Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1998 BAKERSFIELD NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of the Urban Development Committee of the City Council scheduled for Wednesday, May '13, '1998, at 12:15 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: May 13, 1998 ~alager ~ DBT:jp BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Dolores Teubner URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 13,1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 1998 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE - Rojas B. VESTING RIGHTS - Hardisty C. CLEANUP LEGISLATION - Skousen 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 8, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:~~'~" DOLORES B. TEUBNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1998. The minutes of the Urban Development Committee meeting of April 23, 1998 were not ready at distribution time for the agenda. The minutes will be ready Monday, May 11th in the afternoon. DBT:jp BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Dolores Teubner URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 13,1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 1998 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE - Rojas B. VESTING RIGHTS - Hardisty C. CLEANUP LEGISLATION - Skousen 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp DRAFT ¥/ Tandy, ~z~' ~"~-'age~j~[y ~an r KevJn McDermott, Chair Staff: Dolores B./Teubner Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith / AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 23, 1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:30 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith 2. APPROVAL OF MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE Staff gave a brief update on the status of the Kern River Freeway Funding. The project is up for review before the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Staff also provided a status on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). B. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT Staff gave a presentation on the proposal to increase the City's sphere of influence (SOl). A sphere of influence is a buffer between urban and rural land and defines the planning AFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Thursday, April 23,'1998 Page -2- boundary in which urban growth is anticipated to occur. The proposal to expand the SOl is needed since the City limits are either right up to the current SOl boundary or are quickly approaching the boundary. The Planning Commission, at its December meeting, reviewed the proposal and based on the objections of property owners, agreed to exclude the McAIlister Ranch and the Pacificana specific plan areas. Since that time the owners of Sunland Nurseries have also objected to being included in the expanded SOl, so staff is also recommending removing them. Staff's current proposal is to maintain a SOl boundary that creates a minimum one-mile buffer between urban and rural and to include all of the new and anticipated development area in the Northwest. Bill Turpin, Executive Director of LAFCO, made a presentation explaining LAFCO's involvement in the SOl expansion process and the policies, procedures and objectives that LAFCO uses to evaluate proposals. He stressed the need for ag land protection policies and methods in the General Plan in order to bring ag land into the City's SOl. The Committee thought it would be better to plan ahead for the transition of ag land which is in the direct path of urban growth, and develop ag policies for those areas that are not. Mr. Turpin offered his assistance in developing the policies. Staff was directed to work on this issue. The Committee supported staff's recommended SOl expansion and forwarded it to the City Council for hearing on May 6. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. ANNEXATION PROCESS The City Manager gave a report on measures which staff is proposing for improving and expanding the current annexation information program. He indicated that the City's effort is the most extensive one ever undertaken to inform residents about annexation and get them involved. He proposed that all protest hearings would be individually noticed, there would be no bundling of non-contiguous areas, and that an informal forum would be held prior to filing the annexation to get further input. In addition, staff would be developing an issue of Borderline which detailed the annexation process. Public comments were taken from residents of a recently annexed area and proposed annexation areas regarding their concerns about the process. The Committee recommended several additional changes including expanding the hotline to include options for several recorded messages to get information about upcoming meetings, dates and events. Also recommended was holding City services faires in potential annexation areas to give residents the opportunity to talk one-on-one with City staff about various services and issues. Staff was also directed to change the tracking system used for surveys and to hold more small meetings in each area so that each resident has an opportunity to attend one. The Committee will be making a report to Council on the recommended changes and enhancements. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Thursday, April 23,1998 Page -3- B. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS The Public Works Director did a demonstration of various sidewalk widths and the impact of sidewalk encroachments with different widths. Staff presented a list of other cities and comparisons of their encroachment policies and sidewalk requirements. Currently there are areas of Bakersfield's downtown where the sidewalk is as narrow as 4.5 feet. The ideal standard according to CalTrans is 10 feet, however, that may not always be practical. Staff would recommend a compromise of 6 feet. In addition, they would recommend that encroachment onto the public sidewalk be temporary so that it can be moved in case of emergency or when repairs are needed. Representatives of the Downtown Business Association indicated that they would like to encourage more outside activities in downtown and would like to see only 5 feet as a required sidewalk width. The Committee discussed the various options for sidewalk requirements and types of encroachments. Police also expressed concerns that encroachment permit requests were often for bars and taverns and that allowing drinking outside, encouraged problems with alcohol on public streets. The Committee agreed to an annual permit process with a $10 annual renewal fee. The structures should be temporary and the City should maintain its right to require their removal if needed. Also agreed on was a minimum 6 feet (from curb to property) sidewalk width. The Committee directed staff to begin working on revising the current process to include these changes. The C-1 zoning issue and the drinking in public right- of-way issue was referred back to staff for additional review. C. VESTING RIGHTS After discussion, it was agreed that the vesting rights issue should be tabled to the May meeting D. CLEANUP LEGISLATION Staff made a brief presentation on the nature of the cleanup items which simply bring the Municipal Code into compliance with what the actual practice of the City and/or with State or Federal requirements. After discussion, all items were recommended to Council for approval with the exception of the C-1 zoning issue which was tabled to the May meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 3:30 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council DBT:jp S:\Dolores\udmin42398 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE U?O, VE'q'DING TIlE MYSTERY State law defines a sphere of Influence as, "A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of local agency, as determined by the commission." The California Government code also includes sevei-al pages of specifics about Spheres of Influence. These include rules about hearings and notice, specific written findings required, rules for proposed amendment of Sphere of Influence, and requirements for completion of sphere plans for all LAFCo jurisdictions and newly incorporated cities. The text of this section is attached. SPHERE FACTS SPHERE 1MISFERES City Spheres are based on City General Plans City Spheres should not include all or at least most of the city General Plan planning area City Spheres may include Prime Ag Land City Spheres should not include all ag land which affects the City. A Sphere of Influence plan is an exclusive A Sphere is not an orderly planning tool used LAFCo planning tool usually used to define to coordinate development standards and an area where there are specific plan growth in areas which influence a city. commitments to provide services (See joint planning areas) Specific Commitments include things like Commitments are not statements, Economic sewer plants or bonds; water treatment Development Goals, or "I always thought plants, and may include comprehensive that; or everyone knows that" General Plans A Sphere of Influence gives no special A Sphere is not a farming region outside the jurisdiction or legal powers to a city outside castle walls xvhich enjoys the protection of its corporate boundaries, the knights within and therefore "owes" a protection fee. State law requires Environmental Review of Sphere revisions should not be agreed upon sphere revision requests (564286) and by a phone call or made with out paperwork. specific written findings based upon facts reviewed by the Commission BRIEFING What Does LAFCo Do? LAFCo Does Not Examples of what LAFCo does M~hs about LAFCo. LAFCo provides a forum and timeline to resolve disputes between local agencies, for example; LAFCo does not make decisions or influence local Cawello Water Dist vs. North of the River choices of zoning, land use designation or other Municipal Water Dist. local government controls on land use. ( it is forbidden by state law). LAFCo helps suggest and implement the proper type of local government to provide needed LAFCo does not second guess Environmental decisions made by other local governments. service, for example; Lake Isabella Community Services District. In most cases LAFCo reuses the document. LAFCo does not drag out the development LAFCo mediates jurisdictional disputes between local agencies, for example; Mojave and Cal process. Most LAFCo decisions are reached far City. in advance oftimelines in the law. Most LAFCo approvals can be combined with other required LAFCo coordinates the review and provides approvals. In fact, LAFCo encourages this a neutral forum for review of incorporation approach. proposals, for example; Mojave, Rosamond. LAFCo does not mandate property tax splits or orchestrate school impact fees. These local LAFCo encourages cities to provide service plan specifics to go along with their future annexation government decisions belong to other agencies. and growth plans, for example; sphere of influence Kern County LAFCo does not set urban limit planning in Bakersfield, Shafter, Taft, Wasco, Cal City and Mc Farland. lines, or Green Lines or establish no growth areas. 10/96 the matters specified in subdivision (n) of Section 56375. (Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1384.) Commission of principal 56387. Except as otherwise provided in county has exclusive Section 56388, if any district is, or as a jurisdiction except resul~ of a proposed change of organiza- as provided in Section tion or reorganization would be, located 56388 in more than one county, the commission of the principal county shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the matters authorized and required by this part. Commission of principal 56388. If any proposal involves a county may vest Juris- district which is, or as a result of a diction in commission proposed change of organization or reor- of county in which ganization would be, located in more than territory located one county, exclusive jurisdiction for that proposal over the matters authorized and required by this part may be vested in the commission of a county, other than the principal county, in which territory of the district is located or is proposed to be located if all of the following occur: _ (a) The commission of the principal county agrees to having the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the commission of another county. (b) The commission of the principal county designates the commission of another county which shall assume exclusive jurisdiction. (c) The coDmission of the county so designated agrees to assume exclusive jurisdiction. CHAPTER 4. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE LAFCO required to determine 56425. (a) In order to carry out its and periodically update purposes and responsibilities for planning spheres of influence for and shaping the logical and orderly each local agency and development and coordination of local make written determinations governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine ~he sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county.. In determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. (b) Upon determination of a sphere of influence, the commission shall adopt that sphere, and shall periodically review and update the adopted sphere. (c) The commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those recommendations. Those recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other agencies or to the public. Spheres of influence 56426. (a) The commission shall adoption deadlines; develop, determine, and adopt the sphere restrictions on of influence for each local governmental approving proposals agency within its jurisdiction which provides facilities or services related to development no later than January 1, 1985. The commission shall develop, determine, and adopt the sphere of influence for all other local governmental agencies within its jurisdiction no later than June 30, 1985. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and Section 56377.5, a commission which has not adopted a sphere of influence for a local governmental agency which provides facilities or services related to development may review, approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a proposal which includes territory which might be contained within the sphere of that local agency, or any proposal for annexation of territory or for the formation of a district, if the application was submitted to the executive officer pursuan5 to Section 56828, on or before December 31, 1984. Before approving or conditionally approving a proposal pursuant to this subdivision, a commission shall find that there is a reasonable probability ~hat the proposal will be consistent with the spheres of influence being prepared for the local agency for which the proposal is proposed. (c) Until June 30, 1985, a commission which has not adopted a sphere of influence for - 63 local governmental agencies which do not provide facilities or services related to development may review, approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove proposals which include territory which might be contained within the sphere of influence of these local agencies. When acting on a proposal pursuant to this subdivision, the commission shall prepare a written statement of determinations with respect to the existence of agricultural preserves in the area which could be considered within an agency's sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of those preserves in the event that the agricultural preserves are within a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. If the proposal would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land within the agricultural preserves to nonagricultural use, the commission shall make written determinations explaining the reasons for its decision. (d) A commission shall not approve or conditionally approve any proposal which would result in the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use if the commission has not adopted a sphere of influence for each local governmental agency which might, as determined by the commission, include the subject territory in its sphere of influence and which provides facilities or services related to ~evelopment. (e) "Facilities or services related to development," as used in this section, means public works or service programs related to sewers, nonagricultural water, streets and roads, flood control, drainage, and structural fire protection. Sphere of influence of 56426.5. Beginning January 1, 1990, at the proposed newly time a commission approves a proposal for an incorporated city; time incorporation or a reorganization which for determination includes an incorporation, the commission may determine the sphere of influence for the proposed new city. Except as provided in subdivision (b), the commission shall determine the sphere of influence for any newly incorporated city within one year of the effective date of incorporation. (b) The commission shall determine the sphere of influence for any newly incorporated city, the proposal for which was approved by - 64 - the commission before January 1, 1990, by January 1, 1991. (Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1384.) Spheres of influence 56427. The commission shall adopt, adoption and amendment; amend, or revise spheres of influence notice, hearing, continuance after a public hearing called and held for that pqrpose. At least 15 days prior to the date of that hearing, the executive officer shall give mailed notice of the hearing to each affected local agency or affected county, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for notice with the executive , officer. In addition, at least 15 days prior to the date of that hearing, the executive officer shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in accordance with Section 56153 in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of influence proposed to be adopted. The commission may continue from time to time any hearing called pursuant to this section. At any hearing called and held pursuant to this section, the commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony presented _ by any affected local agency or affected county or any interested person who wishes to appear. This section shall only apply to spheres of influence adopted by the commission after January 1, I975. Request for amendment of 56428. (a) Any person or local agency may sphere of influence; file a written request with the executive reimbursement officer requesting amendments to a sphere of influence or urban service area adopted by the commission. The request shall state the nature of the proposed amendment, state the reasons for the request, include a map of the proposed amendment, and contain any additional data and information as may be required by the executive officer. (b) After complying with the California Environmental Quality Act, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda Of the next meeting of the commission for which notice can be given. The executive officer shall give notice in the manner provided by Section 56427. On the date and time provided in the notice, the commission may do either of the following: - 65 - (1) Without further notice, consider the amendments to a sphere of influence. (2) Set a future date for.the hearing on the request. (c) The executive officer shall review each requested amendment and prepare a report and recommendation. The report shall be completed not less than five days before the date specified in the notice of hearing. The executive officer shall send copies of the report to the person or agency making the request, each affected local agency, and each person who has filed a request for a report. (d) At its meeting, the commission shall consider the request and receive any oral or written testimony. The consideration may be continued from time to time but not to exceed 70 days from the date specified in the original notice. The person or agency which filed the request may withdraw it at any time prior to the conclusion of the consideration by the commission. (e) At the conclusion of its consideration, the commission may approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, the request. The commission - shall follow the procedures in Sections 56425 and 56426. (f) The commission may require the person or agency making a request pursuant to this section to pay a fee to cover the commission's costs. The 'fee shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service and shall be set pursuant to Section 56383. The commission may waive the fee if it finds that the request can be considered and studied as part of the periodic review of spheres of influence required by Section 56425. In addition, the commission may waive the fee if it finds that payment would be detrimental to the public interest. (g) The commission and executive officer may review and act on any request to amend a sphere of influence or urban service area concurrently with their review and determination on any related change of organization or reorganization. In case of a conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provisions of this part, the other provisions shall prevail. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 826.) 66 - Comparison of Downtown Encroachment Policies Fresno Long Beach Merced Modesto Sacramento San Diego San Francisco San Jose San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Ventura Plantem/awnings Permit to allow tables, only; tables not awnings, etc downtown? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y allowed Y y y Specific hours or events that Only in coastal Business hours Business Business hours ] Up to midnight, or Summer Solstice Business hours the sidewalk must be clear for? N/A Zone only hours only only CUP for later hours N/A Fiesta only N Il depends on Do you require railings or how many rows barriers? N Y N Y Y Y Diverters ABC N/A of tables N Cost of Pen~it? $500.00 $250.00 $150,00 $4Q00 $916.00 ? $100 to $400 $600 to $800 $60.00 for planters $100 to $300 $77Q00 $50 00 Typical sidewalk width downtown? 14' 15' 14' 10' to 15' ? ? 9' 12' lo 27' 8' to 10' ? 12' + 12' Minimum clear sidewalk widlh 4' local outside of encroachmenls? 6' 5' 5' 5'major 8' 8' 6' 10' 6' 8' 8' - 12' 4' Does your Muni Code allow servin..g liquor in the sidewalk areas. ? Y Y Y ? Y, + ABC Y, + ABC N Y ABC ABC Whal is your criteria [or encroachments? See ordinance See ordinance See application See ordinance See application See ordinance See ordinance See application See ordi~ance Notes Annual Annual $100 tO $400 annually Monthly rental