Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2000 B A K E R S F I E 'L D Jeffrey A. Green, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Thursday, September 21, 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 AUGUST 9, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Development Streamlining Task Force Draft Report B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree maintenance and removal - tree ordinance C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree enhancement strategy and formation of Tree Advisory Commission D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Freeway status report - Rojas E. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding opening Shellabarger Road at Pepita Way 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding possible new median island alternate minimum standard 6. ADJOURNMENT S:'John\UrbanDev\00sep21agen.wpd JWS:jp D AFT BAKERSFIELD _~ [,~ ~ DavidCoUch Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson (vacant) AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting of Wednesday, August 9, 2000 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Office - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers: Mike Maggard, Acting Chair; and David Couch 2. ADOPT APRIL 24, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding "bunker" type buildings in the Downtown Business District Development Services Director Jack Hardisty reported on a phone survey of other cities that was done to see if bunker type buildings posed any problem for their downtown areas. Cities surveyed included Fresno, Glendale, Modesto, Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Leandro, Sacramento, Santa Ana, Santa Maria, Stockton and Visalia. None of the cities experienced any issues or instances where bunker type-buildings created consolidated or long continuous rows. Most businesses using bunker-type .buildings are electronics, communications, banks or specialized equipment businesses. The Committee did not want to discourage businesses from locating in the downtown, but discussed requiring facades or extra landscaping to soften and promote a walkable atmosphere. The Committee directed staff to survey other cities to see if they have any ordinances adopted with special .requirements when constructing bunker-type bUildings in their downtown areas. B. Staff.report on status of Charrette Process Jack Hardisty reported that he and Randy Rowles have been visiting With various folks who may be interested in helping financially. Mr. Rowles has been the lead person in fund-raising efforts, with Mr. Hardisty as support in answering questions and pursuing grants. A positive response has been received from Big Valley for a possible $10,000. Approximately $22,000 is still needed. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, August 9, 2000 DRAFT Page -2- Three proposals have been received from professionals who are .interested in conducting the Charrette: Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn; Mogavero Notestine Associates; and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates.. All three have excellent qualifications and experience. Of the three, staff felt Mogavero Notestine Associates proposal for $46,380 had the best grasp of the scope-of the project, including focus on the types of things staff wanted to work on, compatible timing, amount of staff support requested, and proposed open style and approach with the public. The need to chose a date sometime this fall.while avoiding the business conferences, the fair and the election was discussed..Public involvement would start on a Friday night, all day Saturday and Sunday aftemoon, then a couple of days for the architect to complete the summary of ~rojects, and on Wednesday make their presentation to the group. The architect would then put together a presentation -for a future City Council meeting. The Committee directed staff to work with the architect and pick a compatible date for Council consideration. Staff has tentatively lined up the "old" Penney's building in the center of downtown. The boundaries being considered for the Charrette are Union Avenue to "F" Street and 22nd to Truxtun. The area must be kept tight to be able to cover the area in four days. Dave Cross spoke about the selection of the architect to conduct the Charrette and the possibility of extending the boundaries to the railroad to include the governmental area. The Committee directed staff to check with David Milazzo, who is representing the AIA volunteers for conducting the Charrette, before bringing the agreement and rec°mmendation to the City Council. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Freeway status report Public Works Director Raul Rojas stated the URS Greiner study is getting started. Proposed time lines include: · A meeting ne-xt week.to lay out the public outreach program. · The Environmental document by CalTrans for Highway 58 (as it is currently designated) will tentatively be done by October. · A draft PSR with preferred alternatives is scheduled to be delivered in April 2001 and the final by mid-July 2001. D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed projects using Transportation Development (Impact) Fees Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw gave a brief update on the Capital Improve Plan and fee schedule for Transportation Impact fees that will be going to the full Council. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed~tree ordinance and tree replacement policies The Tree Foundation of Kem has requested that the City adopt their Strategic Plan. Staff met with representatives from the Foundation to review their Plan and there was concern that some of the URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, August 9, 2000 Page -3- recommendations in the Plan involve planning issues that are subject to public review and comment and from a legal standpoint perhaps environmental review. Staff suggested that because the Plan takes in the metropolitan area including the County, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District, and School Districts that some of the plan conCepts and proposals could be incorporated in the 2010 Plan update now is progress. The 2010 Plan update is a combined review by the City and County and would address the issue of public review and environmental issues.- Also the City is planning to hire an Urban Forester, approved is this year's .budget, who could add expertise on how the Foundation's plan could be implemented. The Tree Foundation also requested that the City form a tree advisory beard. Because their plan encompasses so many jurisdictions, the Committee suggested an advisory committee be formed with each Councilmember appointing a member and also invite all entities covered by-the Plan to have a representative on the committee. Dana Adams, Tree Foundation, spoke regarding updating their Strategic Plan and agreed with the idea of including representatives from other entities on a tree advisory committee. Rick Hewett, Tree Foundation, said 'he would like to see the City move ahead as soon as possible to develop a new, improved tree ordinance. He also wants the City to establish a stand-alone advisory committee. He stated one of the conditions for the City to be able to continue qualifying for the Tree City USA designation is to have an active tree advisory committee. Pam Pecarich spoke in support of the efforts of the Tree Foundation and the need for a new tree ordinance and a stand-alone advisory committee. Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, spoke regarding a survey they did and results showing the number one issue the citizens were concerned about was trees and water. She presented an idea that the City give two free -trees to citizens and spoke in support of forming an advisory group. Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Associations of Realtors, spoke regarding private property rights and citizens retaining their rights to plant trees of their choice or to .take out trees on their own residential property. Committee member Couch spoke about his referral which was made because Ralph's shopping center took out all the large trees and replaced them with little trees. He directed staff when they come :back to the Committee with a draft ordinance, to address the issue .of regulating commercial development so that.if large trees are taken out, there is a requirement to replace them with same- size trees. The Committee directed staff to come back to the Committee with: 1) a specific ordinance that pertains to commercial development and requirements for trees, and 2) a format for putting in place very soon a tree advisory commission. The .Committee clarified that at this time we are only considering an ordinance for commercial development, not residential. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, August 9, 2000 Page -4- B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Assessment District Notification Process Finance Director Gregory Klimko gave an informational update on the 'legal disclosure requirements when selling property. The Committee made no recommendation as this is covered by State law. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding meeting schedule The Committee approved canceling the regular Committee meeting set for October 18th and setting a Special Committee meeting on Thursday, September 21st at 4:00 p.m. Staff will confirm approval of this date and time with the Councilmember for Ward Five when appointed. 6. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 6:30 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Finance Director Gregory Klimko and Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw. Others: Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Randy Rowles; Dave Cross, Kim Miller, Dana Adams and Rick Hewett, Tree Foundation; Lorraine Unger; Pam Pecarich; Roger Mclntosh; Mark Larose; Pauline Larwood; Graham Kay Eddie; reporters from KUZZ and KERN radio; and James 'Burger, The Bakersfield Californian. S:John\UrbanDev\UD00aug09Sumrnary.wpd MEMORANDUM i August 29, 2000 .... ...-r,., ? ~,',, :"::: :~'::. ' ' TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: .~ .... STANLEY C. GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TREES At the Urban Development Committee meeting on August 9, 2000, the committee requested a comparison of City landscape requirements for trees to suggestions contained in the 50 Year Strategic Plan for Kern Community Forests prepared by the Tree Foundation of Kern County. A table has been prepared and is attached to this memorandum. The table presents existing requirements next to proposals contained in the Foundation's report. The Foundation proposes new regulations and regulations that would either add to or replace existing requirements. The report proposes new requirements such as trees for single family dwellings, minimum tree separation from intersections, creating a list of approved shade trees for general landscaping and parking lots, and developing rules and regulations for preserving, replacing and pruning trees. Some of the Foundation's recommendations propose regulations that differ from current requirements such as requiring trees for commercial and industrial development based on building square feet .compared to current requirements based on building and street frontage, minimum spacing based on tree size, 50% shading instead of 30% and requiring fire safe trees for all of northeast Bakersfield, not just the area within the hillside overlay. I have attached a copy of a sample landscape plan that meets current ordinance requirements. It can be used for discussion purposes at the next meeting. SG:pah Attachment cc: John Stinson, Assistant City Manger Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director COMMERCIAL & MULTIPLE FAMII,y RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ~ 1 tree/6 spaces in parking areas ~ 1 tree/500 sfofresidential living space Number ~, 1 tree/3$' along streets ~ 1 tree/1000 sfofcommercial bldg space ,~ 1 tree/30' adjacent to residential projects ~ 1 tree/2000 sfof industrial bldg space ~ 1 tree/SO' along main bldg entrance facing parking lot ~ 65' max in parking areas ~ establish min spacing based on tree size Tree spacing ~ hO.rain or max spacing on streets, clustering allowed ~ establish min separation from o 35' in downtown area for-uniformity intersections (35'), alleys (20'), and hydrants (10') ~ rain 30% evergreen in parking areas Species mix ~ ~ min 50% evergreen along streets ~ 100% evergreen adjacent to residential projects ~ downtown subject to specific species per street g, none specified except as noted below ~ create a list of approved trees based on ~ Kern River Plan area limits to native species per list climate zones o hillside overlay zone areas use firescape plant list ~ encourage use of the fire safe trees in Species type ~ Chapter 12.40 prohibits some species due to the all the northeast area (do not confine to amount of litter they produce just properties in the hillside overlay zone o create list of parking lot shade trees Tree size ~ 15 gallon minimum ~ Parking area - 30% ~ 50% all common areas which includes (based on 90% of tree's mature shade area) parking lots, public sidewalks, streets, parks and playgrounds (shade covers and ~ Streets - no minimum requirement garages would count as shade) Shading ~ may need to add language in ordinance concerning planter & tree well minimums and how shade is calculated (tree listing with crown area calculations) Landscape strip ~ 10' min along arterial streets (from back of ~ 8' min along collector and local streets sidewalk) ~ 7' min adjacent to residential project Irrigation ~ permanent installation with automated system ~ maintain in healthy condition though no regulation or ~ Add language in ordinance regarding penalties concerning excessive pruning preservation of existing trees, ~ no regulation to preserve-existing-trees when a new replacement, & pruning per ISA stds Maintenance, preservation, removal project is constructed ~ May need to include penalties for ~ no .regulation penalizing or fining when an existing violations including fines tree is removed though staff tries to get a replacement as large as-possible SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS (Note: These standards are not adopted by ordinance but were established by Planning Commission Resolution 058-92. They only apply along the public space along streets between the sidewalk and a masonry wall.used to restrict access to double fronted lots. None of these or any other standards apply to privately owned single family lots.) Number ~ I tree/35' along walled areas only o see commercial i g, no min or max spacing on streets, clustering allowed ~ see commemial Tree spacing though discretion allowed to avoid significant gaps I Species mix ~ evergreen/deciduous mix but no minimums of either i':. ~, none spec'ified except as noted below ~ see commercial ~ Kern River Plan area limits to native species per list Species type * hillside overlay zone areas use firescape plant list ,~ Chapter 12.40 prohibits some species due to the I amount of litter they produce Tree size ~ 15 gallon minimum Shading ~ no minimum requirement ~ 50% along streets and public sidewalks · encourage homeowners to plant trees ! Landscape strip ~ I0' min along arterial streets (from back of * 8' min along collector streets : sidewalk) g, 4V2' min along local streets Irrigation ~} permanent installation with automated system · since in city right-of-way, trees fall under ~ see commercial Maintenance, program administered by Parks Dept * homeowners to be encouraged to hire responsible trimmers that follow ISA preservation, removal stds or arborist for advice