The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/05/1999 - B A KE R S F IE L D Randy Rowles, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, April 5, 1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 1, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE - Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A. ORDINANCE REGARDING APPEAL FILINGS FOR SUBDIVISION MAPS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME - Hardisty B. ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKING GROUP FROM CELSOC TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~John\UrbanDev~99aprO5agen JWS:jp BAKERSFIELD ~--~ [/t'~ ~,~ f Randy Rowles, Chair Alan Tan'dy, (~ibj Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, March 1, 1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 1:20 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 17, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY 'REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. PARK DEVELOPMEN~PARK LAND FEES ORDINANCE UPDATE Jack Hardisty presented revised drafts of the proposed Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee Credit and the Park Development Fee Credit Ordinances with the changes that were URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, March 1, 1999 Page -2- _ requested by the Committee in order to provide a criteria where multi-service medical and recovery care facilities could receive a 100% credit or exemption from the park development fee. He suggested some additional changes to Section C. of the Park. Development Fee Credit Ordinance, which would more clearly indicate the additional facilities required to qualify for an exemption from the park development fee. These changes were acceptable to those requesting the Ordinance change and also to representatives from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. The Committee recommended that the Ordinances with the proposed changes be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. B. FREEWAY UPDATE Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave the Committee an overview of road funding and how various transportation improvement funding sources are applied to projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield'area. C. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - GREATER BAKERSFIELD 2020 VISION Assistant City Manager John Stinson indicated that staff needed further direction from the Committee regarding their desire to have the Urban Development Committee meet in the community regarding this issue. He noted that the County had recently taken action on this item and had contacted the City to coordinate activities. It was pointed out that there could be confusion among the public as to the purpose of the 2020 Vision meetings since the County is starting a strategic planning effort, and both the City and County are working on updating the 2010 General Plan which will also require public meetings and input. There was discussion about the possibility of having joint meetings of the Urban Development Committee and representatives from the Board of Supervisors out in the community. The City Attorney indicated that there were Brown Act issues to deal with if other Councilmembers or Board members attended these meetings. It was suggested that if meetings were noticed as meetings of the entire City Council and Board of Supervisors, all could attend. Staff was directed to check to see if the County had any interest in such meetings to discuss the 2020 Vision Report. Staff will also be preparing an inventory of activities the City is currently doing which are consistent with the principles in the 2020 Vision Report. The Committee expects to receive additional direction on this issue from'the City Council at the March 17"~ Council meeting. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, March 1, 1999 Page -3- 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 3:18 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council JVVS:jp Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle, Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Planning Director Stanley Grady. Public: Mike Callagy, Cornerstone Engineering; Michael Abril, Borton, Petrini and Conron; Earl M. Miller, Careage Inc.; Colon Bywater and Henry Agonia, North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District; Brian Todd, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Michael Green, The Bakersfield Califomiarl; Laura Snideman, BIA; Renee Nelson; and Ron Brummett, Kern COG for Item 5.B. S:Uohn\UrbanDev\U D99ma~31 sumrnary.wpd Rpr O1 99 lO:3G~ S,C. Rndepson Exeou~ive ~805] 392-708~ pol March 30, 1999 Mr, Randy Rowles, Ctly Councilm~n City of Bake~fmld 1501 Tmxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Calif0mia 93301 RE: ~ ,I..,,~:X: PREB,IENTATiO~ Dear Randy; I hereby request that CELSOC be placed on the Urban Development (~ommiffee Agenda for Monday, April 5, 10O0 to make a presentation relating to the approval process. Please call me at 327-0362 and let me know if this is Thank you ~or your cons~deralton in ~is matter. ~)incerely, Fred W. Poller, P.E. FWP/db April 1, 1999 City of Bakersfield i 1501 Tmxtun A'vcnue Bakersfield, California 93301 ATTN: Alan Tandy RE: Ordinance Relating to Appeal Filings for Subdivision Maps Dear Alan: Pursuant to our meeting, I have reviewed the changes pertaining to Section 16.52.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. As I read Section B, I do not see where the ability for the City Engineer, the Planning Director, or any member of the public adversely affected by a decision of the Advisory Agency approving an extension of time for a Tentative 'Map or a Vesting Tentative Map, may file an appeal from such a d~ision to the City Council. As I read the Map Act, the subdivider is the only individual that may appeal a denko, l of an application for an extension of time to the City Council on a Vesting Tentative Map. However, I find no provision for any other person or party to appeal a decision of the Advisory Agency ~ an extension of time for a Vesting Tentative Map and, in fact, feel that the intent of the vesting map provision, which affords the individual developer the vested fight to proceed with his development in accordance with ordinances, laws, standards and policies in affect at the time that the original vesting map application was accepted, would be compromised if after the fact,, in some case two or three years later, a third party filed an appeal from the Advisory Agency approval of the extension of time for that same Vesting Tentative Map. Therefore, Section B does not make sense and I don't think it is in line with the intent of the Subdivision Map Act Vesting Rights... In addition, I understand there may be other concerns from other organizations on this ordinance and to that extent I will withhold any other possible changes for a later date, ' 2001 WHEEl.AN COURT · BAKERSFIELD. CA 93309 . 805/~34-4814 * FAX 8051834-0972 ,, The following documents pertain to the: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE meeting of Monday, April 5, 1999 at 1:15 PM. H~IDED OW~ A~ ~tEMEETI~G City of Bakersfield Urban Development Committee Meeting April 5, 1999 City Manager's Office CELSOC Agenda Item CELSOC REQUEST TO COMMITT~: That CELSOC/CITY STAFF Committee be renewed, and to include City of Bakersfield Council Representative to Planning Commission, as well as, Chairman of Planning Commission to begin meetings concerning various aspects of COB Departments regarding subdivision processing, policies, and procedures. Respectfully submitted, CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORNIA, BAKERSFIELD CHAPTER \corr\urbandev.sum HANDED OWI~ AT THEM EE~XNG City of Bakersfield Urban Development Committee Meeting Agenda Item: Proposed ordinance change to restrict public appeals to Bakersfield City Council April 5, 1999 City Manager's Office Recommendations from CELSOC (Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California) members are: 1. That the Urban Development Committee recommend to Council that the appeal process not be re-written, with a recommended NO vote by Council on proposed ordinance to amend Sections 16.52.010, 16.52.020 and 16.52.030(A) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. a.. Present State law adequately addresses appeals and the appeal process. b. Proposed ordinance restricts and limits public input to City Council. It puts Staff in a position to deny appeals of their own actions, and'makes it difficult, if not impossible, for average resfdents of Bakersfield to appeal to Council. c. Proposed ordinance prevents City Council from the ability to make broad decisions on any public matter, or any complaint that residents of Bakersfield wish to bring before the Council through the appeal process. Respectfully submitted, CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORNIA, BAKERSFIELD CHAPTER \corr\urbandev.sum