Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2006 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 Staff: John W. Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - SPECIAL MEETING Monday, July 10, 200§- 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 1:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard. 2. ADOPT MAY 30, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding the General Plan as it relates to zone changes and development on agricultural land within the City's sphere of influence. He provided the Committee with a handout. As this item was not on the agenda, Committee Chair Sue Benham referred Mr. Nipp's comments and handout to staff for a response at the next Committee meeting. Committee Member David Couch in response to comments on the number of General Plan zone changes, stated there have been many applicants over the years that have come in and talked with the Planning Department and were told their application would not be supported by the Planning Department and would not get a positive staff recommendation. There is no way to quantify this information as staff does not track at this level, but it would be a factor to be included in the staff response. Committee Chair Sue Benham announced the next Planning and Development Committee meeting will be on August 22nd. AGENDA SUMMARy REPORT Page 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, July 10, 2006 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding request from Barbara Lomas, Planning Commission Chair, for direction regarding increased public notice on development projects that require healings Planning Director Jim Movius gave an overview of the memorandum in the Committee packet and a survey of other cities, which included the radius for public hearing notices, sign posting, and samples of design standards for on- site posting. Staff recommended one sign for street frontage every 300 feet with a maximum of two signs per street frontage; installation by applicant 20 days prior to hearing; and removal by applicant within 10 days of approval period or final action, whichever is later. The signs should be posted not less than five feet inside the property line in residential zones and not less than one foot inside the property line in commercial and industrial zones. The signs should be four by eight feet, six feet tall with posts and have required posting information. Hearings before the Planning Commission requiring site plan posting would be: General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans, Subdivisions/Land Divisions, Zone changes, and Prezone changes. Small parcel lot waivers that do not require a hearing before the Planning Commission would be exempt from sign posting. Committee Member David Couch made a motion for staff to move this forward, make the proposed project site sign posting changes to the ordinances, and forward to the Planning Commission. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. After review of other cities' regulations, the Committee took no action to change the public hearing notice radius from the current 300 feet (Califomia law). B. Staff update and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial to collector Public Works Director Raul Rojas stated after the last Committee meeting, staff prepared a drawing showing a possible shift of Paladino to the south by taking out the landscaping along the block wall on the south side, realigning the median, and narrowing the median and bike lane to standard widths to allow enough space for a deceleration lane for the horse trailers. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, July 10, 2006 ~ ~.~ ~, ~ A meeting was held at Public Works with Steve Hollis. Mr. Hollis then met and shared the meeting information with the Paladino residents. From that meeting a question arose if it would be possible to keep the west bound lanes down to two stdped lanes, not realign the median, and keep landscaping on the south side block wall. By keeping the stdped lanes down to two, it would allow the extra area for deceleration/acceleration and space for backing trailers. The residents also were concerned over elimination of the landscaping by the block wall on the south side of the road. Public Works Director Raul Rojas was in agreement that it would be five or ten years before the third lane is needed. Paladino will not generate the traffic until property on the other half of the road is subdivided or built to other use, so Paladino just west of Masterson will remain, striped with just two lanes each way for sometime. As there are no left tums in this area, four lanes are sufficient for good traffic flow; however, the City cannot relinquish the ability to stripe the third lane at some future time should traffic volumes dictate. Mr. Hollis and the Public Works Director reached a compromise at the meeting. By narrowing both the median and the bike lane to the standard five feet, it would allow three or four feet for some type of vines or plant by the block wall. It would also be necessary to narrow the deceleration lane but as sidewalks are not required, that area would allow enough space to get trailers in and out. City Manager Alan Tandy expressed at some future time there may be a need for sidewalks if schools are built and students are walking in the street, so the City should retain the right to have sidewalk installed. There will be sidewalk by the block wall on the south side of Paladino. The Committee requested Public Works staff to prepare a final drawing and bdng it back to the Committee. Committee Member Mike Maggard requested staff to meet with the developer on the south side of Paladino to discuss the impact on his design plan if the landscaping is narrowed. Committee Member Maggard also made a referral to the Committee to look at different standards in new development for block walls and if there should be standard vines for block walls. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, July 10, 2006 ~,~ ~. ....~, Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Stanley Grady; Planning Director Jim Movius; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; Parks Construction and Facility Planner Ken Trone; and Civil Engineer Ryan Starbuck Attendance-others: Planning Commission Chair Barbara Lomas; Kevin Burton, Young Wooldddge; Scott Blunck, Castle and Cooke; Caroline Reid; Ann Gallon; Will Winn; Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club; Steve Hollis, World Oil; and David Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Cornmittees\06Planning&Development~p&d 06 jul 10 summary.doc B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: August 16, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John W. Stinso~l~;/sistant City Manager SUBJECT: E-mail received after the July 10th Planning and Development Committee meeting Councilmember David Couch received the attached e-mail after the Committee meeting with a request from Caroline Reid that it be included with the agenda summary report. Attachment cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager 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 heating. 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 BAKERSFIELD Development Services Department Stanley C. Grady, Director MEMORANDUM August 17, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ~ Stanley Grady, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Planning and Development Council Committees Response to Gordon Nipp's comments. Gordon Nipp read the attached item under Public Statements at the July 10th Planning and Development committee meeting because the issue was not on the agenda. Committee Chair Sue Benham referred it to staff for a response. Staff response follows Mr. Nipp's correspondence. S/Stanley/Response to Gordon Nipp18-17-O61jm In the City's response to my comments for the Sierra Club on the Draft EIR for the Ashe Annexation, GPA/ZC 05-0519, a 467-acre project on pdme farmland, they state, "Given the Project site's location within the City's Sphere of Influence, the Project site has already been designated for development and the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts to agricultural resources than previously identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan." The City seems to be saying that any agricultural property within the newly enlarged Sphere of Influence is now allocated for residential use, even if General Plan designates it R-IA, Intensive Agriculture. If this is really what the Planners are thinking, several questions and comments come to mind: · Which takes legal precedence, the General Plan or the Sphere of Influence? · Regardless of the actual answer to the above question, the General Plan has had numerous amendments since it went through public review and adoption several years ago. If a developer wants a General Plan amendment, it is almost a forgone conclusion that he will get it one way or another. Given the many piecemeal changes and the attitude reflected in the above quote, one wonders how seriously decision-makers take the existing General Plan. · It would be good to have facts about the General Pla.n am.e. nd.m.e.nt ... process. How many amendments have there been since me MetTopolnan Bakersfield General Plan wes last adopted? How many have been rejected? Visually, a map of the MBGP area with such cumulative changes since adoption marked in red and projected changes (current GPA projects in the pipeline) marked in yellow might be informative. · Based on these facts and on the attitude reflected in the above quote, it is probably time to do an update of the MBGP. If the planners really think that the prime farmland with the City's Sphere of Influence is now "designated for development", then that should be reflected in the General Plan. If there is a chance that the community is really supportive of building on all this prime farmland, then that support should be determined through the public input process via a General Plan Update. · The gradual changing of the MBGP has hidden the cumulative impact of all these amendments. If it really is the case that the public wants houses on the City's farmland, change the General Plan designation on prime farmland within the Sphere of Influence all at once from R-IA to LR through the Update process rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. · Meanwhile, until the MBGP is updated, slow down the amendment process. Maybe it is time to declare a moratorium on new development on prime farmland until the community supports a new Update. Planning Development Responses to Questions/Comments from the Sierra Club Submitted to City Council Planning and Development Committee on July 10, 2006 Sierra Club statement: In the City's response to my comments for the Sierra Club on the Draft EIR for the Ashe Annexation, GPA/ZC 05-0519, a 467-acre project on prime farmland, they state, "Given the Project site's location within the City's Sphere of Influence, the Project site has already been designated for development and the proposed Project would not result in greater impacts to agricultural resources than previously identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan." The City seems to be saying that any agricultural property within the newly enlarged Sphere of Influence is now allocated for residential use, even if General Plan designates it R-IA (Intensive Agriculture). If this is really what the Planners are thinking, several questions and comments come to mind. Sierra Club - Which takes legal precedence, the General Plan or the Sphere of Influence? City Planning - Legal precedence is based upon the actual context. If staff may generalize, the general plan is more salient to most land use considerations outside the annexation process. Both the General Plan and the Sphere of Influence (SOI) are directly related to long term geographic land use goals i.e. (Where and under what circumstances) will the City of Bakersfield grow in the future? The SOl determines where the geographic limits of urbanization; it makes no changes to the land use designation. SOI's are defined in state law section 56076 (paraphrased) .... as the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. The SOI is a planning tool, one of many, the General Plan is yet another. Sierra Club - Regardless of the actual answer to the above question, the General Plan has had numerous amendments since it went through public review and adoption several years ago. If a developer wants a General Plan amendment, it is almost a forgone conclusion that he will get it one way or another. Given the many piecemeal changes and the attitude reflected in the above quote, one wonders how seriously decision-makers take the existing General Plan. City Planning - The only way a change to the General Plan takes place is in a manner consistent with state law and in accordance with the principals of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. There have been many changes to the land use map and few to the policy document which guides the evaluation of new land use requests. Of course, there have been many changes to the land use map as there is no prohibition of changes to the land use map contained within the general plan policy document. There are no growth limitation boundaries or similar restrictions in the policy document. Therefore, requests which are consistent with the adopted policy are supportable. Since 2002 (last general plan update), Bakersfield has experienced the most significant growth in the City's history. There was literally not enough land designated for urban uses available in northwest and southwest Bakersfield to accommodate the demand for houses. Through most of 2003-2006 we were using 90-100 acres a month for houses alone. Since 2002 more than 15,100 houses were built and the population increased by more than 53,000. Sierra Club - It would be good to have facts about the General Plan amendment process. How many amendments have there been since the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan was last adopted? How many have been rejected? Visually, a map of the MBGP area with such cumulative changes since adoption marked in red and projected changes (current GPA projects in the pipeline) marked in yellow might be informative. City Planning -The last general plan was adopted in the 2002 "update" Since then, there have been 192 total requests to amend the land use map and 2 changes to the policy document. Of these, 21 requests were denied or withdrawn. These numbers do not reflect the numerous projects which are never submitted because staff has met with the developer and indicated that they could not be supported. Without the changes to the general plan map, the development detailed in the above answer would likely still have occurred just not in the City of Bakersfield. In fact, until the mid 1980s development was equally divided between the county and city in the Metropolitan area. Interestingly, by 2002 generally more than 90% of the growth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area occurs within city limits because we are able to provide full urban infrastructure. Sierra Club - Based on these facts and on the attitude reflected in the above quote, it is probably time to do an update of the MBGP. If the planner really thinks that the prime farmland with the City's Sphere of Influence is now "designated for development," then that should be reflected in the General Plan. If there is a chance that the community is really supportive of building on all this prime farmland, then that support should be determined through the public input process via a General Plan Update. City Planning - A Sphere of Influence (SOI) directs growth, that's the point. We (both the city and county) are assuming someday the entire SOI area will be urbanized. We need to plan for it now as the infrastructure requirements of our general plan (policy document) require complete urban infrastructure. Some of these facilities such as freeways, sewer treatment plants, and water service systems take years to plan, design and construct. Vision 2020 was the public input process which occurred via the last general plan update in 2002. Vision 2020 was a grass roots movement, entirely initiated and organized and mn by the general public. Land use goals which resulted from that effort found their way into the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan update document (2002). That effort supported the pattern of development which had been occurring previous to that year. The City and County have already committed to doing a comprehensive General Plan Update. Sierra Club - The gradual changing of the MBGP has hidden the cumulative impact of all these amendments. If it really is the case that the public wants houses on the City's farmland, change the General Plan designation on prime farmland within the Sphere of Influence all at once. from R-IA to LR through the Update process rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. City Planning -The City and County will consider this as part of the General Plan update. Sierra Club - Meanwhile, until the MBGP is updated, slow down the amendment process. Maybe it is time to declare a moratorium on new development on prime farmland until the community supports a new Update. City Planning - Staff agrees it is time to update the General Plan. That is why the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern have mutually hired a consultant to develop a work program and have earmarked funds to update our General Plan. This effort will clarify where the community is going in regards to agricultural land conversion among many other development issues like air quality and traffic congestion. We are going to thoroughly explore effective measures available for the loss of farmland. There certainly has been incredible development pressure since the last General Plan update, and it has raised several issues which need addressing hence the City/County effort to update the General Plan. However, there has been no call from the general public for any type of development moratorium in the interim. S/Gauthier/05-0519/7-26-06/j m B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: August 16, 2006 To: Alan Tandy From: Dianne Hoover Subject: Planning and Development Committee Block Walls and Vines The Planning and Development Committee has requested information on plant material along block walls, especially those with narrow planting strips. The Recreation and Parks Department, Plan Check and Inspection section approves plant material in parks and planting strips on roadways. Typically, we do not approve vines as plant material on walls for several reasons: 1) they get into the mortar and compromise the wall structure 2) their weight can also deteriorate the wall 3) vines attract and house rodents 4) vines hide other wall problems such as water damage. 5) climbing vines require fastening hardware which can damage walls. For narrow planting strips, there are appropriate plant material that survive well next to walls, provides coverage without compromising the wall itself, and adds color. Some examples include privets, viburnums, arborvitae, barberry, boxwood, nandina and podocaprus, among others. Examples of damaging vines and acceptable plant material is attached.