Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1992 Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Staff: Jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Friday, June 19, 1992 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Congestion Management Agency 2. Transportation Corridors Progress 3. Pushcart Vendors 4. Subdivision Ordinance 5. Underground Storage Tanks Ordinance 6. Oil Well Ordinance 7. Set Next Meeting RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Air Pollution Control District JOEL HEINRICHS w~u_~ J. RODDV, ,u,co DIRECTOR Environmental Health Services Department DAVID PRICE 111 STEW McC.~! ! Fy, REHS, DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Planning & Development Services Department ~~C ~i~AM~AICP,DDIRECTOR JUN ! 9 1992 CITY OF BAKER~'FIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jur~ 25, ]992 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Re: Resolution to Endorse the Congestion Management Program Committee Alternate Voting Structure Dears Members of the Board of Supervisors: The passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 included a requirement for a congestion management program (CMP). The Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) under a revised voting structure was designated the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). During much of 1991 the various elements of the CMP were formulated and the CMA eventually adopted the CMP in November of 1991. The voting structure of the CMA is being reevaluated at the request of the City of Bakersfield. ~p .City qualified its original approval of the voting struct,,.'~e as provisional; to be reviewed in 1992.½ Early in 1992 the Chairman of the CMA (KCOG) appointed a committee to review the CMA voting structure. The CMA committee developed an alternate voting structure which was approved by the CMA for circulation to member agencies for ratification. A description of each ;~tir, g s:,-'~c!ure is inc!-,Med in the attached proposed reso!~ion. The County staff deferred presentation of the revised voting structure recommended by the CMA pending action by the effected cities, since the County was satisfied with the initial voting structure and had not initiated any revisions. However, five "small" cities have now ratified the revised voting structure. Action by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern is now required for its implementation. It is unclear whether the City of Bakersfield will support the revised structure. However, the County should not unduly delay the ratification process. Should the City of Bakersfield choose not to ratify the revised structure it is County Counsel's opinion that the existing structure will remain in effect. 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 350 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3502 ~'AV. I0/~ 0/'1 Board of Supervisors Congestion Management .P~gram Page Two Both the original voting structure or the CMA committee alternate provide reasonable representation to the County-and would not appear to unduly complicate CMA voting or unbalance voting weight in relation to population. The CMA committee alternate includes GET 'membership, and therefore direct representation by the transit authority, which appears to be consistent with the intent of the CMP legislation.'Further, the CMP and other recent federal and state legislation clearly prescribe that transit shall be directly involved in congestion, clear air and transportation solutions in the future. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the attached resolution endorsing the CMA committee alternate voting structure be adopted and distributed as indicated. The resolution has been reviewed and approved by County Counsel. Very truly yours, ~r Resource Management Agency cc: County Administrative Office County Counsel All Cities Golden Empire Transit Kern COG Grand Jury .- REPORT TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JUNE 19, 1992 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (FREEWAYS) STATUS Kern River Corridor On June 15, 1992, the Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted a revised alignment for the Kern River Transportation Corridor between Coffee Road and Mohawk Street that runs along the north side of the Cross Valley Canal. The Board also instructed County staff to look at options for the Allen Road interchange area to avoid impacting the Rosedale/Rio Bravo Water Storage District's spreading ponds. A contract for engineering services for Caltrans Adoption Studies between Caltrans and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PBQD) has been executed. The first public information meeting on the CalTrans alternative alignments will be held in September or October of 1992. A Final Preferred Alternative Report will be completed by November, 1994. As an interim traffic congestion mitigation measure, Caltrans is looking at widening Rosedale Highway (S.R. 58) to 6 lanes. The Tier I environmental document will be approved by the Kern COG Board of Director's on June 17, 1992. Funding for the construction of this project is not in place and i~ is not anticipated that State funding will be available until after 2002. However, the widening of Rosedale may qualify for Surface Transportation Program funding. South Beltwa¥ The contract for the environmental document for the South Beltway between Kern COG and Harland Bartholomew has been executed. The Notice of Preparation was sent to Kern COG for their initial review on June 15, 1992. The Public Scoping Meeting will be held on July 1, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the McKee School Cafeteria, 205 McKee Road. This meeting will be chaired by Kern COG and attended by representatives from Harland Bartholomew, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield. It is anticipated that the Final EIR will be certified and the Specific Plan Line adopted by Mid-September, 1992. D6 URBANDEV. RPT BUILDINGOF INDUSTRY KERN COUNTY ASSOCIATION Bill BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309- 2501 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 805/832-0258 Mr. Jack Hardisty, Planning Director City of Bakersfield .~ .. 1501Truxtun Avenue ' Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Title 16 Subdivision Ordinance Dear Mr. Hardisty: The Building Industry Association of Kern County worked diligently and in good faith with a subcommittee of the Bakersfield Planning Commission in attempting to reach an agreement regarding revisions in the Title 16, Subdivision Ordinance. .The ordinance referred to your council has, in our opinion, several major flaws of which the BIA cannot ~upport. The concerns lie within Chapter 16.28, Design Standards. The Planning Commission felt the overwhelming obligation to set a minimum lot size for all single family residential 'development. Their intent was to apply a consistent standard and allow reductions in lot size only through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, Optional Design Subdivision conditions or Density Bonus provisions. The modification procedure allowed by Title 17, specifically section 17.64.035, will be rendered in operable by this adoption. To the regret of those working on this ordinance, the consideration of simply providing a more afford- able housing product, .through some reduction in the lot size, was of no consequence to several of the commissioners. The options provided were truly "non" options, from the perspec- tive of an affordability issue. The PUD is a more expensive process to undertake and should be considered where new entitle- ments are required, i.e. general plan amendments, zone changes, etc. The Optional Design Subdivision is 'allowed only when physical constraints exist or when extraordinary amenities are being provided, neither address housing affordability, and in fact add to the cost of development. The third option rests in the Density Bonus provisions, which are so restrictive and carry such long term commitments in price controls that it is useless as a viable option. Section 16.28.~170 addresses lot size and restrictions. Paragraphs B through E specify the lot standards and we have no problem with these conditions, as long as a mechanism exists for flexibility. Paragraph 0 of that same section, was the focus of the BIA attempts at building in some opportunity for flexibility. To some extent there were some successes, however, we feel it has Jack Hardisty, Planning Director May 19, 1992 Page two not quite met its mark. Findings 1, 2 and 3 are agreed to by our association. Finding number 4 is acceptable when the intent of the subdivision is to uniformly maintain lot sizes consistently below the 6,000 sq. ft. minimum. There is one concern, however, expressed by our civil engineer members. There may be some instances where a subdivision design may very well result in the majority of lots being 6,000 sq. ft. However, due to public access provisions, easement requirements,.or property configura- tion, there may result in a certain percentage of lots that may consequently be less than 6,000 sq. ft. As this ordinance is currently written no reduction would be allowed if only a few lots were affected. Subdivision design is not an exact science and properties do not always fit conveniently into an exact pattern for 6,000 square foot lots. We would request that a paragraph be added to this section as follows: "The advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area, width, frontage and/or depth 'in a subdivision if the affected lots comprise 10% or less of the total lots in the subdivision or total lots within a phase of the tract." This would allow flexibility for those engineering abnormalities which could result in a portion of the lots falling below the standard. We agree with finding number 5 but must strenuously oppose finding number 6. Item number 6 requires an element of public benefit to justify a reduction in lot size. We have been offered no clear definition of "public benefit." Item 6 states that the development must meet public benefits such as the list below, but limited to those listed. It also must be one or more of those listed. How can the development be 'required to incorporate one or more conditions but not limited to the ones listed? How can we pick one or more of the following if it is an incomplete list and purely subjective? The first two conditions listed under item 6 requiring recreational open space facilities and higher park fees or dedications would not be conducive to providing an affordable product. The third item is confusing at best. It requires that the home prices be 80 percent of the area median sales price or less for new and resale homes in metro Bakersfield. Since this will be applied to new homes, the intervention of resale median prices in not appropriate. You cannot refer to both Since they can be very different. It was pointed out during a public hearing, before the commission, that the Association of Realtors multiple listing service no longer reports median home prices. Their computer system will currently only relate the average prices. There is currently no reliable method to determine the median sales ~price of new homes within the ~Bakersfield Metropolitan area, therefore this entire condition is confusing and impossible to implement. Jack Hardisty, Planning Director May 19, 1992 Page three We would request that item number 6 be deleted from the required findings in allowing reductions to minimum lot areas. We would also request, a slight wording change as a result of recent changes in Pacific Gas and Electric utility installation procedures. It is our understandingthat PG&E will be installing transformers in residential subdivisions on pad mounts and not .placing them underground. We have been told that if the developer wants them underground, it will be an additional $5,000 to $7,000 for each transformer. It would clarify implementation of this requirement by revising chapter 16.32.060, paragraph 11, to exempt electrical transformers from the undergrounding require- ment. The BIA requests that you take under advisement the problems identified and recommendations provided and allow BIA representa- tives the opportunity to meet with a Council committee to discuss further the overly restrictive language currently contained within this proposed Title 16 ordinance revision. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Barbara Don Carlos Executive Vice President BDC:bs BAKERSFIELD CITY CLERK May 18, 1992 City of Bakersfield City Council '~~~~ 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 RE: Amendments to Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Regarding Subdivisions Honorable Council Members: This letter is being written in general support of the proposed revisions to Title 16 of the 'Bakersfield Municipal Code. During the course of public hearings held by the Planning Commission, I have had the opportunity to review and discuss certain changes to the original draft proposal. I am in agreement with most changes but still have a concern in one particular area. That area has to do with the minimum standards proposed for lot area, lot width, frontage and/or depth in a subdivision. My concern stems from 20 years experience doing subdivision design and processing in which I know that not every piece of property that is subdivided is perfect and that there will. be occasion to approve a reduction in the lot widths or lot area below the minimum standards. This would be required because of topographical constraints, boundary constraints, existing utilities and/or infrastructure that may preclude the proper platting to meet the standards as set forth by the proposed ordinance in front of you for approval Wednesday night. The current procedure, which would allow for a modification to be granted in accordance with Section 17.64.070c should be allowed and should be incorporated into the new ordinance. This would allow the approval of those problem areas that are impossible to subdivide and would allow the subdivider to request that modification without having to give up additional elements of public benefit such as recreational open space, park land dedication, etc. I am not referring to a'subdivider who wants to squeeze several lots in by reducing the standard in not providing for additional public benefit, but I am referring to the subdivider that, because of the circumstances mentioned above, cannot economically justify the proper platting and design without requesting a slight modification to the standards. It is inconceivable to think that an ordinance can be approved without the ability to obtain slight modifications thereto. This would still allow the Planning Commission the discretion to approve those reductions to the standards within reason. 4130 ARDMORE AVE., SUITE 101 · BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93309 · 805/834-4814 City of Bakersfield City Council May 18, 1992 Page 2 To facilitate this it is suggested that Section 16.28.170 under the second set of numerical conditions 1, 2, and 3, which, applies to the reduction in lot width and frontage in a subdivision "may be permitted by the advisory agency that makes the finding set forth in Section 17.64.070c of the Municipal Code along with the following findings: 1. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet. 2. The reduction of the minimum lot width frontage is for a minimum of 80 % of lots in a tract or all the lots in a phase of tracts. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will not require a modification in reduction of the required front, rear or side yard setbacks on any lot within the subdivision;" be amended to delete items 1 and 2 and leave the discretion of the request for modification up to the Planning Commission. Your consideration in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. RAM:rm ~~~~ : ttl 16mod MEMORANDUM May ' 19, 1992. TO: VICE-MAYORKEVIN McDERMOTT SUBJECT: AM~TDMENTS TO c~APTER 8.60 OF THE BAKERSFIELD M%~NICIPAL ~ CODE RELATING TOUNDER~ROUND STORAGE. TANKS. Please refer the following proposed ordinance to whichever committee you deem appropriate: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.60 RELATING TO UNDER~ROUND STORA~_~_ TANE-~. Background: '° Section 8.60.060 has been amended to · specifically designate the Hazardous Materials Division of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department as the administering agen, cy of California .Health and Safety Cod~ Section 25283.. This designation was previously inadvertently omitted from the ordinance although it is required by State law. seCtion 8.60.070 is added to Bakersfield Municipal Code. to specifically adopt the "Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup".law, Chapter 6.75 of' Division 20 of the California 'Health 'and Safety Code. None .of the Health and ,Safety Code regulations previously adopted by the City would permit implementation of' this programl Implementation of these provisions has ~alsO been recommended by the State Water'Resources'~Control Board. MGA/meg ORD-REF\ STG-TANK. VM , ' ~OI-4.40 ~H,gV. NVitg AJJ'0 Attachment DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE A~ENDING SECTION 8.60.060. OF THE MI]NZCI~ CODE AND A~DZNG SECTION 8.60.070 TO THE' BAKERSFI~r.~ GROUND STORAGE TANKS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakers- field as follows: SECTION 1. Section 8.60.060 of'the Bakersfield MuniCiPal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.60.060 City administration. The City, pursuant to California Health. and Safety Code Section 25283, hereby assumes responsibility for implementation of the State laws and regulations and applicable federal laws and regulations for design, installation, monitoring, removal,. release and reporting requirements regarding underground storage tanks. The agency which has responsibility for administering this Chapter is the Hazardous Materials Division of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. SECTION 2. .. Section 8.60.070 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.60.070 .Undergrotmd storage tank cleanup fund. The City hereby adopts the "Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup" law, Chapter 6.75 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the regulations which implement it, including, but not limited toy Title 23,'.California Code of Regulations, Chapter 16, Article XI'and Chapter 18. The Hazardous Materials Division of the Fire Department of the City of Bakersfield shall be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Chapter.6.75 of the California Health and Safety Code. .. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after.the date of its passage, ! o0o I .~,K~ CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following-vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED CLARENCE E. ~nnERS MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield 'APPROVED as to form: LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield MGA/meg UG-TANKS.O-1 4/28/92 SAN JOA Q UIN FACILITIES MANAGEM ?NT, INC. May 14, 1992 c/o Office of the City Clerk .... ! '' 1501 Truxtun Avenue .:.: .. Bakersfield, CA 93301 r.~ .:.:.. Honorable Council Members: I am appealing the May 7, 1992 decision by the Planning Commission to approve the final draft of the proposed oil field ordinance. In particular, I am appealing the exclusion of the Fruitvale field as a Class 3 production operation (see final draft, pg. 6, 3(2). Following is a brief discussion of my position. I am the Vice President and a co-owner of San Joaquin Facilities Management, Inc., the company that operates most of the oil production in the Fruitvale field. In February, 1992, I received notice from the city regarding the Rosedale No. 5 annexation. immediately met with Richard Dole {Planning Dept.) and voiced my concerns regarding restrictions for oil field operations within the city limits. Subsequently, I spoke with Jack Hardisty {Planning Dept.) regarding the same. Mr. Hardisty indicated I would have no problems because the Fruitvale field was being classified as a Class 3 operation, similarly to the Kern Bluff and Kern River fields. For those of you not familiar with the ordinance, there are three classifications of permits, with Class 3 being the least restrictive. I received a draft copy of the ordinance and was quite satisfied with it. Through my political ignorance, I assumed this draft would be approved or, if changed, I would be notified. Instead, on May 5, I heard from an associate that Fruitvale had been eliminated from the proposed Class 3 classification. On May 7, I went before the Planning Commission and voiced my disapproval of the removal. They did not agree with me, and accepted the final draft as presented. The reason I want the Fruitvale field classified as Class 3 is to allow me to continue operating and improving the field with a minimal amount of regulatory interference. If approved as is, the ordinance will require me to get a conditional use permit if I drill a well within 500 feet of an existing dwelling. If I am successful in acquiring the C.U.P., I will then need to soundproof the drilling rig, observe prohibitive noise level requirements, and fence the individual well site. 2831 WgAR STR£E:?, BAKrRSriE:LO, CA 93308 (805) 589-6812 FAX: (805) 589-6815 Page 2 The Planning Commission felt that because all of the subject area would be zoned industrial there would be no problem with dwellings as defined in the ordinance. However, in reality, there is one dwelling in the project area which will require me to go through the aforementioned exercises. Additionally, I have a fear that at some point in time, the zoning in or around my operations may change to residential. The Fruitvale field is a giant, oil field, having produced in excess of 100 million barrels of oil. Of 39,000 domestic oil fields, Fruitvale ranks around 200th in size. Over 300 million barrels of oil remain in the ground. As'you know, Americans need American oil and Kern County needs Kern County'oil. I plan on continuing to develop this field for the next 20 years. Because of poor oil prices and substantial regulatory burdens, it is already quite difficult to make a living in Kern County as an oil producer. Additional regulations will do nothing but make it tougher. I 'am not opposed to regulations where there is a need, and indeed, I commend those who worked to get this oil field ordinance to where it is. However, I sincerely feel my operations should be classified as Class 3 for the same reasons the Kern Bluff and Kern River fields are. The Planning Department also agreed with me when they originally included the Fruitvale field. The reason Fruitvale was removed was because a couple of individuals located in the western portion of the field felt their homes and lifestyles could be jeopardized by future drilling. The area they were concerned about is west of Fruitvale Avenue, and is highly developed with both businesses and residences. I agree totally with this concern, and as a solution to both their concerns and mine, I suggest that the Fruitvale field be classified as a Class 3 field, but the western boundary be changed from the Friant Kern Canal to Fruitvale Avenue. This will allow me to go about my work with minimal regulatory interference. At the same time, those concerned businesses and residences west of Fruitvale Avenue will be adequately protected. I hope you will agree with me and include the aforementioned portion of the Fruitvale field as a Class 3 site. Please do not hesitate to call me if.any portion of this letter is unclear or if any questions arise. Sincerely, Michael W. Kranyak MWK:js