers Community park centers provide a wide range of recreational opportunities, facilities and equipment servicing the populatfon comprised of several neighborhood units. The pad< would typically have a service area of a 3 to 5 mile walking radius. Joint development and/or use with schools should be recommended. The minimum size standard for community parks is 20 usable aCres. These parks may contain specialized facilities not found in other parks. Typical development includes indoor recreation facilities~ group picnic areas, barbecues, fountains, playgrounds and equipment, tennis and game courts, softbaJl diamonds with lighting and/or other athletic fields, swimming pool, landscaping, parking, secudty lighting and restrooms. 4. Regional Parks · Regional parks serve the population of a large region - usually within an hour travel time. The responsibirrty for these parks generally rest with a county, regional authority or state. Regional parks may range in size from 20 acres to 1,000 acres or more. Features typically found in regional parks include campgrounds, picnic areas, nature study areas and trail systems. In addition, a few of these parks may have scenic 'vistas, gardens, a golf course, sports fields, water features or be retated to items of historical significance or special interest. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES SUMM ,ARY _ Significant issues regarding the planning area's parks and recreation resources are as follows: ~ · In comparison to National Recreation and Park Association standards, ~ there is a shortage of local parks in the planning area~ ~ CHAPTER X! - PARKS ELEMENT *~"~ .... I .... [ ,,I IIIII r, III I?1 I I , Iii [ I! I I ~1 IIII1!,1 ........ II I I II II -- 1Hll I II o The planning area's image stands to benefit from greater a~ention to the design of parks and recreational facilities as well as fr°m efforts to relate recreational facilities to the area's natural resources. · Due to limited tax revenues, it has become increasingly difficult for local governments to provide local parks and recreationai facilities. · Inter-judsdictiona!. coordination should be improved in the provision of park and recreational services so that it results in more consistent standards and less duplication of effort.. -Some parks are supported by maintenance districts while others are supported by the general fund. GOALS AND POLICIE~ The following presents the goals and [~oticies for parks in the planning area. Implementing programs are contained in th~ following sub-section. At the end of each policy is listed in parenthesis a code beginning wfth the letter "1° followed by a number. This code refers to the pertinent implementing program. GOALS 1. Provide parks and recreation facilities to meet the planning area's diverse needs. 2. Supply neighborhood parks at a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons throughout the plan area. 3. Provide four acres of park and reCreation space for each 1,000 persons (based on the most recent census) for general regional recreation opportunity as a minimum standard~ Park and recreational space inctUdes mini-parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. 4. Provide a diversity of programs and facilities to meet the needs of the full range of citizen groups including the etdedy, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged. 5. Coordinate development of park facilities and trail systems throughout the- plan area which enhance the centers concept and complement unique visua~ or naturat resources. 6. Ensure that ail park and recreation facilities are adequately designed, landscaped, and maintained. 7. Require that the costs of park and recreation facilities and programs are bome by those who benefit from and contribute to additionaI demand. 8. Provide safety, accessibility, and compatibility between parks and adjacent residential areas through "good neighbor" park practices. 9. Coordinate efforts by volunteer agencies, civic organizations, private enterprise .and all government entities to assure the provision of a complete range of recreation opportunities for ali residents of the planning area. POLICIES Goals will be achieved through the following ooticies which set more specific directions .- and guide actions. ' 1. Require that neighborhood parks be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 ·population. This requirement may be met all or in part by on-site recreation for such developments as Planned Unit Developments. The City of Bakersfield' may allow credit to meet the neighborhood parks requirement. 2. Allow the formation of special park districts which' provide higher park standards than the minimum stated in Policy I (I-1). 3. Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or in-lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing arias (I-1). 4. Require developers of new subdivisions to show and adhere to park .. locations (depicted on the. Land Use Element). Park locations identified in master plans approved prior to adoption of this general plan are reflected in this plan. Variations may be allowed based on certain constraints. See Policy 6 (I.-9). 5. Establish as a target that mini-parks and neighborhood parks within the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction be situated within three-quarters of a mile of residents they are intended to serve (t-9). 6. Provide additional neighborhood and community pa,ks and recreation acreage in areas substantially developed or in the process of redevelopment or improvement, using a combination of public funds, lieu developers fees, and benefit assessment districts (i-1). 7. Provide mini-parks in developed residential areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where it is impossible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood facilities. Use the same funding mechanisms indicated in Policy 6 (1-1). CHAPTER .X! - PARKS ELEMENT 8. Require the following minimum site size standards in planning 'and acquiring of ~ocal parks and playgrounds: Mini parks (public) - 2.5 usable acres Neighborhood parks/playgrounds - 10.0 usable acres Community park/playfield - 20.0 usable acres These acreages, are intended as ·guides for City and County improvements. Variations may be allowed based on constraints, such as, land availability, naturai obstacles, financing, funding and maintenance costs. The above acreage figures apply to usable acreage. Usable means, an area that people can use with an emphasis on active and group use. It is essentially flat land that can be developed for facilities and activity areas. It is not land steeper than 4 feet horizontal and I foot vertical in Slope, land with unusually poor soil conditions, land subject to flood water stagnation, land with dpadan or otherwise unique habitat worthy of preservation or water bodies or areas impacted adversely by adjacent'or nearby land uses (t-9). 9. Altow neighborhood park. requirements to be met by community parks when community parks are situated within or at the boundaries of neighborhoods and when they provide equivalent facilities (I-9). 10. Encourage schools to make playgrounds and Playfields available to local residents after normal school hours and on weekends (t-7). 11. Evaluate the feasibility of using publicly-owned lands and utility rights'°f- way as recreational faciIities (I-10). 12. Encourage development and maintenance of regional parks 'and rec- reationa! facilities through the cooperation of the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District and the Bear Mountain Recreation Distdct (I-8). 13. Evaluate the feasibility of including new regional parks as a component of proposed groundwater recharge areas (1-10). 14. Plan for and expand regional recreation opportunity in connection with the development and conservation of appropriate areas along the Kern River. 0-4, ~-8). 15. Designate multiple purpose areas for recreation and park use within the . Kern River Plan area and in accordance with the goals and policies in the Kern River Plan Element (I-4). 16. Accommodate social, cultural and ethnic needs in the design and programming of recreational spaces and facilities 0-2). CHAPIER Xl ' PARKS ELEMENT ' 17. Attempt to locate parks and design facilities to meet the needs of aH population segments including children, seniors and the disabled (1-2). 18. Attempt to provide speciai recreational programs for seniors on fixed incomes, latch-key children, and the economically disadvantaged (I-2). 19. Locate and design local park and recreation areas for access to all age groups where practicable. Provide facilities for both active (ptay areas and courts) and passive (turf, walk-ways, trees and picnic facilities where possible) recreational activity (t-2). 20. Operate programs at times convenient to the users (I-2). 21. Establish both. passive and active park development in iocat parks to accommodate programmed activities and droP'in use. Some usable area .should be held as open turf for free play (I-3). 22. Attempt to provide and Promote the use of alternative Public funding for the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities in Iow and moderate income neighborhoods in which there is a recognized shortage of parks (1-'[). 23. Encourage the development of parks adjacent to schools in order to provide a wider range of programs (I-7). 24. Monitor program needs .through surveys of neighborhood residents or other pa.~cipation mechanisms and through periodic reviews of park and recreational needs (1-2). 25. Promote, the preservation of existing parks and encourage the · development of other facilities near downtown (1-8). 26. Encourage the further development of the City of Bakersfield's specific trails plan (1-11). 27. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential and commercial uses (I-I 1). 28. Encourage the establishment of equestrian trials where they link. residential development to the Kern River in areas of the northeast and northwest where horses are permitted by zoning (I-2, 1-11). 29. Design equestrian trails, hiking and bicycling rights-of-way to minimize user conflicts between them (i-2, 1-11). 30. Evaluate the feasibility of using uti!ity easements for recreational activity m~ L Il,., I~111 ~'~ UIIIII I IIIIIIi,I" I ,, Irrar ,r,, ,.I J IIII1! I II III I -. IIt~ ! CHAPTER Xl - PARKS ELEMENT ...... '"i,',, , " IIII Ir III r III I II I HIrlllllllllrlll I1 II1,1 rIllfllrrllllllll ,, 31. Establish a program of design and improvement review, landscape development, and maintenance of parks, city and county building grounds and public works projects, with quality standards established commensurate with intended function and relative impact on surrounding area (t-3). 32. Encourage variety in the design of park facilities to enhance the lifestyle of residents to be.served (I-2, I-3). 33. Monitor the parkland dedication ordinance wffh in-lieu fee provisions (t-1). 34. Encourage coordination in the acquisition, development and use. of parks and schools to avoid duplication of facilities and provide economic use of public funds (t-3, i-5). 35. Encourage the development of recreation programs by public agencies and sPod',s organizations to involve more children and adults in outd°°r recreation activity. Use volunteers to operate and maintain programs whenever possible (t-2). 36. Monitor the official park acquisition program to meet current and future needs. The program includes direct input for capital budgeting purposes including the scheduling of park dedication. The program is 'reviewed periodically with respect to changing growth rates and general plan policies (I-1). 37. Establish a formal mechanism by which the city may accept gifts and dedications of parks and open space (I-I). 38. Consider the use of 'eminent domain where siting of a park is required to serve neighborhood needs for parks and recreation facilities (I-1).' 39. Consider the formation of Community Facilities Districts, especially in newly developing areas* (I-1). 40. Consider the use of special taxes*' for financing services or facilities (t-1). 41. Provide for ~-he creation of benefit assessment districts for park. acquisition, development and maintenance. These districts should conform as closely as possible to benefit service areas (I-1). 42. Encourage a community-wide parks and recreation district to equitably distribute support for the park system (t-1, t-6). - PARKS ENT .,~3. Encourage the development of private and commerciaI recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements where such facilities 'are consistent with planned development and offer expanded recreation opportunities to the pubiic (1-2). 44. Study the feasibility of a recreation and land management program allowing for the generation of supplemental revenue to offset the cost of necessary further land acquisition, development and operational cost. This could incIude establishing concessions, rentals user fees and land leases (I-10). 45. Develop lighted playing fields on community park sites (t-3). 46. Permit major traffic generating activ;~ies on community park sites only (~-3). 47. Community parks should be located adjacent to or near arterials. Neighborhood parks 'should be tocated adjacent to collector or toca! streets, rather than arterial streets (I-1, 1-3). (CC 11/6/91) 48. Situate swimming pools near high schools, wherever possib!e, and with convenient access to elementary schools (I-3). 49. Design vegetation, earth form and actMty areas to bUffer noise, light, etc., from adjacent residents (1-3). 50. Allow the physicai integration of canals in park areas where design measures can be incorporated to ensure public safety (I-3). 51. Enforce all regulations regarding public safety, littering and ddnking in public parks (1-6). 52. Ensure that all park facilities be developed consistent with policies in applicable planning documents and elements of the General Plan (I-8). 53. Coordinate the provision of park faci[ities with other public services and facilities, especially schoots and public roads (I-7, I-8). 54. Coordinate the location, planning, and functional uses of all park and. recreational facilities with affected local governmental entities and where feasible, promote joint acquisition and/or development to assure effective coverage of ali needs (I-8). 55. Seek out and encourage the provision of volunteer assistance from civic organizations, special interest groups, and individuals to provide program leadership or facility development to augment recreation opportunities (1-2). CHAPTER X! PARKS ELEMENT 56. Periodically evaluate the planning area to evaluate park deficiencies. 0-2) 57. Central Park should be expanded to facilitate the City of Bakersfield in identifying and recognizing its historical heritage, the heart of histodc Bakersfield, and to enhance the urban environment of the downtown area. 0-12) * The Meilo-Roos CommLinity Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes loca~ governments to levy. speciat taxes within newly created Community Facilities Distr~cts. The Act also authorizes local governments to issue bonds backed by these special taxes. Funds may be used to pay for capital facilities, including parks. Commun~ Facilities Districts are established by a two-thirds vote of the residents of the proposed district. Special taxes are taxes collected and earmarked for a special purpose, such as a particular kind of service or facility, rather than being deposited in the general fund. For capital acquisition, such as paddand, the Melto-Roos ACt provides the most practical way to levy a special tax. Under Proposition 13, the levy'of a special tax requires support from two-thirds of the affected voters. IMPLEMENTATION The following are programs to be carried out by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern to implement the goals and policies of the Parks Element. This listing is not to limit the scope of implementation of this plan. State law requires that planning agencies recgmmend various methOdsof implementation of the general plan as part of their on- going duties. 1. Establish and implement an official park acquis~on program to meet current and future needs. Such a program shall include the following actions: a) Establish a mechanism to identify potential park sites. b) Identify funding strategies to pay for acquisition of new parks with funds reserved from the following sources. - City and County Genera~ Funds - Tax increment funds (in redevelopment project areas) - Developer assessments (through use of Quimby Act or other similar funding mechanisms) - E~usiness a.qd fund-raising contribb~ons Metio-Roos Community FaciIities Act CHAPTER X! - PARKS ELEMENT~ - Special taxes Benefit Assessment Districts - State and Federal grants and toans Donations, endowments or trust, funds c) Implement the parkland dedication ordinance with in-lieu fee provisions where developers contribute on a per unit bas.~s d) Establish a dedication program where gifts of park!and and/or recreational facilities may be accepted. e) Consider the use of eminent domain only where there is insufficient vacant land .and where the need for parks and recreation facilities has been identified. f) Establish the administrative and legal mechanisms to allow for the creation of benefit assessment districts, community facilities districts, and special taxes, particularly for the development of community centers. g) Utilize generat funds for park acquisition, development and maintenance in the following instances: ' Where developer's fees and gran~ funds are insufficient to purchase land for parks; - Where residents of low income areas cannot afford to contribute to benefit assessment districts for acquisition, development or maintenance. 2. Consider recreational programming opportunities when developing park sites. a) Work with the private sector to promOte: a) the development more outdoor recreatiOn ~ and sports programs for children and. adults; and b) the development of private and commercial recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements. b) Communicate with-civic organizations, special interest groups, and individuals to seek volunteer program leadership. CHAPTER X!- PARKS ELEMENT In evaluating programs and park design, include the following: - Pedodic reports on level of service and service demand at existing facilities; - Periodic public hearings regarding the adequacy of parks and recreation services and facilities; - Periodically, do community surveys and market analyses · to assess needs and demands. c) Coordinate park programming with the City of Bakersfiefd's Specific Trails Plan. 3. Establish a program of design and improvement review, landscape development, and maintenance of parks, recreational buildings, and community facilities. 4. FollOw procedures outlined in the Kern River Plan Element for designating multiple purpose areas for recreation use within the Kern River Plan area. 5. Review park and recreational facility proposals and programs· on a regular basis to ensure complementary - as opposed to duplicative -.services, programs, and facilities. 6. WOrk with the police and sheriff's departments to promote enforcement of all laws regarding public safety,-littering and ddnking in public parks: 7. Meet with school districts to discuss possible joint use of school facilities for public recreation. 8.Discuss with all appropriate government agencies the possible establishment of an interjufisdictional body whose function is to: a)Coordinate the development and maintenance of parks and recreationaJ facilities with other public services. b) Monitor consistency of ali planning documents which govern park and recreation development. 9. Modify the subdivision and building ordinances to: a) Require that locat parks be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 popuiation. b) Allow developers (within the city) neighborhood park credit as follows: ,q III I i ,111111,,11 IIII ~,' I I , 11111 I CHAPTER X! - PARKS ELEMENT ..... 1) Up to seven tenths (0.7) of one acre per 1,000 population credit for on-s~te recreation or park-like development in P.U.D.s, open spaces, or publicly owned Iands; . 2) Up to one and one-half (1.5) acre per 1,000 .population credit for on-site recreation or park-like development located within land encumbered with electrical transmission tine easements and incorporated as a' functional design component of the residential development. c) Require developers to show park locations on development plans. d) Establish as a target mini-parks and neighborhood parks within the City of BakerSfield's jurisdiction be accessibly located within three-quarters of a mile of residents they are intended to serVe. e) Require, where feasible, parks be developed with the following minimum acreage standards: Mini-parks 2.5 usable acres Neighborhood Parks 10.0 usable acres Community Parks 20.0 usable acres; f) Allow neighborhood park acreage requirements to be met by community parks when community parks are within or at b0undades of neighborhoods. g) Neighborhood parks may range in size from 6 to 10 acres at the discretion of the Director' of Recreation and Parks. Reason for a size less .than 10 acres may include Master park planning for a given area, land availability in areas with fragmented' ownership or restrictions to a typical park service area. I0. Conduct studies in order to evaluate the feasibility of the following: a)The use of publicly-owned lands and utility rights-of-way as public open space. _ b)The inclusion of new regional parks as a component of existing and proposed groundwater recharge areas. c) A recreation and ~and management program allowing for the generation of supplemental revenue to offset the cost of necessary further land acquisition, development, and operational COSTS. 1 I. Update and implement the Bikeways Master Plan adopted by the City of Bakersfield and COunty of Kern. Periodically review and update the City of Bakersfield's Specific Trails Plan. 12. a. To expand and enhance Central Park,-pursue the assistance of adjacent property owners, civic organizations, special interest groups, and interested individuals in the preparation of a Central Park master plan. The master plan should reflect the ideas expressed for the park in the May 11-!7, 2001 Downtown Design Charrette Report. b. Pursue the adoption of a Central Park master plan. PARK LAND Chapter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF FEES, OR BOTH FOR THE ... Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield t~unidpai Code . ^ Up ~< Previous >> Next * Main + Expand '~ Search #' Print } ' :- ,. Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Reg~u]~tj0n__s_ Chapter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF FEES, OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 15.80.010 Purpose. 15.80.020 Definitions. 15.80.030 Park land reservation and dedication authority. 15.80.060 Requirements for dedication. 15.80.080 Formula for fees in-lieu of land dedication, facili~. 15.80.130 ~me for d~ication and/or fee. 15.80.140 Disposiaon of fees. 15.80.1~0 Exemptions. http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- l 5 80 9/12/2005 15.80.010 Purpose. Page I of 1 gakersfield Municipal Code -, ^ Up ~< Previous ,, Next * Main 7 Search # Print ) Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Regulations _C_h_apter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND,?_AY~_N_T Q_F_FEES, OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 15.80.010 Pu rp~os_~_ The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing an orderly process for the dedication, reservation and acquisition of park land within the city, pursuant to the authority granted by Section 66477 of the Government Code of'the State of California and Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic- 15-ii- 15 80-15 80 0 l 0 9/12/2005 15.80.020 Definitions. Page I of I Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up ,~ Previous ~:, Next ~: Main ? Search ,~ Print -l-i ti e_ _i_5___B_U I L ~_I_N_ ~G S AND I_I_...N_.i_s_ceLla n ~.o__u_~s__R_e_§ u la tio n s _Ch~p_te_r_!S&0 D_E~ !_C_ .A_?I_ _O__~__O_F_~__N.D RECREATION LAND 15.80.020 Definitions. The words and phrases in this chapter shall have the following meanings: A. Advisory agency means the planning commission for all proposed subdivisions pursuant to Section 15.80.050. The city engineer, or his designee shall constitute the advisory agency for any parcel map waiver. B. Average persons per dwelling unit (APPDU) means the number of persons per dwelling unit by unit type as determined by the most recent available federal decennial census. C. Fair market value is defined in Section 15.80.100 which requires a written appraisal report acceptable to the planning director; except as further defined in Section 15.80.080C in the case where a park, which serves a subject subdivision, has been acquired by the city prior to said subdivision. D. Subdivider means a person, firm, corporation, partnership or association who proposes to divide, divides or causes to be divided real property into a subdivision for himself or for others. E. Multiple-service medical and recovery care facility means a facility that includes skilled nursing beds, assisted living and independent living apartments, described as follows: 1. Skilled nursing is commonly known as nursing homes providing around the clock nursing care staffed by licensed administrators, nurses, nurse assistants, registered dieticians, activity directors and staff development and education. Skilled nursing facilities generally offer care one step below a general acute hospital. 2. Assisted living provides a level of personal care primarily to serve the ambulatory, but frail client in a residential living environment where residents receive individualized assistance, supportive services and health care, such as requiring assistance in one or more activities such as providing medication, housework, meal preparation, eating, shopping, dressing and bathing. The level of care is a median between nursing home and independent (congregate) living. 3. Independent living units, also known as congregate care, are a self-contained apartment which includes a kitchen, and has supportive services such as meal service, housekeeping, transportation, nursing, medical, and social and recreational activities which are available for residents. An independent living unit is defined as a residential dwelling unit which is subject to this chapter. (Ord. 3896 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic: 15-ii- 15_80-15 80 020 9/12/2005 15.80.030 Park land reservation and dedication authority. Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up ,~ Previous ,,> Next ~ Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Regulations Cha. pter 1S.80 DEDICATION OF LAN~_Pg~_E__N-E~._Efi. E_E~__OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 1-~-.8-~-.~-3~-~-~a~r-~a-?.-d-r-e-s-e-rv-a-ti-~p~a~.~-e~!.c-.a-ti-~n-~-au-th~- d~'__~ ................................................... The advisory agency shall have the authority to locate, require reservation, dedication of real property or a fee inqieu, or a combination thereof, for the purpose of supplying public parks and recreation facilities pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic=l 5-ii~l 5 80-15 80 030 9/12/2005 15.80.040 Requirements. Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up ~ Previous >~ Next * Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT[ON II. Miscellaneous Reg__uJ~ig_n~ _Chap!e_r_l_5,_80_ DEDI_.C~A_~ON__OF__L~__ND_,_P_A_Y.F_I_E_~:[_.__O~. FE_E~,_._OR B~_H. F_Q_R__T.H_E___P_U_R_POSE_S__O_F___P_~_R_K__S__A.~_~ RECREATION LAND 15.80.040 Requ_i_r_~e~n~s~. ............................. ~ .......................................................................................... A. Subdivisions. At the time of approval of the tentative map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver dividing land for residential use, the advisory agency shall determine, pursuant to this chapter, the land required for dedication, reservation and/or in-lieu fee payment. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver, the subdivider shall dedicate, reserve land, pay a fee in-lieu, or a combination thereof, at the option of the advisory agency, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in this chapter. However, where there is a large lot tentative or parcel map, such as lots consisting of approximately twenty acres or more, with the intention of future subsequent subdivision, the requirements of this chapter may be deferred until the time of subsequent subdivision, subject to the advisory agency making the following findings: 1. The subdivider has submitted to the advisory agency a written statement indicating the intention to further subdivide each parcel or lot in accordance with state and local regulations. 2. Deferral of the requirements of this chapter until further subdivision will provide the advisory agency more information to more accurately determine the location of the park, acreage, configuration and access to the park. 3. Deferral of the requirements of this chapter is not a detriment to the public health, welfare or safety. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode, us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic=l 5-ii- 15_80-15 80 040 9/12/2005 15.80.050 General standard. Page 1 of I Bakersfield M~nicipa~ Code ^ Up ~ Previous ,> Next * Main v Search # Print ~.~!_e._15 B_UIkDINGS A_N_D CON _SSI_gU. Q-L-!_._O_N~ II. Misce]l_a_Be_o_u__s_R_e_g_u ations Chapter 1S.80 DEDICATION OF LAND~_PAYMENT OF FEES_, OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREA_TION LAND 15.80.050 General standard. A. Tt is hereby found and determined the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that two and one-half acres of usable real property for each one thousand persons (calculated at .0025 acres per person) who will reside in the city as a result of proposed development be devoted to park and recreational purposes. B. All new single one family and multiple family dwelling subdivisions, parcel map and parcel map waivers within the city shall be subject to this chapter, except as indicated in Section 15.80.190. C. The amount of land dedication or fees paid is based upon the residential density set forth in Section 15.80.070 herein, which shall be determined on the basis of the general standard, type of subdivision, parcel map or parcel map waiver, and the average persons per dwelling unit. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) h~tp://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15 80-15 80 050 9/12/2005 15.80.060 Requirements for dedication. Page I of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code "Up ,~ Previous >> Next * Main ? Search # Print litle 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION I_I_. M i_s c e [!~ 0 .e_o_u_s _ _R_.e_ g_u_ [a_t_i_o_~_s_ _Chap}er L5~._80 D__E._D_!~CA__TIQ_N__QF LA _N~,_.PAYME_N__T__gE_EE_ES,._O_g_~O~U EOR -[UE. PU..gPOSES O_E_BABK$__AND RECREATION LAND Lands to be dedicated or reserved for park and/or recreational purposes shall be suitable, in the opinion of the advisory agency in location, topography, environmental characteristics and development potential as it relates to the intended use. The primary intent of this section shall be construed to provide the land for functional park and recreation units of community or neighborhood service. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § i (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic=l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 060 9/12/2005 15.80.070 Formula for dedication of land. . Page 1 of I Bakersfield Munidpal Code "Up ~, Previous ~;- Next :~' Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Reg_u_!_a.tjQ~n_s Chap_t_e_r 15_._8_0 D_E_D[C__A_.._TI_O_._N_.C)_F__LA_~ND_,___P_AY_M__E~_T__O__F_ FE_E_~,~__C)_.R_B_~_O_~_H_ F_QB.T~_E_~Ug_P~SES OF_p_&R_KS___A_N_~ RECREATION LAND 15.80.070 Formula for dedication of land. A. The subdivider shall dedicate land so that a park and its development shall be sufficient in size, topography and design that bears a reasonable relationship to serve the present and future needs of the residents of the subdivision and be consistent with the policies of the General Plan. B. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: TABLE 1 Park Land Dedication Formula Number of x APPDU = Amount of Dwelling Acre(s) for Units Park Land Dedication C. The average person per dwelling unit shall be maintained by the planning director and may be amended from time to time based on the most recent available federal decennial census. ",~ D. For the purposes of this section, the number of new dwelling units shall be based upon the number of buildable parcels indicated on the subdivision, when in an area zoned for one dwelling unit per parcel. When all or part of the subdivision is located in an area zoned for more than one dwelling unit per parcel, and the subdivision is for the development of multiple family dwellings the number of proposed dwelling units in :the area so zoned shall equal seventy-five percent of the maximum allowed under that zone. Further, in the case of a one family dwelling subdivision located within a multiple family dwelling zone, then the number of one family dwelling, units shall be the number of buildable parcels indicated on the subdivision. Subsequent development of additional units shall require payment of in-lieu fees and/or dedication of land pursuant to this chapter. In the case of a condominium project, the number of new dwelling units shall be the number of condominium units. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic: 15-ii- 15 80-15 80 070 9/12/2005 15.80.080 Formula for fees in-lieu of land dedication. Page I of 1 Bakersfield l~unicipal Code ~ Up ~ Previous ~ Next * i~ain ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION IT. Miscellaneous Reg_u_l.a_tion__s ._C_ha_pte[_~I~_80__D_~_DICA_T~_.~N OE_.L&__N_D.~ PAYMENT OF FEES,_Q_R__BO. TH__F_O_.B__TH__E__PURPOSE_S_9_F_._P__AR__K_S_~ND_ RECREATION LAND 15.80.080 Formula for fees in-lieu of land dedication. A. General Formula. When a fee is to be paid in-lieu of land dedication, the subdivider shall, in-lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land which would otherwise be required for dedication pursuant to Section 15.80.070. The amount of in-lieu fee shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: TABLE 2 Tn-Lieu Fee Formula Number Fair of MarketValue Fee x .0025 x APPDU x Per = Amount Dwelling Units Buildable Acre B. For the purposes of this section, the number of new dwelling units shall be based upon the number of buildable parcels indicated on the subdivision, when in an area zoned for one dwelling unit per parcel. When all or part of the subdivision is located in an area zoned for more than one dwelling unit per parcel, the number of proposed dwelling units in the area so zoned shall equal seventy-five percent of the maximum allowed under that zone; or the maximum number of dweiling units allowed as approved by the city council. Further, in the case of a one family dwelling subdivision located within a multiple family dwelling zone, then the number of one family dwelling units shall be the number of buildable parcels indicated on the subdivision. Subsequent development of additional units shall requi~e payment of in-lieu fees and/or dedication of land pursuant to this chapter. C. The determination of the Fair Market Value Per Buildable Acre is defined in Section 15.80.100, except when the city has acquired real property to serve as a park. If the planning director determines that said acquired park would serve the subdivision or property to be developed, then the per acre purchase or acquisition price paid by the city for said real property on which the park is located shall be used as the value for the Fair Market Value Per Buildable Acre in the formula stated in Section 15.80.080A. D. Fees in-lieu of land, fifty parcels or less. If the proposed subdivision contains fifty parcels or less, and does not meet the requirements of Section 15.80.090A, the subdivider shall pay a fee equal to the land value of the portion of the park required to serve the needs of residents of the proposed subdivision or property to be developed as prescribed in an amount determined with the provisions of this Section 15.80.080. E. However, nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes in subdivisions of fifty parcels or less or existing parcel to be developed, where the subdivider proposes such dedication voluntarily and the land is acceptable to the advisory agency. F. Use of Money. The money collected herein shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring necessary land and developing new parks or rehabilitating or improving existing parks or recreation facilities reasonably related to serving the development. (Ord. 4145 § 1, 2003: Ord. 3646 § i (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), ~990) http://www.qcode.us/codesPoakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii-15 80-15 80 080 9/12/2005 15.80.090 Criteria for requiring both dedication and fee. Page 1 of l Bakersfield Hunicipal Code ^ Up ~< Previous ,> Next * Hain ~. Search # Print ~ Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Regulations Chapt_e_[ 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND,__P.A_Y~_E_N_T__O__F..F_E_E_S.,..~._B__O__TH~FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 15.80.090 Criteria for reg¥_i.r]n_g both dedication and fee. A. When only a portion of a designated park site is located within land to be subdivided, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.80.080 shall be paid for the value of any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 15.80.070. B. When a major part of a park site has previously been acquired by the city and only a small portion of land'is needed from the subdivision to be developed to complete the site, such remaining portions shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.80.080. Such fees shall be used for the improvement of the park and recreation facility or for the improvement of other parks and recreation facilities reasonably related to the service of said development. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic=l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 090 9/12/2005 15.80.100 Determination of fair market value. Page 1 of 1 8akersfieJd Municipal Cod~ ~ Up ~ Previous ~:, Next * Main ? Search .# Print -I~ t/el5 BU]L D !~_G S _A~.D_ ~ON_.ST_R_U.C~_g_N_ RECREA~ON ~ND 15.80.100 Determination of fair market value. A. The fair market value of park land to be dedicated or of the property on which in-lieu fees are to be paid shall be determined by a written appraisal report acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, and prepared and signed by a qualified appraiser acceptable to the planning director or his designee, in accordance with appraisal standards and practices adopted by the city council. If an appraiser or appraisal report is not acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, he shall require a new or updated appraisal from the subdivider. The cost of all appraisals shall be borne by the subdivider. The appraisal shall be based on the value of unimproved real property for the land to be dedicated for park purposes serving said development, or if no specific park site has been identified, then the appraisal shall be based on the value of the unimproved real property to be subdivided; except as otherwise provided in Section 15.80.080(C), when the city has acquired a park serving the subdivision. The appraisal shall be made no more than ninety days prior to the recordation of the final map for subdivisions, parcel maps, or recordation of a certificate of compliance for parcel map waivers. If mutually agreed to in writing by the planning director or his designee, and subdivider, an appraisal made within six months prior to recordation of the final map in the case of subdivisions, parcel maps, or recordation of a certification of compliance, may be used to determine fair market value. The subdivider shall submit such appraisal to the planning director, or his designee, in sufficient time as the planning director establishes, prior to recordation of a final map or certificate of compliance. ]f more than six months elapse before recordation of the final map or certificate of compliance, the planning director may require.a new or updated appraisal. Tf an appraiser or appraisal report is not acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, he shall require a new or updated appraisal at the subdivider's expense. B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, for a project having twenty lots or less, the subdivider may request, and accept, an estimate of value prepared by the city. [f the subdivider disputes the city's estimate, then the subdivider shall provide an appraisal and shall pay the amount based on the appraisal as set forth in subsection A of this section. Any costs incurred by the city in determining the estimated value will be added to the in-lieu fee paid by the subdivider. (Ord. 4004 § 2, 2001: Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfieldJview.php?topic= l 5-ii- 15_80-15 80 100 9/12/2005 15.80.110 Determination of land and/or fee. Page I of 1 r, Up ,~ Previous >> Next * Main ? Search # Print -I'itle 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Reg_u_l~_tjon_s. _C_ha_pt_e._r 1 ~-~`~Q~-~E~I--~A--T~B`_~-F-Lg-N.~-~--P-AY-M-E--N-T-QE~F-E-E-S~-~g-B~-T-H- EO_R.__T_.H_E__P_Ug_POSE_._S_._O~_. RECREAI-[ON LAND Whether the advisory agency requires land reservation, dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in- lieu thereof, or a combination thereof, shall be determined by considering the following: A. The adopted Park Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan; B. The topography, geology, soils, access, location, and general suitability of the land in the subdivisions available for dedication; C. The size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication; D. The feasibility of dedication; and E. The location of existing and proposed park sites and trailways. (Ord. 3646 § ! (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfieid/view.php?topic: 15-ii- 15 80-15 80 110 9/12/2005 15.80.120 Credit for private park and/or recreation facility. Page I of I ^ Up ~ Previous ~ Next * Main ? Search .# Print RECREA~ON ~ND A. The advisory agency shall determine whether credit for park and/or recreation facilities constructed by the developer may be given. Except for the provisions of Section 15.80.120B, the following credit may be allowed providing the criteria stated in paragraph 3 of this subsection are met: 1. No more than seven-tenths of one acre per one thousand population credit may be given for private park and/or recreation facilities within a subdivision or development. 2. No more than one and one-half acre per one thousand population credit may be given for park and/or recreation facilities located within lands encumbered with electrical transmission line easements of a residential subdivision. 3. The following criteria must be met to obtain credit as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. a. Yard, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required by the zoning and building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such credit; b. The ownership and maintenance of open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, covenants or restrictions approved by the city attorney; c. The use of the open space is restricted and preserved for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants, easement or other instrument approved by the city attorney, which run with the land in favor of future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of · the city council. d. The proposed open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location of the open space; e. The facilities proposed are: (1) In substantial accordance with the provisions of the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, or adopted community or specific plans; (2) Are appropriate to the recreational needs of future residents of the development; (3) Substantially comparable to the park and recreation lands otherwise required to be dedicated in meeting the recreation needs of the residents; f. Park and/or recreation facilities for private use shall be maintained by the private property owners. B. The advisory agency shall determine whether one hundred percent credit may be given. Credit for the full amount of park land dedication and/or in-lieu fee shall be based on the subdivider developing and constructing a public park in accordance to city standards, including the facilities specified in the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Prior to recordation of any final map, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with the city which includes, but is not limited to, the subdivider's responsibilities, date to complete construction of the park, concept design with proposed facilities, bonding requirements as deemed necessary by the city engineer and/or parks superintendent, and transfer of real property title of the park to the city. (Ord. 3818 § 1,1998: Ord. 3646 § I (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § i (part), 1990) http://www.qcode, us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?.topic= 15-ii- 15_80-15 80 120 9/12/2005 15.80.125 Park land dedication in-lieu fee credit for multiple-service medical and recover... Page 1 of 2 Bakersfield Municipal Code · ' Up ~, Previous -'> Next v IVlain ? Search .~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Req_d__a_t_ig~_s _C_h_ap~r_l_5_,.8.__O_ _D_~E_~I~A__T!._O_N_O_F___L~_..N_D,?A~E_N_T._~E_FEE~_~.B._BDTH ~_R__T_I-t_~__PU RPO_S__E_S__O.~_p_~B_K_S~&_N_~. RECREATION LAND 15.80.125 Park land dedication in-lieu fee credit for multiple-,service medical and recovery care A. Only one of the two types of credit allowed under this section shall be given. An applicant who seeks a credit under this section shall submit a letter requesting such credit concurrently with the application for approval of a tentative subdivision map, or parcel map waiver. The letter must specifically state which type of credit is being requested, enumerate how the facility meets each of the criteria listed in this section; include a copy of the floor plan(s), a site plan identifying the recreational and open space facilities for credit, including acreage and square footage of said facilities; and other reasonable documentation the Planning Director, or his designee, may request to make a determination whether the request meets the requirements of this section. B. A multiple-service medical care and recovery residential facility may receive a fifty percent credit on the amount of the park land dedication required for the development provided the project satisfies all of the following criteria: 1. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the advisory agency that the facility is a multiple-service medical and recovery development that includes skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living care, as defined in Section 15.80.020(E) of this code; and 2. The facility is part of an approved PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone, or such credit may.be approved on the condition that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone change for the subject property is · .~ approved by the city council within three months after recordation of the final map; and ? 3. The applicant or developer shall enter into an agreement with the city which clearly identifies the amenities which shall be developed and which meet the on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor area requirements of subsection (B)(6) of this section.'Such agreement shall require, that the amenities be completed and approved by the development services director prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple-service medical and recovery care facility; and 4.. The facility provides for continued maintenance and preservation of the recreation open space by recorded written agreement, covenants, restrictions or other instrument approved by the city attorney. The recorded instrument shall run with the land and may not be amended without prior written approval of the city; and 5. The facility must have a minimum of ninety independent living units, and the number of independent living units shall not to exceed thirty percent of the total number of units and/or beds of the multiple-service medical and recovery care facility; and 6. The facility must provide an on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor area that is useable for passive or active recreation activity of at least one-half acre in size or at least fifty percent of the total amount of park land dedication required, whichever is greater. Usable means the open space area shall be reasonably adaptable for use as park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the open space. Areas required by zoning or building ordinances such as yard, setback, landscaping, parking and drainage or detention basins may not be used as any part of the open space, gardens or other outdoor activity area proposed to satisfy the requirements of this section. C. A multiple-service medical and recovery care facility which satisfies all of the following criteria shall not be required to dedicate land for a public park or pay a fee in-lieu of land dedication as required by Chapter 15.80 for the facility's residential independent living units. ...-' 1. The facility shall meet the requirements of subsections (B)(1) through (B)(4) of Section 15.80.125, and the applicant or developer shall enter into an agreement with the city which clearly identifies the amenities which shall be developed and which meet the on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 125 9/12/2005 15.80.125 Park land dedication in-lieu fee credit for multiple-service medical and recover... Page 2 of 2 outdoor area requirements of this subsection. Such agreement shall require that the amenities be completed and approved by the development services director prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple- service medical and recovery care facility; and 2. The facility must have a minimum of one hundred twenty independent living units, and the number of independent living units shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of units and/or beds of the multiple- service medical and recovery care facility; and 3. The facility shall provide an on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor area that is useable, as defined in subsection (B)(6) of this section. Such useable area shall be a minimum of two acres or the amount of acreage which, absent the credit provisions, would be required to be dedicated by the facility under Section 15.80.070, whichever is greater. 4. The facility shall provide an indoor recreation room for such activities as, exercise, arts and crafts, and other group activities for the independent living unit residents. The room shall have a minimum capacity of forty- five people; and 5. In addition to the park or outdoor open space and the indoor recreation room, the facility shall provide at least one other recreational amenity as follows: a. Swimming or therapeutic pool, b. Amphitheater or auditorium, c. Indoor gym for activities such as basketball, badminton and volleyball, d. Indoor courts for such activities as racquetball or handball, e. Running or walking track or trail with specialty surface, f. Multiple station exercise par course, g. Golf course, h. Other comparable facility as approved by the planning commission or city council. D. At the option of the applicanL the full amount of the fee, which does not include such credit as described in subsections B and C of this section, may be paid at the time of recordation of a final map or certificate of compliance. Subsequent to recordation of a final map or certificate of compliance, and within three months of date of recordation of such documents, the applicant may submit a written request to the development services director for refund of fifty percent or one hundred percent of the fee paid, subject to the criteria listed in this section. Such a request must be made within three months of recordation of a final map or certificate of compliance. If no request is made within such time period, this credit becomes void, and no refund shall be made. The development services director shall have fourteen days to respond to a request. E. The appeal procedure for this section shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.52. (Ord. 3896 § 1, 1999) http://www.qcode, us/codcsPoakersfield/view.php?topic=lS_ii_15 80-15 80 125 9/12/2005 15.80.130 Time for dedication and/or fee. Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ,~ up <~ Previous ,> Next * Main ? Search ~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II :_M i s~eJ !_a_n_~o u~ R~g_u]~31~_O~ RECREA~ON ~ND 15.80.130 Time for dedication and/or~_fe_e_._ A. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver the advisory agency shall determine the land required for dedication. If the advisory agency requires in-lieu payment by the subdivider, the advisory agency will set the amount of land upon which the in-lieu fee will be based at the time of final map approval. B. Prior to, or concurrently with, the recordation of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or certificate of compliance, the subdivider shall dedicate the land free of encumbrances to the city, and/or pay in-lieu fees, as required by the advisory agency. Where advisory agency has determined that fees shall be paid in-lieu of, or in addition to the dedication of land, the in-lieu fees shall be set based on the land dedication requirements as established at the time of tentative map approval using current fair market land values at the time of final map approval with the formula set forth in Section 15.80.080 and using the process for determining fair market value as set forth in Section 15.80.100. C. For any approved subdivision for which fees are required as set forth in Section 15.80.080, the subdivider shall pay said fees in their entirety prior to the recordation of any final subdivision map, parcel map, or final phase thereof, or certificate of compliance. D. Open space, covenants, easements or other instruments for private park or recreation facilities shall be submitted to the city engineer and approved by the city attorney and planning director prior to the recordation .. of any final subdivision map or parcel map and shall be recorded prior to or contemporaneously with the final .! subdivision map, or parcel map, or certificate of compliance. (Ord. 3646 § i (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § I (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15 80215 80 130 9/12/2005 15.80.140 Disposition of fees. Page 1 of I · ~ Up ~ Previous ,', Next * Main ? Search ~ Print -~tle 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION !_I__._.~] _s.c_eJ_l a_n _eg__u~_s ~g_ula t LQ_n_~ Chapte_r._!_g 8_O_..D E_D_~_C~T~ O__N__Q_E LA._N_D_~?A Y H E__N~QLF~.E.S_~..9 R_~_OZ.H_F~_R_._q!J£_PugP OS~5_~_E P_8.B_K$__A_B D_. RECREATION LAND 15.80.140 Disposition of fees. A. Fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall be paid to the city treasurer and shall be deposited in a special fund. Money in said fund, including accrued interest, shall be expended solely for the purposes enumerated in this chapter. B. Collected fees shall be committed by the city council within five years after receipt of such fees or within five years after the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if such fees have not been so committed, the city council shall, without any deductions, distribute and pay unused fees to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. C. The finance director shall render reports to the city council annually by including in the fiscal year budget or other annual report the amount of fees received, the commitment of fees and fund balance. (Ord. 3646 § I (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15 -ii- 15_80-15 80 140 9/12/2005 15.80.150 Subdivider improvements. Page I of I BakersfieJd Municipal Code "Up ~ Previous >> Next :~ Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Rec2u[a~_t_i_o__n_s Chapter-..~5-.~8~-~D_E-D~C-~Q.~N_-~F~"~.~-N~PAY~E-~T.~.-~F-~F-`E~ES~ OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 15.80.150 Subdivider improvements. The value of on-site park and recreation improvements provided by the subdivider to the dedicated land shall be credited against the fees or dedication of land required by this chapter. The city council reserves the right, after recommendation from the advisory agency, to accept or reject such improvements prior to agreeing to accept the dedication of land, and to require in-lieu fee payments should the land and improvements be unacceptable. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic:l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 150 9/12/2005 15.80.160 Access. Page 1 of I Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up <~ Previous >> Next :~: Main ? Search # Print 11tie 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Il_. ~ c_e~_a n_e_~ _u_s_ R_e~_u La!i o _n~ _Chapter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAN D__~P_PAY~_E_.~_T_Q~._F~ES,.._O_R__~_.O_T_H RECREATION LAND 15.80.160 Access. All land offered for dedication shall have access to at least two existing or proposed public streets, preferably with land located adjacent to the intersection of said two streets. A subdivider may request that only one street frontage be allowed. This request may be approved by the advisory agency, and only if the advisory agency determines that only one public street access is necessary for public safety, the maintenance of the park area or use thereof by residents. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http ://www. qcode, us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic- l 5-ii- 15 80- l 5 80 160 9/12/2005 15.80.170 Sale of dedicated land. Page l of 1 Bakersfield Mun~dpal Code ^ Up ,-~ Previous -~:, Next * Main ? Search ~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Requlations Chapter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND,_P_AY_~_E_N.T_QE__FE~_O_R__B__O_T__H RECREATION LAND 15.80.170 Sale of dedicated land. If, during the ensuing time between dedication of land for park purposes and commencement of first stage or development, circumstances arise which indicate another site would be more suitable for park or recreational purposes serving the subdivision and neighborhood (such as receipt of a gift of additional park land), the land may be sold or traded for other land upon the approval of the city council, after recommendation from the planning commission. The resultant funds from a sale shall be used for purchase and development of a more suitable park site. Surplus park land sold shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 3646 § i (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfieid/view.php?topic=l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 170 9/12/2005 15.80.180 North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. Page 1 of I Bakersfield Munidpa~ Code ^ Up '.'. Previous >3 Next * Main ? Search ¢ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Req_u_la_ti. O0_S .C__h_apter 15.80 DEDICATION OF LAND,. PAYMENT OF FEES~,.~_Q_R BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND :1.5.80.180 North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. A. For those areas which are within the incorporated city boundaries and the boundaries of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, the park and recreation requirements shall be those adopted and set by the district. B. Upon annexation of territory of areas which are wholly included within the boundaries of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District to the incorporated boundaries, the district and the dty shall act jointly to ensure that the district continues to provide all park and recreation services to such areas. The district and city shall enter into an agreement to establish: 1. Duties and responsibilities of the district. 2. Duties and responsibilities of the city; and 3. Application of park land dedication, in-lieu fees, and/or both. (Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic:l 5-ii- 15 80-15 80 180 9/12/2005 15.80.190 Exemptions. Page 1 of I Bakersfield Hunicipa~ Code '~ Up ~ Previous ~ Next * Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION I.I_ .__.M iscel_la o._egu s R_~g.u_l~_tio0. s ~_h a p_te~[_l 5 ._8~0 ~D_~_D_~_CA.TI__O N._~_F__.._LA_N_D_,_.P_A_Y_M_~NT__~ E E~.._O~_~ H RECREATION LAND The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: A. Commercial, retail, ofrice, and industrial subdivisions and uses with no residential development or uses. In-lieu fees shall be required where a residential dwelling unit is constructed in conjunction with commercial or industrial subdivisions. B. Condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of air space in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old and when no new dwelling units are added. C. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodel or replacement of a residential structure, providing the replacement structure is the same type of unit, does not create additional residential units, and is substantially the same size as the structure it replaces. D. Subdivisions or development for which park dedication requirements have previously been met and evidence acceptable to the city is submitted by the subdivider. However, subsequent division of such parcels may require dedications, in-lieu fees and/or both as set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 3745 § 1, 1997: Ord. 3646 § 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfielct/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15 80- l 5 80 190 9/12/2005 15.80.200 Appeal. Page l of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up ~.~ Previous ~ Next * Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT[ON II, Miscellaneous Req_.u_!atio_n_s. Chap_t.e_r__l_~8_0 DEDICATION OF LAND~ PAYMENT OF FEES~,.,_O_~._BQT_H__F_O_R__T._HE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION LAND 1S.80.200 Appeal. The determination of the advisory agency pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to appeal procedures to the city council set forth in Chapter 16.52. (Ord. 3646 § I (part), 1995: Ord. 3317 § 1 (part), 1990) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15 80-15 80 200 9/12/2005 · PARK IMPROVEMENT Chapter 15.82 FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT Page I of I Bakersfield Municipal Code ' ^ Up ~,< Previous >> Next * Main + Expand 7 Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT[ON II. Miscellaneous Regulations http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15_82 9/12/2005 15.82.010 Purpose. Page 1 of I Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up ~', Previous ~> Next ~ Main. ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Regulations Chap_te_r_215.__8_2 F__EE_.FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 15.82.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public interest, and necessity for public convenience, health, safety and welfare by establishing and imposing a fee as a method for financing the development, improvement, and/or enhancement of public parks. (Ord. 3327 § i (part), 1991) · http://www.qcode, us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic: 15-ii- 15 82-15 82 010 9/12/2005 15.82.020 Definitions. Page I of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up *: Previous ~,> Next * Main 7' Search :,~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CON~RU~ION !~ M isc~j~u s_~ !~ ~gp s 15.82.020 Definitions. A. Development means any activity requiring approval, or permit which physically disturbs or alters a site, including grading of or construction on any parcel of real property. B. Enhancement means any development and/or improvement to upgrade, improve or rehabilitate an existing ~r proposed public park to better serve the public. C. Improvement means any street work or utilities to be installed on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways and easements, and which are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in a subdivision and local neighborhOod traffic and drainage needs. D. Dwelling unit means any building or portion thereof, which contains one kitchen, and is designed and/or used to house not more than one family, including necessary employees of such family. E. Multiple-service medical and recovery care facility means a facility that includes skilled nursing beds, assisted living and independent living apartments, described as follows: 1. Skilled nursing is commonly known as nursing homes providing around the clock nursing care staffed by licensed administrators, nurses, nurse assistants, registered dieticians, activity directors and staff development and education. Skilled nursing facilities generally offer care one step below a general acute hospital. 2. Assisted living provides a level of personal care primarily to serve the ambulatory, but frail client in a residential living environment where residents receive individualized assistance, supportive services and health care, such as requiring assistance in one or more activities such as'providing medication, housework, meal preparation, eating, shopping, dressing and bathing. The level of care is a median between nursing home and independent (congregate) living. 3. Independent living units, also known as congregate care, are a self-contained apartment which includes a kitchen, and has supportive services such as meal service, housekeeping, transportation, nursing, medical, and social and recreational activities which are available for residents. An independent living unit is defined as a residential dwelling unit which is subject to this chapter. (Ord. 3897 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3327 § 1 (part), 1991) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic=l 5-ii- 15_82- ! 5 82 020 9/12/2005 15.82.030 Implementation. Page I of I i Bakersfield Municipal Code ,~ Up ~ Previous ,~ Next * Main ~ Search ~,'~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Regulations _Ch_apter 15.82 FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 15.82.030 Implementation. A. The city will collect a park development, improvement, and enhancement fee for each new dwelling unit within city boundaries, except for those dwelling units exempted under Section 15.82.070. B. The city will hold said fees collected by it in a separate trust, account, including accrued interest, for payment of park development, improvement and/or enhancement for public parks and recreational facilities. C. Said fees will be imposed and collected at the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first for new residential construction, on a per unit basis, according to the fee schedule set by the city council. Fees may be paid prior to date of final inspection or the date of certificate of occupancy if a developer so desires. D. Payment of said fees will satisfy city conditions of approval placed on projects with regard to park development, improvement and/or enhancement which have not previously been satisfied. (Ord. 3327 § 1 .(part), 1991) http ://www.qcode. us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic: l 5-ii- 15_82-15 82 030 9/12/2005 15.82.040 Collection of fees. Page I of 1 · ' Up ,~< Previous ~-~ Next '~ Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 15.82.040 Collection of fees. A. The park development, improvement and enhancement fee shall be paid in full, in cash, at the date of final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. Said fee may be paid at time of building permit issuance if a developer chooses. Said fee may be paid by cash, pledged certificate of deposit,' irrevocable letter of credit, or performance/surety bond if developer wishes to pay said fee prior to recordation of a final subdivision map tract or parcel map. All but cash shall be made payable upon demand by the public works director. B. The city council shall make findings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in said account five or more years after deposit of the fee to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. These findings need only be made for moneys in possession of the city and need not be made with respect to letters of credit, bonds, or other instruments taken to secure payment of the fee at a future date. C. Except as provided in Section 15.82.040D, the city shall refund to the current record owner or owners of lots or units of the development project or projects on a prorated basis the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee, and any interest accrued thereon, for which need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to this chapter. The city may refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenues by direct payment, by providing at temporary suspension of fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of California Government Code Section 66001. The determination by the city council of the means by which those revenues are to be refunded shall be a legislative act. D. If the administrative costs of refunding unexpended or uncommitted revenues pursuant to this chapter exceed the amount to be refunded, the city council, after a .public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant to California GoVernment Code Section 6061 and posted in three Prominent places within the area of the development project, may determine that the revenues shall be subject to this chapter and which serves the project on which the fee was originally imposed. (Ord. 3327 § 1 (part), 1991) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic: ! 5-ii- 15_82-15 82 040 9/12/2005 15.82.050 Setting of fees. Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^ Up .:~ Previous >> Next * Main ? Search # Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Req.ulations Chapter 15.82 FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 15.82.050 Setting! of fees. The city council shall, by resolution, establish the fee required under this chapter, on a per unit basis. (Ord. 3327 § 1 (part), 1991) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic- 15-ii- 15_82-15 82 050 9/12/2005 15.82.060 Adjustment of fees. Page 1 of 1 Bakersfield Municipal Code ^' Up <~ Previous >> Next * Main ? Search ¢ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION II. Miscellaneous Requlations ~_h~pter 15.82 FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT 15.82.060 Adjustment of fees. ' ' The public works director shall submit an annual report to the city council with updated, new Or additional information regarding fee amount to be collected for each new dwelling unit. A public hearing shall be conducted if the city council determines that the fee schedule should be adjusted. (Ord. 3327 § 1 (part), 1991) http://www qcode us/codes/bakersfield/view php?topic:l 5-ii- 15_82-15 82 060 9/12/2005 5.82.065 Park development tee credit for multiple-serVice medical and recovery care fac Page l of 2 · ' Up ,;< Previous ,> Next ~ Hain 7 Search ,~- Print 15.82.065 Park development fee credit for multi@la-service medic~l and recover~ care facili~. A. Only one of the t~vo types of credit allowed under this section shall be given. An applicant who seeks credit under this section shall be required to submit a letter making such request to the planning director as part of an application for a zone change to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone. The letter must specifically state which type of credit is being requested$ enumerate how the facility meets each of the criteria listed in this section; include a copy of the floor plan(s)s a site plan identifying the recreational and open space facilities, including acreage and square footage of such facilities$ and other reasonable documentation the planning director, or his designee, may request to make a determination whether the request meets the requirements of this section. B. Each residential independent living unit as part of a multiple-service medical and recovery care facility which satisfies the following criteria shall pay fifty percent of the amount of the adopted park devel°pment fee: 1. Demonstrate that the facility is a multiple-service medical and recovery development that includes skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living units, as defined in Section 15.82.020(E)S and 2. The applicant or developer shall enter into an agreement with the city which clearly identifies the amenities which shall be developed and which meet the on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor area requirements of subsection (B)(5) of this section. Such agreement shall require that the amenities be completed and approved by the development services director prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple-service medical and recovery care facilib/; and S. The facility provides for continued maintenance of and preservation of the open space and/or recreation facilities by recorded written agreement, covenants, restrictions or other instrument approved by the city attorney. The recorded instrument shall run with the land and may not be amended without prior written approval of the city; and 4. The facility must have a minimum of ninety independent living units, and the number of independent living units shall not to exceed thirty percent of the total number of units and/or beds of the multiple-service medical and recovery care facility$ and 5. The facility shall provide on-site at least one of the following for the independent living unit residents: a. A minimum of one-half acre of outdoor open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor activity area that is usable. Usable area means the outdoor area shall be reasonably adaptable and improved for use as park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the open space. Areas required by zoning or building ordinances such as yard, setback, landscaping, parking, and drainage or detention basins shall not be used as any part of the open space, gardens or other outdoor activity area proposed to satisfy the requirements of this section, b. Indoor recreation room for exercise, arts and crafts, and other group activities. Size of room shall have a minimum capacity of forty-five people, c. Swimming or therapeutic pool, d. Amphitheater or auditorium, e. Indoor gym for activities such as basketball, badminton and volleyball, f. Indoor courts for such activities as racquetball or handball, g. Running or walking track or trail with specialty surface, h. Multiple station exercise par course, i. Golf course, j. Other comparable facility as approved by the planning commission or city council. http://www.qcode, us/codesPoakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15_82-15 82 065 9/12/2005 15.82.065 Park development fee credit for multiple-service medical and recovery care fac... Page 2 of 2 C. Each residential independent living unit as part of a multiple-service medical and recovery care facility which satisfies all of the following criteria shall not be required to pay the adopted park development fee: 1. The facility shall meet the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (B)(3) of this section, and the applicant or developer shall enter into an agreement with the city which clearly identifies the amenities which shall be developed and which meet the on-site park, open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor area requirements of this section. Such agreement shall require that the amenities be completed and approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multiple-service medical and recovery care facility; and 2. The facility must have a minimum of one hundred twenty independent living units, and the number of independent living units shall not to exceed fifty percent of the total number of units and/or beds of the multiple-service medical and recovery care facility; and 3. ' The facility shall provide indoor recreation rooms for such activities as exercise, arts and crafts, and other group activities for the independent living unit residents. There shall be at least one room with a minimum capacity of forty-five people; and 4. The facility shall provide no less than' two acres of outdoor open space, garden or other specially dedicated outdoor activity area that is usable. The outdoor area shall be reasonably adaptable and improved for use as park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology access and location of the open space. Areas required by zoning or building ordinances such as yard, setback, landscaping, parking and drainage or detention basins shall not be used as any part of the open space, gardens or other outdoor activity area proposed to satisfy the requirements of this section; and one of the amenities ~isted in Section 15.82.065(B)(5)(c) through (j). D. At the option of the applicant, the full amount of the fee, which does not include said credit as described in subsections B and C of this section, may be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit for any independent living unit. Subsequent to payment of the fee in full, and if the city council approves a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone change that includes open space and recreation facilities that meet the requirements of this section, the applicant may submit a written request to the Development Services Director for refund of fifty percent or one hundred percent of the fee paid, subject to the criteria .listed in 'this section, and a refund shall be issued to the applicant or appropriate payee. However, said request must be made within three months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building containing independent living units. If no request is made within such l~ime 'period, this credit becomes void, and no refund shall be made. The development services director shall have fourteen days to respond to a request. E. The appeal procedure for this section shall be.in accordance with Section 17.64.090. (Ord. 3897 {} 2, 1999) ~ http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic= 15-ii- 15_82-15 82 065 9/12/2005 15.82.070 Exemptions. Page 1 of I Bakersfield ~unicipaa Code ,x Up ~ Previous ~> Next * Main ? Search .~ Print Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION ~Cha~p_t~[ 15 ;8_ZE E E__FO_~P.__A_R_K..__D~y__E L QP M E~_NT _A_N_ _D_!_.M_._~_R_O_V_E~E ~T 15.82.070 Exemp_t_ign The provisions of this article shall not apply to the following: A. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodel or replacement of a dwelling unit structure, provided the replacement structure is the same type of unit, does not create additional dwelling units and is substantially the same size as the structure it replaces. B.. Subdivisions or development for which park development, improvement and/or enhancement requirements have previously been satisfied and evidence of such satisfaction, acceptable to the city is submitted. However, subsequent division of such parcels may result in additional fees set forth in this chapter. C. Condominium conversion projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building when no new dwelling units are added. D. Commercial retail and office, and industrial subdivisions with no residential development or uses. However, fees shall be required where a residential dwelling unit is constructed in conjunction with commercial or industrial subdivisions. (Ord. 3803 § 1, 1997: Ord. 3327 § 1 (part), 1991) http://www.qcode.us/codes/bakersfield/view.php?topic:l 5-ii- 15_82-15 82 070 9/12/2005 Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park With Wet Pla),~lround Estimate Item # Description of Items Oty Unit Unit Price Extension Total I Earthwork / Grading (Flat, Hilly Playfleld, Etc. - Subject to $135,000 specific site conditions) Clear and Grub Site 10 Acre $1,500 $15,000 Rough Grade Site (1.5 foot average over site) 24,000 CY $5 $120,000 2 Utility (Electrical/Water/Sewer - Subject to specific design $43,100 requirements) 6" Water Service / Meter / Backflow Prevention / Connection 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Electrical Meter & Panel 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 4" Sewer Service Line 300 LF $17 $5,100 Sewer Cleanout 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 3 Irrigation SYstem $258,400 a Automatic Irrigation System 1380,000 SF $0.68 $258,400 b Booster Pump (Not required for 10 acre park) $0 c Maxicom System (Included in Automatic Irrigation System) $0 4 Security Light System (20 poles for 10 acre) $50,000 Convenience Lighting 20 IEA $2,5001550.000 5 Restroom Facility with Storage Room -.ADA Accessible $120,000 Restroom 600 SF 1 ILS I $120,000 1 $120,000 6 Parking Lot (36-40 Cars: w/landscaping) $22,440 ~.40 Stall Parking Lot (16.000 SF) 4" AB and 2" AC Aggregate Base 380 Ton $18 $6,840 Asphalt Concrete 200 Ton $42 $8,400 ICurb & Gutter ' 400 LF $13 $5,200 iCommercial Driveway 2 EA $1,000 $2,000 7 Concrete Work Interior/Driveway & Mowstrip- minimum $46,500 hardscape 4' Wide Sidewalk 12,000 SF $3 $36,000 Mow Curb 1,400 LF $7.50 $10,500 8 Picnic Facilities (BBQs, tables, shade structures, etc.) $50,000 Picnic Facilities 10 EA $5,000 $50,000 9_ Landscape Plant Materials (Trees, Shrubs, Grass and $149,340 Ground Cover) Soil Amendment 380,000 SF $0.19 $72,200 24' Box Trees 136 EA $200 $27,200 5 Gallon Plants 200 EA $13.20 $2,640 Hydroseed Turf 380,000 SF $0.10 $38,000 Mulch 3" Deep 300 CY $31 $9,300 10 Drinking Fountains (Combination Standard/ADA) $3,000 Drinking Fountain 2 EA $1,500 $3,000 11 Multigame Slab (60x60; '~ Court; wire reinforcement footing; $18,000 no lighting) Game Court 3,600 SF $5 $18,000 G:\GROUPDA'IAGeorgina\Park Development Fees~2005\Copy of 10 Acre Park Costs-a.xls Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park With Wet Playground Estimate item # Description of Items I Qty I Unit I Unit Price J Extension Total 12 360 Day Maintenance $57,000 Landscape&lrrigationSystem '1380,0001SFI $0.15 I $57,000 13 Playground Equipment with ADA Requirements $182,000 a Slides, Swings, Sand, Trashcans, etc. Tot Lot Equipment 2 to 5 years 1 LS $38,500 $38,500 Tot Lot Equipment 5 to 12 years 1 L' $77,000 $77,000 Washed Sand 400 CY $30 $12,000 Resilient Rubber Surfacing 600 SF $25 $15,000 Trash Receptacles 10 EA $500 $5,000 b ;Shade Structure (size not specEied) !Shade Structure 900 SF 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 c Concrete - Amount can vary per park site Tot Lot Concrete Perimeter Edge 500 LF $15 $7,500. d Benches - 2 per acre 'Park Benches 16 EA $750 $12,000 14 Sign/Monument Wall (5'x12') 1 EA $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 t5 Civil Site Work - Storm Drain System $41,000 18" PVC Storm Drain 1,500 LF $25 $37,500 24" Christy Box Catch Basin 7 EA $500 $3,500 16 Architectural - Trash Enclosure $8,500 Trash Enclosure (Walls and Slab) I I LSi $8,500 I $8,500 17 Site Furnishings - Basketball Pole & Backboards $5,000 BasketballPole&Backboards I 2 F_AI $2,500I. .' $5,000 18 Site Lighting - Parking Lot, Basketball Court, Electrical $45,000 Parking Lot Lighting 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 Basketball Court Lighting (30 foot tall poles, 2 - 1000 watt 4 EA $6,250 $25,000 lamps per pole) Electrical Distribution to Parking Lot & Basketball Court I LS $10,000 $10,000 19 Double Size of Game Court $18,000 Game Court 3,600 SF $5 $18,000 20 Two USTA Tennis Courts $80,136 Reinforced Concrete Slab 12,960 SF $3.90 $50,544 10' High Fencing 456 LF $32 $14,592 Lighting Poles with 12,000 watt illumination 12 EA $1,250 $15,000 Subtotal - Construction Costs (excludes we~ play area) $1,336,016 21 Construction Cost Index (CCI; 4.9% Applied to Construction Costs) $65,465 22 Wet Playground (1,600 square feet; 9 features). Important $25,872 Note: Wet playgrounds will 'be provided at I per 24,000 'population. The current standard is a 10 acre park site serves a population of 4,000 residents. Therefore, the total costs shown for this item will be adjusted to reflect only 1/6the of the costs. G :\GROUPDAT~Georgina\Park Development Fees~005\Copy of 10 Acre Park Costs-a.xls Analysis of Development Cost for Typical 10 Acre Park With Wet Pla¥~lround Estimate Item # Description of Items Qt), Unit Unit Pdce Extension Total 'New Concrete Pad & Sidewalk 2,500 SF $4.14 $10,350 Item Features & Distribution System 1 EA $112,350 $112,350 Utilities i EA $10,000 $10,000 Area Lighting 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 Shade Structure, with 900 square foot pad 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Benches 2 EA $750 $1,500 Subtotal $155,200 Adjustment Factor (See above note) 0.1667 Adjusted Costs $25,872 Subtotal - Construction Costs (includes wet play area) $1,427,353 23 Mobilization (5% of Construction Costs) $71,368. 24 Contingency (10% of Sum of ConstrUction Costs Plus Mobilization Costs) $149,872 25 Design I Development I Administration, Including Construction Inspection (15% of ALL Costs) $247,289 TOTAL COSTS FOR 'rYPICAL 10 ACRE PARK $1,895,881 G:\GROUPDA%Georgina\Park Development Fees~005\Copy of 10 Acre Park Costs-a.xls' PARK MAINTENANCE RESOLUTION NO. 0 ]. 9 - 0'.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY ON PARK MAINTENANCE AND STREET LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENTS. WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Bakersfield, as set forth in Bakersfield Municipal Code section 13.04.021, to include within a maintenance district all new developments that benefit from public parks and/or street landscaping; and WHEREAS, there currently exists within the City the Consolidated Maintenance District (~CMD") which helps fund the cost of maintenance of certain City parks as well as the cost of certain street landscaping through assessments on properties benef'Ked by parks and street landscaping; and WHEREAS, since the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, there has been no increase in those assessments; and WHEREAS, assessments in the CMD have not kept pace with inflation'or budgeted costs for providing park maintenance and street landscaping services; and WHEREAS, because assessments have not kept pace with inflationary cost increases, there has been an increase in the general fund subsidy provided to the CMD; and WHEREAS, because the general fund has been hit hard by State revenue captures, the quality of park and street landscape maintenance has deteriorated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:' 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. All new developments that benefit from public parks and/or street landscaping shall be added to the CMD and shall be assessed, consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218, those amounts set forth in Exhibit A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Said amounts shall be increased annually by the cost of living increase reflected in the Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange County/All Urban Consumers Consumer Pdce Index. ! 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: ~E s.'~ COUNClLMEMBER C,~[JCH. ~' """ ' "" ~'"" CARSON, BENHAM, MAC'RD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRI NV~'ER NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCiLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNC LMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex ~icio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ,.,;.~ ..;' ,. ~.~ APPROVED By' ~- " Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attomey ROBERT M. SH~RFY Deputy City Attomey Attachment: Exhibit "A" JWS/RM$/dll S:\COU NClL\Resos\04-05 Resos~C_,MDAssess Fees. DOC 12/30/2004 ~ ~ ~ K ~)~ - Page 2 of 2 Pages -- O~';~',:~"~',L CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE DISTRICT STREET TIER DESCRIPTIONS TIER 1' Areas with street or median landscaping which meets the minimum requirements for new development in the City. TIER 2: Areas with street and median landscaping which meets the minimum requirements for new development in the City. This tier also includes street or median landscaping that is extra wide or which, through past experience, has been more costly to maintain than landscaping in tier 1. TIER 3: Areas with street and median landscaping plus one of the following: extra wide street landscaping, landscaping on interior streets, or special landscaping features such as monument lighting, water features, landscaped cul-de-sacs, sumps or drill sites. TIER 4: Areas with landscaping described in tier 3 but with more intense landscaping, which include more shrubs, trees, and ground cover than what is required by City standards for new development. Tier. 4 also includes more ornamentals, such as roses, requiring more maintenance than for tier 3. Tier 0.5: One half a tier is added to the above for trails within street landscaping. PARK TIER DESCRIPTIONS TIER 0.5: Areas where the park area to population ratio is less than the Citywide average. TIER 1: Areas where the park area to population ratio meets the City standard. TIER 1.5: Areas where the park area to population ratio exceeds the City standard. "- S:\PROJ ECTS\MAINDISTXLists\TierDesc.wpd 6/27/03 Consolidated Maintenance District Cost per Tier i Existing tier Now tier rates" Street TierPark Tierrates 04-05 ~__,,~.et 0~00 0.50 $8.56 $8.58 0.00 1.00 $17.12. $17.16 0,00 1.50 $25.68 $25.74 0,S0 0.00 S11.40 S15.12 0.50 0.50 $19.96 $23.70 0.50 1.00 $28,52 S32.28 0.50 1.50 $37.08 $40.88 1.00 0.00 $22.80 $30.24 1.00 0.50 $31.38 $38.82 1.00 1.00 $39.92 $47.40 1.00 1.50 $48.48 $55.98 1.50 0.00 $34.20 $45.36 1.50 0.50 $42.76 $53.94 1.50 1.00 $51.32 $62.52 1.50 1.50 $59,88 $71.10 2.00 0.00 $45.60 $60.48 2,00 0,50 $54,18. 2.00 1 .oo $62.72 S77.64 2.00 ~.50 $71.28 $86.22 2.50 0.00 $57.00 $75.80 2.50 0.60 $65.56 S84.18 2.50 1.00 $74.12 $92.76 2.50 1.60 $82.68 $101.34 3.00 0.00 $68.40 $90.72 3.00 0.50 $76.96 $99.30 3.00 1.00 $85.52 $107.88 3,00 1.50 $94.08 $116.46 4.00 0.00 $91.20 $120.98 4.00 0.50 $99.76 $129.54 4,00 1,00 $108.32 $138.12 4.00 1.50 $116.88 $146,70 * These rates are to be adjusted annually by the cPi Attachment A Ot ,,,.:..,'~,~' ' Maintenance Districts ;"~ ~",~ Fiscal Year 2004/05 "~ ','~..~',J FY 04/05 Budget with Restored Positions FY 04/05 Budget (excludes! r:lepartment overhead, city overhead, tree I Parks Streetscapes Total I maintenance, and PW Engineering Costs) 869,993 2,625,143 3,495,136 Adjustment for revenue collected for various districts that are computed in a different manner (Hard to explain - don't ask) -3,398 -1,563 -4,961 Prior council approved subsidies (Parks - 66%; Streetscapes - 7.3%) -571,953 -191,521 -763,474 Amount to bill using only prior council approved subsidies 294,642 2,432,059 2,726,701 Subsidy % -66.00% -7.30% Adjusted estimated number of EDU's 16,698.09 75,766.02 Tier one assessment - computed (final number must be even) $17.65 $32.10 Tier one assessment - current $17.12 $22.80 Percent increase in tier one assessment 3.07% 40.79% G:\GROUPDAT~Maintenance Districts\Tier Impacts.xls