Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2000 BAKERSFIELD Jeffrey A. Green, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, November 13, 2000 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 16, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3.. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees - Capital Improvement Plan B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree ordinance C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding existing City ordinance relating to manufactured homes 5. ADJOURNMENT S:~John\UrbanDev\00novl 3agen.wpd JW$:jp DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ~ Jeffrey A. Green, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of Monday, October 16, 2000 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Office - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:03 p.m. Present: Councilmembers: Jeffrey Green,'Chair; Mike Maggard; and David Couch 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 21, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree ordinance Planning Director Stan Grady gave an overview of the draft ordinance with proposed language changes (included in the Committee packet), which was-prepared by Development Services staff in collaboration with the Planning Commission's Landscaping and Design Standards Committee. The discussions included a classification of industry standards with respect to tree sizes. The City's tree ordinance was reviewed and compared with the one from the Tree Foundation and recommendations include: 1) proposed changes to acknowledge requests by the Tree Foundation; 2) some current . standards not be changed, and 3) proposed that more complex issues be studied on a long-term basis. Fred Porter, CELSOC, spoke regarding redevelopment on sites with existing large trees and allowing replacement tree-size variances to avoid discouraging redevelopment and variances on frontage tree planting for commercial buildings to allow tree clustering in place of linear Spacing. · D AFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, October 16, 2000 Page -2- The Committee discussed options and tree planting variances for special architectural building designs or redevelopment projects on sites with existing large trees. As the Tree Foundation and the building/developer community represented at the meeting did not have ample time to review the proposed ordinance changes, the Committee directed staff to meet with them for their input and bring that information back to the next Committee meeting. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding opening Shellabarger Road at Pepita Way At the Committee meeting in September, the item relating to potential property acquisition, was referred to' Closed Session of the City Council. It was-heard in Closed Session on October 11,2000, and there is nothing new to report at this time. Karen Cox brought snapshets of the area and spoke about sanitation truck access problems. Leonard Koch and Norma Dixon spoke about the sanitation trucks on Shellabarger and workable solutions. After right-of-way issues have been resolved, this item will return to the Committee for a recommendation to the City Council. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Freeway Status Report Jack LaRochelle reported on the following: The Route 58 project continues with CalTrans still working on the Tier 1 Environmental Document. State Fish and Wildlife once again has brought up the San Joaquin Valleywide Kit Fox study that they requested CalTrans do on all projects including maintenance projects, and although not directly related to the Route 58 project, it is holding it up. Staff thought this was resolved and is checking further. CalTrans has begun the design work. The work being done by CalTrans can be used whether the project continues as a State highway, freeway or parkway. The Fairfax and Hwy 178 Interchange was funded by-Kern COG. Staff is working with CalTrans to do the project approval environmental document. An offer has been made on property necessary for the on/off-ramps. There is a possibility that we may be able to use Habitat Conservation Program monies to do the biological work. The goal is to have this under construction in about two years. Staff has been meeting with CalTrans and working on the environmental document for the VVhite Lane and State Route 99 Interchange. The URS Greiner Study work is on schedule. Public input has been taken and is being reviewed. The preliminary report and a list of alternatives should be done by April with the report completed in July 2001. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, October 16, 2000 Page -3- D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees - Capital Improvement Plan Marian Shaw and Jack LaRochelle gave an overview of the projects proposed to be added to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Facilities List to address" hot spots~ and growth. This plan is updated annually and is a list of roadway facilities that need to be built in the 20-year horizon to facilitate growth or new development. New development pays for these facilities or a portion thereof attributed to the traffic mitigation need caused by their new development. As required by State law, before the end of each year the City Council adopts a Capital Improvement Plan for the Transportation Impact Fees. This is a 5-year plan and reflects the Capital Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council for FY 2000-2001. As this.is a Metropolitan Plan, it must also be adopted annually by the County. The Capital Improvement Plan for the Transportation Impact Fees should-go to the City Council on November 29th. The Committee suggested that after Council review on November 29"', this item could be placed on the Joint City/County agenda for the meeting scheduled on December 11"' for adoption. The Committee requested additional information from staff to be brought back to the next meeting. The Urban Development Committee meeting scheduled for November 20th was moved up one week to Monday, November 13"~ to allow the Committee time to make a recommendation to the Council. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Smart Growth Coalition - presentation of Metropolitan Bakersfield Community Image Survey Pauline Larwood gave an overview of their.image survey (included in the Urban Development Committee packet). Many of the findings are the same as the issues being reviewed by the Chamber's 2020 Vision Committee. Ms. Larwood stated that the Smart Growth Coalition would like to see some ordinance changes to reflect the findings in their survey, but would wait until the 2020 Vision Committee completes its work. It was discussed that many of the tree and landscaping issues will be addressed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree Advisory Ad Hoc Committee. To save duplication of efforts, the Committee recommended waiting to review the iss. ues until the Chamber's 2020 Vision Committee completes its review. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation'regarding completing arterials in developing areas and getting reimbursement from developers at the time of development Committee member Couch expressed concerns regarding arterials in new developing areas where the road is three lanes on one side then narrows down to one 'lane because development has not occurred in some areas on that side of the road. One example cited was Buena Vista going south from Stockdale Highway. Because of the heavy traffic going to Stockdale High School, there is a need to complete Buena Vista Road from Stockdale to White Lane. DJ AFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, October 16, 2000 Page ~- City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained that if the City completes a roadway prior to development without an agreement with the property owner, the City cannot collect for those improvements. Also, in some cases right-of-way would have to be obtained and public hearings may be necessary. The Committee directed staff to brainsto, rm to' see if there are incentives that could be offered or other creative ways that could be used as encouragement'for developers -to complete long-standing,. half-finished roadways. ¥'. 71~ COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee member Couch asked to meet with Public Works staff regarding the Transportation Impact Fees and how the City's ordinance relates to the construction price index to adjust project fees to keep up with increasing construction and labor costs. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Attendance: Staff: Assistant'City Manager John Stinson, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle, Planning Director Start Grady, Deputy City Attorney Carl Hernandez, and Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw Others: Dana Adams, Tree Foundation; Roger Mclntosh, Martin-Mclntosh; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Cathy Daniel, Bakersfield Board of Realtors; Fred Porter; CELSOC; Kern County Supervisor Barbara Patrick; Rhonda Knight, County Administrative Office; Leonard Koch; Stuart Baugher; Norma Dixon, Karen Cox; Michael Fanucchi; Tom Carosella, Carosella Properties; Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; Mark Smith, ASU; James Burger, The Bakersfield Californian; and John Kendall, KERN. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:John\UrbanDev\UD00oct16SummarT.wpd MEMORANDUM RECEIVED NOV - 7 20O0 ,~ ~ MANAGER'S ~'":"-..., ':: .... ... -' November 7, 2000 TO: JOHN STINSON, ASSISTANT MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISlY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RE: MOBILEHOME ORDINANCE The attached letter from the Bakersfield Association of Realtors indicates that adoption of the ten year age limit on mobilehomes in residential neighborhoods would be acceptable. You might want to put this deferred business on the Urban Development's agenda so we can dispose of that referral. JH:pah Attachment P:\Corres\mobilehome.mem.wpd BAKERSFIELD ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, Inc. 4800 STOCKDALE HWY., STE. 100 The Voice for Real Estate'" in Bakersfield P.O. Box 9338 REALTOR~ BAKERSFIELD, CA 93389-9338 TELEPHONE (661)635-2300 FAX (661) 635-23"17 October 31, 2000 Jack Hardisty N 0 V - 1 2000 Development Services Director CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City of Bakersfield PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Hardisty: I would like to inform you of our Board of Director's decision to agree with the City of Bakersfield's proposal regarding manufactured housing. The Board of Directors found that adopting the 1 O-year age limit permitted by State law on placement of mobile homes outside of mobile, home parks, and a regulation that would not be applied retroactively to homes already in place, consistent with the goals of the real estate industry. We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposal and look forward to working with the Cit~of Bakersfield on future developments which may affect the real estate industry. Sin~~// ~.hv~'d G)~y Director DG:cd ~ ~NOV- 9-00 THU 15:09 CITY PLANNING FaX NO, 805 3270646 P. 02 MEMORANDUM , September 24, 1999 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE RE: CITY ORDINANCE RELATED TO MANUFACTURED H. OMES Councilwoman Demond has referred review of the city's ordinance regulating placement of mobile homes in residential zones to the Urban Development Committee to consider whether it is appropriate and consistent with state law. Excerpts from the Municipal Code and State Government Code are attached for your review. The two optional requirements not addressed by the city's code are underlined. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney JH~pas $:~a[~memo,JH,sept24c.wpd ~ '~NOV- 9-00 THU 15:09 CITY PLANNING FaX l'tO. 805 3270646 P, 03 15.44.070-15.44.0?5 in a dUapidated, obsolete or deteriorated condi- to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code tion wltich in any manner may result in or tend shall be permitted on lots within R-I zones. to lessen the economic valuen of adjoining Upon application therefor pursuant to the provi- properties, ot be a detriment to the neighbor- sions of Chapter 15.! 2 and payment of applicable hood in which the building is to be placed, and fees, the building director shall grant such the buildings shall be made to conform generally permit if, but only if; he makes the I'ollowing to and be in hannony in appearance with the findings: buildings in thc immediate neighborhood to 1. The lot upon which such mobile home is which the building is to be moved. (Prior code to be installed is determined to be compatible § 13.28.050). for such mobile home use (for purposes hereof, it shall be conclusively presumed that a lot is 15.44.070 [nspection ofbuildingsmoved ' compatible if the roof overi~ang, roofing from outside to inside the city or materials, and siding materials (and extent from onephceto another within thereoO conform generally to and are in the dty. harmony with dwellings in the immediate neigh- A, No permit shall be issued under this ehal>- borhood of tile lot); and ter for the moving of a building from a siteout- 2. The applicant accepts as conditions of side the city to a site inside the city unless and such permit conditions that the proposed until the building to be moved has been fuUy installation be made in full compliance with all inspected by a licensed civil or structural applicable provisions of statelaw, including, but engineer or licensed architect, who shall certify not limited to, the provisions of Health and that every component part of the building is Safety Code Section 18551, and that such structurally sound and meets the requirements installation be made in full compliance with of this chapter including repairs or corrections each development standard to which a conven- and that the building has been satisfactorily tional single-family residential dwelling on the braced to withstand stresses caused by moving, same lot would subject to, including, but not Ali of the buildings shall, however, be subject limited to, building setback standards, side and to the approval of tile building official before rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, being placed on the new site. access, and vehicle parking. B. Buildings to be moved from one location B. Refusal of Permit - Appeal. Whenever the to another within the city, shall be furst in- building director withholds or refuses to issue a spected and approwd by the building official, permit required under this section, the applicant The fee for the inspection-shall be twelvc dollars, for the permit may, within ten days from the The inspection shall determine the condition of date of tile building director's decision, appeal the building for compliance with this chapter such decision to the city council. The city clerk including repairs or corrections. (PHor code shall set the matter for public hearing before the § 13.28.060), city council and shall give notice of such hearing as prescribed in subdivisions I and 2 of subsec- 15.44.075 Mobile homes in R-I zones, tion C of Section 16,16,060 of this code. Upon A. Permit Requked. Upon the granting ora such hearing, the city council shall direct permit therefor by the city's building director, issuance of such permit if, but only if, it makes and notwithstanding any other provision of this the findinD set forth in subsection A of thls code, mobile homes certified under the National section. The deciSion of the city c~un¢il ~hall Mobilehome Construction and Safety Standards be final. (Ord. 2652 § 1, 1981;Ord. 2648 § I, Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401 et seq,) 198 !: prior code § ! 5,44.075). and installed on a foundatibn system pursuant <~kenn~a ?.aa) 498-2 ,, ~NOV- 9-00 THU. 15:IO CITY PLANNING FaX NO. 805 3270646 P. 04 ~ § 65852.3 GOVERNMENT CODE § 65852.3. Regulation of in.staIlatlon of manufactured homes; Exemptions (a) A city, including a chacO, er city, county, or city and county, shall allow the installatIon of manufactured homes certified under the Natibnal Manufactured llousing Construction and Safety Standard~ Act of 19-/4 (42 U.$.C, Sees. 5401 et seq.} un a foundation system, pursuant to Section 1855t of ~J~e ltealth a~d S~fe~y o~ lots zoned i'or convetttlonal sit~gl¢-family residential dwellings. Except with respect to architectural require- ments, a city. tncludin~ a chane~ city, c~unty, of city and county, shall only subject the ma~tufactured home a~)d the lot on which it is placed to d~e same dcvclopmenl standards to which a col]venm'~n,~l single family rc,~idcntial dwclli~g on linc samc lol would l~ subject, includible, bul not limkcd lo, building ~ctb~ck slar~dards. side and rear y~d tequh'emenls, slandards for or,closures, access, and vehicle parking, aesthetic rcquircmcnt~, arid minimum square' footage teq'~drell]enls. Any architectural requircmenls imposed oil Ihe l~};~lufBcluFa~l hom~ structure i~self, cxclunivc of any ~quireme~lt for any and all addilional enclo~urc~, shall be hmilctl 1~ iix r~.~.~ overhang, rool~g material, and siding material. These architectural requiremcn~n may be imposed on ma~ufaclurcd homes even if simil~ requirements are not hnposed on conventional singlc-I~mily dwellings, l~owever, a~]y al'chi~eclural rcquirenteUtS for roofing and siding malerial shall nol cxcccd which would ~ r~uircd of convention]al single-family dwellings constructed on thc sarnc lot At thc disc~'e~ 3i9n of ~c I~al legislative ~y, 0~e city or county may.preclude installation of a maaufacluEq~.~me in zones: ~ifi~ in ~ix sccdon if more ~ 10 ye~ have elaps~ ~twee]~ lhe d~e of manufacmrc..~[~ manufactu~ home ~d Ihe da~e of ~e application.for fl~e issuance~[.a ~it !o install ~ mnnufi~t,,r~d _ ~q~e in ~le aff~l~d zone. In no case may a city, including a cheer city, county, or cily and county, apply any dewlopment s~and~ds that will have lhe effect of pr~ltlding manufactur~ homes from ~ing installed ~rmancn~ residen~. ~e discretion of ~e I~ l~gislative ~y, any pla~e, building, s~cture, or o~er object ~[~acter or s~ial historical interest. 9~_ ?.slue, and wl].Lc~i~ regulated ~y. a. kgisla~ive bc~y put,ant ~JT)~J, .~)~.~ exemp[cd from this sec~9.~rovided ~te p[~, .~uilding. al~]cture,~r _on the .~ional Register of ltiatodc Amended Stats 1988 ch 1571 ~ I; S~ 1994 ch 896 ~ 3 (AB 3735), A mendmenk~: 1988 Amendment: (D Addc~ .~bdivinion dcsignaHon (a): (2) Small, cd sum (a) by (a) ~eb~i~tiag ". shah aUow the instal, 1974" fu] "sl~311 nn~ pr~ib~l ¢h~ mntallaHon of mubilchomes cc~i~cd undcr the NalJonal Mnbilc Home C~]n~lmclton and Safc~y ~andard~ Ac( of 19'/4" in thc fir~l ~tltc~ice. lb) subsli{uling "cunvc~tional single-family residential dwellings. wi~ ~n~ct to archilcclutal ~¢qui~cmcms" for "single-family dwellings, ltowcvcr" after "lots zoned for" ~n Ibc fi~[ (c) .nub~dtuting ", shall only subject thc manufaclurcd home and die lot on which ii is plat. cd to" for "may desto, hale z¢)ned (uT single family dwellings for mahilchomea ~n descried ill this ~lion. which lois are dclcrmincd lo ~ for such mobildtomc u.~c. A c~ly. including a char~er city. county, or cily and courtly may subject any ~u:h n]t:bdehomc and the lot un which ii is placed lo any or all o[" in thc ~econd sta(cncc; (d) deleting "a~d archilcclural" a/let "and vchlcle parking" h] ll~c sccond sentence; (c} adding chc ~i~ and fou~ scnlcnces: (0 substi~uling the fiRh .~nle~ce for tile fifth ~ntenc¢ which read: "However. any a~hit~lu~l rcquite~lleflts im~ on the mobilchome s~mcture ~l/. exclusive of any r~uircm~nt For any and alt ~d,tiana! ¢nclosmen, shall ~ limited {o its rt~f overhang, r~ng material, and n~d]ng rial.'~: (g) addi.g Iht ~ixlh ~ntcncc; th) adding the comma after "city and county" i~1 Ihe Jest ~nlence; and (1) ~ub~ticuting "prccludi~g mamJfacmred homes~' for "totally precluding mobileho~s" in the la~l ~nle. nce: and (3) added ~tJM I994 Amelldnlent: In addilton Lo making technic~ changes, substiluted "manuFacture.d ho~" for "mahHchc~mc" in thc ~ixlh ~nt¢nc~ or slLhd (a). C~5s Rcrerc,c~: Mobileho~ Parks Acr H & S C ~ 182~ e: ~q Collateral Rcfel~llCeS: Witkiu Sumnla~T.(9th cd) Cons~[tul~onai ~w ~ 852. M~llcr & Slam Cai R~I Estate 2d ~ 27:13. 1988 legislative summa~' 7 Cai Real Pr~p J No. I ~ I. ~ 65852,4. Application of local la~d use process or rcquirement to manufactured A c~ty. including a chanc-r Oily. a courtly, Ol' a city and county, shall not subject an apphca~on tc~ It~'alr ]f~stall a manufactured he, mc certified ultd¢~l lh¢ National Ma~uFaclured Housing Consti~cllofl and Standards Act ~.~f i~74 (42 U.g.C. ~ec. 5401 et seq.) on a fuunda6on syslcm, pursuant Io 5cclion 185~1 ltcalih and Safely C~e, oil a lot zoned for a single-family resldendal dwelling, to any ad]~inisLra~iw, i~mtit, plafmiuC, o~ developmenl pr~css; or requirement, which is not identical Lo ibc admini~lradve ~'nmh planning. or development pr~css or r~uircment which wuuld ~ imposed on a convcn6onal single-family rcsldcnlial dwelling on ibc same lot However, a city, including a cha~cr city, county, or cily and county, may thc application lo c~m~ply wid~ ~l~e c~ty's, county's, or city and COuTd?S architectural requ;rem~'nl~ by Scclion 6585? 3 eve~l d Ihe a~chilcciural requirements are nol r~quired of conve.[iunal ~ingle.family reside~ttat dwellings. Add~ Sinks 1988 ch 1.572 D I Collateral Refe~nc~: Miller · S~a~. Cai Real ~a~e Z~ ~ 27:1~ ~ '~NOV- 9-00 THU 15:11 OITY PLANNING FR× NO. 805 3270646 P, 05 § 658S2.$, Imposition et' size requirements for reeL' overhang el' manuraclured home .Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 65852.3, no cji,y, including a churls' city, county, or city and county, may impo.sc size requirements for a tool' overhang of a manufactu~:l home subject to the provisio~ls of Sec. lion 65852.3, unless the same size tequiremenls also would be imposed on a conventional single-tramily residenlial dwelling constructed on {he same 1eL However, when there ate no size requirements for roof overhangs fei' bol,h manufactured homes and conventional single-I'amily residential dwellings, a city, including a charier city. county, city and counl,y, may Impose a roof overhang on manufactured homes not to exceed 16 inch,. Added S(als 1990 ch 426 § I (AB 3385}. Amended Sta~s 1990 ch 1223 § I (Al} 3114). Amendment,s: 1990 Amendment: Added tl~ so:end sentence. § 6S8S2.6. State policy regar~ting homing~pigeons (a) il is the policy of the state to permit breeding and the maintaining of homing pigeons conois~ent with the preservation el' public health and safely. (b) For purposes of this section, a "homing pigeon," sometimes refened to as a racing pigeon, is a bird of the order Columbae, It does not fall in the category of "fowl" which includes chickens, turkeys, duek~, g~sc, and ol,l~er domcstical,ed birds other l,han pigeorts. Added StaL~ ~990 ch 329-§ I (AB 3109). Ame~ed S~a~.s 199l ch 1091 § 63 (AB 1487). Amendmenls: 199~ Amenclment: Routine code maintenance. § 65852,?, Meb[lehome park as permitted-luna use C.~llaleral Rel'erenees: Willdn Summary (9~h ed) Co~slimtional L~w § I152. § 65852,11. Reslrletions on limiting (~urafJon of rental agreementS or leases; Spaces con[ained in mattul'acl, ure(! housing community and mobilehome parks as new construction (a) No city or county, including a charter city, county, or city and county, which ha~ adopted or enacted ,, lo- cal rent control o~linance t'or mobilchome park space~, st~all adopt o~ e~t'o~e any ordinance, rule. or regula- lion thai, prohibits or limits thc duralion of rental agx-eements or [eases For any space comalned wilhi~; any manufactured housin§ community, ss defined in Section 18801 of the Health and Safety Code, or wilhitl any mobilchomc park, a.~ defined .in Section 18214 et' {he Health and Sa~e. ty Code, that is new consl,~a¢tion, if ~J;¢ e~actmcnt operal,es ~o circumvenl l,he pro~,isio~ls of Section 798.7 of the Civil Cede. (b~ As used in l`his section, "new construction" means: ti) For mobilehom¢ paxks, any newly constn.~cted space, pursuant to Section 798,7 of the Civil Code. (2) For matlut'actun;d housiltg communities, any space initially held out for rent aftcr January I, 1993. (c) A mobilehome park that is considered "new construction" pursuant, to this ~ection. and tt~al complies with Section 18801 el' ~hc Health and Sal'=ty Code, may be converted l,o a manufactured hou,~ing conm~unity without losing its "new construction" designation. Added SIaU 1993 cfi 858 § 2 (AI~ 2177).