Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2006 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 Monday, July 10, 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 MAY 30, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 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 hearings - Grady B. Staff update and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial to collector- Rojas 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Staff: John W. Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 30, 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 1:02 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT APRIL 25, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding issues raised by Planning Commissioner Ted Blockley regarding collector streets Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave an overview of the memorandum in the Committee packet in response to the issue of eliminating collectors from the circulation plan. Planning Commissioner Ted Bl°ckley stated he referred this issue of elimination of collector designations because of discussions at the Planning Commission regarding deleting collector designations for segments of Pacheco Road and Progress Road. The Silver Creek area has bicycle access to the east on Harris Road all the way to Wible Road without having to access an arterial. Going west on a bicycle is not as easy as the only alternative through streets going west are arterials. Also, residential roads on a tentative map can be changed or moved by staff/developers without going through the General Plan process. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 30, 2006 ~'~ The Public Works Director explained staff does not usually recommend downgrading collectors on the circulation plan; however, the collector designation was eliminated on Progress Road just west of Gosford Road because there is a rail spur along the left side of the roadway reducing the traffic volume due to having access only on one side. Harris Road is not planned to go across Progress Road due to the railroad spur. Arterials are put across active railways but collectors are not. A segment of Pacheco Road was eliminated because it dead-ended into Old River Road. Committee Member David Couch suggested collectors, such as Camino Media, which ends into a subdivision at Old River Road, should be continued straight through developments if possible, even if it continues as a residential roadway. If the City had such a policy, it would help bicyclists go all the way through neighborhoods fairly easily and come out the other side; however there may need to be some variables for unique conditions, such as railroad spurs. He also suggested staff check on possible funding from Kern COG for below grade access across the tracks at Progress and Harris Roads where the railroad spur runs parallel to Progress Road. Committee Chair Sue Benham requested Public Works staff to report back to the Committee on Committee Member Couch's suggestions, 5. NEW 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 hearings Planning Director Jim Movius gave a brief update. Currently, the City follows State law for public noticing for development projects requiring hearings. The notification radius is 300 feet from the boundary of the project and hearing notices are posted in the newspaper as required. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was that the notification radius be expanded from the current 300 feet to 500 feet. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the notice be posted on the project site on four by eight-foot signs every 300 feet by the applicant within 15 days of application submittal. The current fee at the Planning level is about $285 for advertising costs and with more posting requirements would need to be increased approximately another $170 to cover the increased noticing procedure. It was noted, AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 30, 2006 advertising costs are repeated at the City Clerk's Office when the hearing goes before the City Council. City Manager Alan Tandy expressed concerns about the signs being destroyed by vandals as it may invalidate the noticing process. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro confirmed if the signs are vandalized and torn down and the applicant could not show the ordinance revisions were met, there could be litigation if a complaint were filed that the noticing requirements had not been met. Concerns were raised the large signs would attract graffiti vandals. Barbara Lomas, Chair, Planning Commission, spoke regarding other cities that have projects posted with signs. Scott Blunck, Castle and Cooke, stated with some of their projects the signs could be up for eight months to a year. On some of the large projects if signs are required every 300 feet, it may require 40 or 50 signs. With ongoing construction the signs would have to be taken down and put up again. This would be an onerous process. Committee Chair Sue Benham commented that many signs would be unsightly. City Manager Alan Tandy expressed other cities in California do not have the growth and the number of projects we have occurring in Bakersfield. Public Works Director Raul Rojas explained with the number and size of projects proposed for Bakersfield if posting signs were required, there could be hundreds. You would not be able to drive anywhere without seeing project signs. Committee Member David Couch stated he would like to see some type of a sign put up and suggested perhaPs it could be at the closest arterial or collector to the project with the highest traffic volume. He requested staff to check into what it would involve if the City were to require the same designed-kiosk signs that are now used as direction signs for developments for project posting. The Committee requested the City Attorney to contact other cities for sign posting requirements and samples of posting signs for development projects. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 P NNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI EE MEETING Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Chair Sue Benham expressed it was nice to have two Planning Commissioners attend the Committee meeting and thanked them for coming. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Stanley Grady; Planning Director Jim Movius; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; and Traffic Engineer Steve Walker Attendance-others: Planning Commission Chair Barbara Lomas; Planning Commissioner Ted Blockley; Kevin Burton, Young Wooldridge; Scoff Blunck, Castle and Cooke; and David Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Califomian; cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:UOHN\Council Committees\06Planning&Development~p&d 06 may 30 summary.doc MEMORANDUM. June 22, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ~7~vr~tanley C. Grady, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Increased Public Noticing for DevelopmentProjects Requiring Hearings. At the last Planning and Development Committee Meeting, the committee reviewed a request from the' Planning Commission to increase the notice radius from 300 feet to 500 feet and provide Posting of Property with 4x8 signs providing project/hearing information. The committee directed staffto do further research on what other cities do regarding posting. Staff reviewed requirements from 10 other jurisdictions, four of which reqUired posting of property with 4x8 signs. These cities are Glendora, Palmdale, Simi Valley and Ventura. Two of the four require the applicant provide the posting. Two are posted by the City. All provide designing standards for the posting and three of the four use essentially the same design standard (see attached tables/standards). -RECOMMENDATION: · Propose posting standards similar to the City of palmdale (attached) · Require posting by applicant · Require.posting 20 days prior to hearing · Require posting of one sign per 300 feet of street frontage or portion thereof, . minimum 1 sign per frontage, maximum 2 signs per street frontage. · Require removal by applicant within 10 days after appeal Period or final action, whichever is later · Hearing Notice radius - To be determined by council committee COST INCREASE: See May 26, 2006 memo attached. S/Stanley/In.creased Public Notices/jm ATTACHMENTS · On-site Posting Requirements Sample Cities (Table) · Design Standards - 4x8 signs including City Specs. (Table an Graphics) · City of Palmdale Posting Specs. Drawing (Recommended Specs) · Sample Posting Procedures · May 26, 2006 Cost Memorandum /Stanley/Increased Public notices/Jm On-site Posting Requirements SAMPLE CITIES City Notice Posting Posted Min. # of Max. For More Contact Info I~_ed~us Req'd By Signs I Location Placement Size Info, See: 1. City of Fresno 300 ft Yes City 1 sign / per Every 300 ft 11" x 17" Exhibit 1 (559) 621-8277, Bob Luis street frontage 2. City of Glendora 500 ft Yes Applicant 3 signs / within Every 300 ft 4' x 8' Exhibit 2 (626) 914-8214, Diane Walter right-of-way 3. City of Hesperia 600-900 ft Yes City 1 sign / per Every 300 ft 11" x 17" Exhibit 3 (760) 947-1330, Daniel Alcaya~ia street frontage 4. City of Palmdale 500-1,000 ft Yes City 1 sign / per 1 sign per 4' x 8' Exhibit 4 (661 ) 267-5200, Lori Lyle street frontage street fronta~]e 5. .City of San Diego 200 ft Yes Applicant Every 200 ft / along Every 200 ft None Exhibit 5 (619) 446-5162 street frontage 6. City of Santa Barbara 300 ft Yes Applicant 1 sign / per 1 on 18" x 24" Exhibit 6 (805) 564-5470, Debbie Huey street frontage project site 7. City of Sausalito 300 ft Yes City 1 sign / per 3 public 8%" x 11" Exhibit 7 (415) 289-4100, Ben Noble project site places 8. City of Simi Valley 300 ft Yes Applicant 1 sign / per 1 on 4' x 8' Exhibit 8 (805) 583-6769, Erica Bernath proiect site project site 9. City of Ventura 300 ft Yes City 1 sign / per 1 sign per 4' x 8' Exhibit 9 (805) 654-7893 street frontage street frontage 10. City of Visalia 300 ft No .... (559) 7t3-4300, Paul Shibel Design Standards On Site Posting Requirements -- 4' x 8' Signs - Notice Minimum Project Max. Max. Installed Removed Design City Radius Size # of Signs Type* Area Height Before Hearing After Action Standards City of Glendora 500 ft 4' x 8' 1 sign per 1 32 sf 6 ft 10 days Within Attachment street frontage (by Applicant) 30 days A ( 1 / 300 ) City of Palmdale 500 - 4' x 8' 1 sign per 2 15 days Within Attachment 1,000 ft street frontage 32 sf 6 ft (by City) 14 days B City of $imi Valley 300 fi 4' x 8' 1 sign per 3 32 sf 6 ft 15 days After Appeal Period Attachment street frontage (by Applicant) C City of Ventura 300 ft 4' x 8' I sign per 4 32 sf 6 fi 10 days After Appeal Period Attachment street frontage (by City) D (1) City of Bakersfield 300 ft 4' x 8' 1 sign per 5 32 sf 6 fi 20 days Within Attachment (Proposed) street frontage (by Applicant) 10 days to Cover Memo ( 1 / 300 ) * Project Type I = Subdivisions >5 du; nonresidential >1,000 sf; nonresidential to residential; increased density; or as necessary depending on project. 2 = Subdivisions, commercial, CUP, GPA, site plan review, specific plans, variances, zone change, amended cases, annexations, land divisions, prezone changes, and infills projects requiring EiR. 3 = ,All city council and planning commission public hearing items. 4 = All actions by the community development director, planning commission, or city council on design review requiring no other discretionary permits; zone change; comprehensive plan; specific plan amendment involving individual parcels; planned development permit; or use permit. 5 = All city council, planning commission, and BZA public hearing items. Attachment A CITY OF GLENDORA Design Standards On-site Posting Requirements CITY OF GLENDORA Design Standards for On-site Posting Size: 4 feet by 8 feet Height: 6 feet Location: Every 300 feet Posted by: Applicant Attachment B CITY OF PALMDALE Design Standards On-site Posting Requirements CITY OF PALMDALE Design Standards for On-site Posting ,,..r. __ - -- .. 'l.'-r ~-: /..'n.= OF PUBLIC HEARING // N PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT i~..~ CAS, .o,__ - i.~ r'l p.o.o~ o. 'n~ ~ / .". L. Size: 4 feet by 8 feet Height: 6 feet Location: In 3 public places Posted by: City staff Attachment C CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Design Standards On-site Posting Requirements CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Design Standards for On-site Posting NOTICF, OF I'IIBLIC ON I~I1OPO$ED CASE # PROPOSED O~ T~[IS SITE ~ ~v~oP~ IC~~ Size: 4 feet by 8 feet Height: 8 feet Location: One sign on project site Posted by: Applicant Attachment D CITY OF VENTURA Design Standards On-site Posting Requirements CITY OF VENTURA Design Standards for On-site Posting NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.. FOR PROPOSED-DEVELOPMENT CASE #A-328~Z-91.7 '" Size: 4 feet by 8 feet Height: 6 feet Location' One sign for each street frontage Posted by: City staff CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Design Standards On-site Posting Requirements CITY OF PALMDALE~ Design Standards for On-site Posting · .~ -- ., :.-! .... . ...... , _ !~: } NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING [ '_;! ION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ! / {{ .i CASE NO, ? 1 PliOPOSED o. ~.~ ~| / ,, ,. -- I ~' iii -a, t',O" ~'4l' 1'.,0' Size: 4 feet by 8 feet Height: 6 feet Location: In 3 public places Posted by: City staff CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES FOR PROJECT SITE SIGN POSTING I In order to increase public awareness of pending development proposals requiring public hearings, the City of Bakersfield has included "Project Site Sign Posting" in its public hearing notice procedures. The applicant of a proposed project scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council or Planning Commission, is required to post a sign with public hearing information, which will be visible to the public right-of-way from the subject site. Late or inaccurate sign posting will cause postponement of the public hearing for the case. CASES REQUIRING SITE PLAN POSTING: General Plan Amendments Specific Plans Subdivisions Zone Changes Land Divisions Prezone Changes SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: 1. SIZE: Dimensions shall be four (4) feet by eight (8) feet. 2. HEIGHT: Sign shall be six (6) feet in height. 3. MATERIALS: % inch plywood (minimum) Sign shall be constructed with 4"x 4" supporting posts placed at a minimum depth of two (2) feet with 2"x 4" cross supports as shown in the diagram. 4. LOCATION: NOT LESS THAN FIVE (5) feet inside the property line in residential zones, and not less than one (1) foot inside the property line in commercial and industrial zones. Shall be located in the area most visible to the public on the project site. 5. COLOR: Black letters on white background. 6. LETTERING: Shall be block style with 4" major letter and 2" minor letters. 7. LIGHTING: Shall NOT be illuminated. 8. INSTALLATION:By applicant, 20 days prior to hearing. 9. REMOVAL: By applicant, within 10 days of approval period or final action, whichever is later. s/Stanley/Increased Public notices/jm B A K E R S F I E L D D EVE L O p~M E N T S E RVI C E S May 26, 2006 TO: John VV. Stinson, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: Stanley Grady, Development Services Director FROM: ~~James D. Movius, Planning Director SUBJECT: Expanding the Public Hearing Notification Radius from 300 to 500 Feet Section 65090 of the Planning and Zoning Law requires local agencies to provide a copy of a public I~earing notice to property owners within 300 feet of a proposed project, and that fee is currently $285. It is estimated that while there may not be a material impact on the cost of printing and generating the additional number of address labels, the time needed to prepare the materials and to mail the notices to those in the expanded hearing notification radius would increase. It is also expected that the increased radius could generate an increase in the number of inquiries from the public that staff would need to respond to. The impact of the increase is estimated to be approximately $100 per notice. If it's desired to require the applicant to post a 4' x 8' sign noticing the proposed project, costs are estimated to increased by an additional $70, the cost of an hour of an Associate Planner's time with fringes and administrative costs. This would bring the total estimated cost increase for expanding the public hearing notice radius from 300 to 500 feet to an estimated cost of $170. Current Fee with 300 Feet Radius $285 Impact of Increasing Radius to 500 Feet $100 Subtotal $385 Impact of Requiring 4' x 8' Signage $ 70 Total Fee $455 Author: mdunwoody Public Notices 500 Feet. doc The following documents pertain to the: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMM. meeting of Monday, July 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM. HANDOUT AT THE JULY 10, 2006 PLANNII~G AND DEVELOPI~EI~ COt'lt4]-TTEE I~EET]'I~IG 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: 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 want 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 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. · 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.