Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1996 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 22,1996 -- 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 10, 1996 MINUTES- 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS -- -. 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FIRE STATION LOCATION - Kelly 6. NEW BUSINESS A. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - R. Rojas B. HIGHWAY 58 UPDATE - R. Rojas C. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS - Hardisty 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE COPY NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Urban Development Committee of the City Council will hold a Special Meeting for the purpose of a Committee Meeting on Wednesday, M~L2~at .1Z;/.5. p.m., in the City Manager's Conference Room, City Hall - Second Floor, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider: 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 10, 1996 MINUTES 3. 'PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FIRE STATION LOCATION - Kelly 6. NEW BUSINESS A. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - R. Rojas B HIGHWAY 58 UPDATE - R. Rojas C. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS - Hardisty 7. ADJOURNMENT May 17, 1996 ~~ ~ A~-I~N TANDY, CITY MA~/AGER BAKERSFIELD / lan Tandy, City Manager' Randy Rowles taft: Gail E. Waiters Patricia M. Smith' AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 10, 1996 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; and Randy R0wles Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 15, 1996 MINUTES Minutes of February 15 approved as submitted. The chair also acknowledged the notes taken at the March 13, 1996 meeting which was canceled because of lack of a quorum. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. ICE RINK. PROPOSAL Councilmember Rowles indicated a conflict of interest on this item. Canlan has submitted their site plan to the Planning Division. They hope to break ground sometime in November 1996. APPROVED I~AY 22, 1996 'WITE COR~CTION REFEP. L~CINC ROS][DALE ~ m~.~TE AS A POSSIBLE FUTURE FIRE STATION SITE. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, April 10, 1996 Page -2- B. STATUS ON FREEWAYS A written report was distributed to the Committee. Staff is moving forward with purchasing right-of-way property for the Kern River freeway. As of August 1, 1996, the award and possession of the condemned property for the Coffee Road grade separation will be completed. Staff can proceed with construction shortly after possession. In June asphalt will be laid along Calloway and Old River Bridge. The road will open at the end of June or the first of July. Staff will send another letter to the County asking for their cooperation with this project. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES FOR METRO BAKERSFIELD There was an informal presentation made on March 13, 1996. This item was not reviewed again at this meeting. B. STATUS OF FIRE SERVICES Chief Kelly gave an overview of fire station locations. He indicated that growth of the southwest area may change the location of a City-proposed site where we currently own property at Buena Vista and Stockdale. The Chief also suggested that the area around Rosedale and Hageman may be an appropriate future site as growth expands in that area. Castle and Cooke has about 700 acres that will remain agricultural land for the next five to 10 years, which can essentially have an impact on a fire station site in the area. The County has approved building a station at Brimhall and Renfro. If the County proceeds with this site, there would be no need for the City to construct a station at Buena Vista and Stockdale because the stations would be too close together. The Committee indicated that a station at Stockdale and Allen would be acceptable because it would protect City residents whereas the County station would not. The Committee suggested that a message be sent to the County regarding their proposed site not being adequate. The item will be agendized for the next Urban Development Committee meeting as well as the next Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting. (~,p[,rovea with correction referencing Rosedale and Heath as a possible 'future fire station site.) C. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES UPDATE At the April 4, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, three people were in opposition to the amended ordinance. Staff provided the Committee with a written report on this item. The major concern seems to be the effect on industrial and commercial development. The BIA has indicated they do not want the additional collectors URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, April 10, 1996 Page -3- added to the list and expressed problems with two items already on the list -- Casa Loma and Mt. Vernon. Another meeting has been scheduled with the BIA for April 15. The Traffic Impact Fee Schedule was approved and recommended to be forwarded to Council by the Planning Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn 1:40 p.m. GEW:jp 1996 May 14, 1996 TO: ~ TAN-DY, CITY MANAGER ~" ~ .... FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING - MAY 22, 1996 COUNCIL REFERRAL - OUTLINE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO REMEDY ANY DEFICIENCIES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAY HAVE HAD ON THE MARKETPLACE Th~-ruling on the Marketplace site plan review approval, as I understand it, directly relates to the issues raised in the petition filed by Jill Kleiss. Five of the nine determinations in the court's ruling relate to our decision to approve the site plan for the project. They are as follows: #3 The project is not statutorily exempt. #4 The pr6ject is not categorically exempt. #5 The project is not ministerial. #7 The Marketplace is a permitted use in a C-2 zone. #9 CEQA does apply to this project but doesn't obviate previous decisions other than issuance of a building permit without first preparing an EIR. Based on this understanding I propose the following immediate, short-term and long-term actions in response to the rul!ng on the Marketplace project: _. I. Immediate Action: It is clear that if we made the same decisions on a similar project on a different site we could be challenged and suffer the same ruling. Therefore one obvious thing we need to do is change the approval process for similar projects. Change to me means modify - not overhaul. The following changes are recommended: A) Revise categorical exemptions in CEQA Resolution 212-92 as follows: 1. Add to Class 3 New Construction or conversion of small structures: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code for change of use of existing buildings and new construction for small commercial and industrial projects. 2. Delete from Class 5 Minor alterations in land use limitations: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. · -' Alan Tancly May 14, 1996 Page 2 B) Revise site plan review ordinance to require environmental review for certain projects as part of the site plan review process for: 1) New commercial or industrial projects consisting of: a) Any single retail store or business with a total gross floor area of 75,000 square feet. b) Any retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet. c) Any addition to any existing retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet increasing the total gross floor area by more than twenty percent (20%) or by more than 75,000 square feet, or any addition to any existing shopping center increasing the gross square footage of the shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more. (Note: The above items are adopted site plan review policies. CC resolution 111- 83, and Planning Commission Resolution 55-83). 2. Additions to commercial or industrial projects changing a single tenant building to a multi-tenant building or adding additional square footage or building pads to an existing multi-tenant building. C) Revise CEQA resolution to give responsibility to Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to recommend approval of negative declarations or certify an EIR for site plan reviews. II. Short-term action: There are other changes that should be made that aren't as apparent. They are changes in response to potential weaknesses in our process identified during our review and preparation for arguments before the court. Those items relate to our CEQA resolution and the list of ministerial and categorical exemptions contained therein. We should review and make necessary revisions to the list of categorical exemptions and ministerial projects in the CEQA resolution. III. Long-term actions: A broader issue outside of the issues ruled on by the court but related is the authority granted to various departments with respect to the application of conditions to insure compliance with site plan review, resolutions, ordinances and procedures. The following issues should be evaluated: A. Evaluate whether or not it would be beneficial to require PCD zone changes for all shopping centers. Alan Tandy May 14, 1996 Page 3 B. Evaluate the authority granted to various department and division heads to condition projects through site plan review. SG:pjt cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director - Gall Waiters, Assistant City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney .Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney Attachments: Copy of Judges Ruling on the Marketplace Copy of Site Plan Review Resolution used for Tl~reshold for Initial Study m\matS.13 12~18~{$ IZ:14 ~T805 $~¢ 4999 K ¢ $[P£RIOR CT ~002~004 SU~E COU~ OF ~E ~ATE OF ~I~A IN AND ~ THE COU~ OF ~ TITLE: 9~T ~I~ A~ION C~~, E, Robert Wright ~ND JI~ ~SS -.. VI. Cl~ OF ~~D, ~S~ CI~ Judy Skousen, ~puCy C~cy A~Co~ey ~L, ~ AL ~rl Hern~dez, ~pu~ C2ty Attorney ~ZT OF ~D~ ~~ S~ See attached rulin8 made a part hereof. Copies mailed Co counsel on this date./clm MINUTES ~1~95 1l:14 ~805 $34 40~9 K ¢ $[P£RIOR CT ~003~004 ' FRC~; R,DRV : RULII~G ON MAR/~TPLACE CI/QA T~IA~ L~T A P~~ ~N~ION ISS~ IN FAVOR O~ PETITI0~R$ ~S~INI~ ~ CI~ 0F ~SFIE~ ~ ~ P~ IN I~REST ~OM PR~I~ WI~ ~ C~$~U~ION A~IVI~ ON ~ PR~ ~O~Y ~0~ ~ ~ ~TP~CE, ~ ~OM ISSUI~ APPRO~ OR PE~I~ FOR ~ PR~ PRIOR ~ COMPLYING WI~ ~ R~QUIR~S 0F CEOA. P~ITIO~ ~ ~~ ~IR COSTS OF SUIT ~IN. ~ ~STION OP P~ITION~S' ~I~~ ~ ~ AW~ 0F A~YS FE~S IS ~S~ ~ BE CONSID~ AT SU~ TI~ ~ A COST BI~ ~ ~T. WI~ ~ ~ ~ SPECIFIC ISS~S ~IS~ BY ~ P~TIES AT ~ C0~T ~ ~E ~ FO~WING DE~I~TIONS: 1. ~ P~TITION IS N~ ~ BY ~ STA~ OF LIMITATIONS ~K~ IN PRC S~ION 21167 (A). ~ WAS ~ FI~ ~0~ OP SI~ P~ ~ITI~S ~IL A~ST, 199~. 2. ~LIEF P~S~ ~ ~ P~ITION IS NOT ~ ON GR0~S M~S$. V~TITI0~S ~ SOUG~ RELIEF BHYO~ C0~TION OF ~IR ~, IN~ ~ B~ ~ CI~ ~ ~ P~ IN ~ST T~ ~ POSITION ~T ~ EIR NOW ~ PROCESS 0F 9~P~TION IS BEING DO~ ~ ~ ACC~O~TION, ~ NOT BEMUSE IT IS ~LY ~QUI~, ~ ISS~ OF ~ ~CESSI~ OF PREP~TION OF SU~ A STILL BE~ ~ ~T IN ~IS   PR~ IS N~ STA~RILY ~ ~ PRC SE~I~ 2108~ ' SEE S~ION 21083.3 (C). ~ROVISIONS-OF ~C S~ION 21084 (A). ~PR~ 0F SIZ~ OF ~ ~P~CE, ~ ~YING, SO P~ ~ POSSIB~, ~SIFI~TION OF A "C~S 5" ~ION. ~ PR~ IS N~ A 'MINIS~RI~ ~E~ PRC SE~ION 210~0 (A). ZO~ O~I~ S~ION 17.5~.010, ~ SE0.,PROPE~Y AC~S ~NSIDE~ DIS~ION ~ ~ APPROVI~ A~HORI~, ~CISE OF ~T DIS~ION IN ~IS ~OR PR~ ~I~ OBV~S ~ ~ ~T ~PROV~ OF ~ PROJE~ CONSTI~S A MINIST~I~ 6. ~K ~ONS W~LL ~ ~ ~ CI~ OF ~RSFIB~'S BRIEF, VOLleY ~P~T~ON OF ~ EIR ~R C~C~ 0P LITI~TION IN ~IS ~ IS ~ ~S ~I~TA. CONS~UCTION OP A PR~ SU~ ~ ~ ~TP~CE 0N ITS ~ 12/18"95 12:15 '~$05 ~31 4999 K C S~'PERIOR CT PRESENT SIT]~ P~PR~SENTS A P~P-M!/'~gD USE IN A C-2 ZO~ AS S~T IN ~R 1~.2~ OF ~ BMC (SEE BMC SE~ION 17.04.546). 8. ~ ~I~ 0~~ ~ES N~ ~ ~LI~F IN ~IS ~SE. T~ CO~T IS ~ Pg~U~T~T ~ ~I~ SHO~ A CEQA ~E BEMUSE OF ~ ~LIC I~ST P~SES OP L~GIS~TION. HO~, IN ~ INST~ ~E FIL~ 0P ~IS A~ION ~E~O~OUSLY WI~ ISSU~CE OF BUI~I~ P~IT~ ~ IN ~ ~ MO~ ~ PI~ SITE P~ CO~ITION ~S, ~ES N~ S~RT ~PLI~TION OF ~ ~I~. E ' ~ ~VID~CE ~DU~ AT ~ ~REIN V~ ~ ~MINIS~TI~ ~ ~S N~ ~STI~ ~ R~LIEF SOUG~ P~ITI~S' P~. ~ PA~ ~QA ~ES ~PLY ~ ~IS ~~ ~gS NOT ~C~SS~ILY OBVIATE ~ DECISIONS ~~ ~ DA~ BY ~* C~ ~~I~ ~ZS PR~, 01~R ~ '~ DgCISION ~ ISS~ ~UI~I~ P~IT WZ~O~ FIRST PR~IN~ ~ ~IRO~~ I~A~ ~PO~T. oo ''~$OLUTION NO. 55-83 RESOLUT. :: OF THE P~_~_NNING CO~4ISSION OF T}iE ~ OF kAKERSFiELD ADOPTING ADDITIONAL SIT~ PLAN REVIEW POLICY. WHEREAS, pursuan= to Section 17.53.05! of the Bakersfield Munici'pai Code, the Planning Commission is ~equired to ado~ by resolution Site Plan Review objective~ and policies, subjec: to approval by the City Council; and - WHEREAS, the policy set for~h below, in addition to those set forth i~ Planning Ccm~.ission Reso!uticn Nos. ~-82, ~- 82 through 37-82, approved by the City Council in i=s Resolution No. 57-82, has been found by the Planning Co~mission to be consis~en~ with and to promote the purpose_ of Site Plan Review as se= forth in Section 17.53.010 cf the Bakersfield Municipal Code. NOW, THEReFORe, _E .. P~SOLV~D by ~ne P!ar~ing Commission of the City of 3akersfie!d as follows: !. That the following ~= added to ~he list of Sit_ Plan Review p~licies: Tha~, .in addition to dedications of real proper=y required and excep: as such share is o~herwise assessed or construction in l~eu or in excess thereof required, as a condition of issuance of si:e plan approval for any major re:ail project~ as defined hereinbelow, and prior to issuance of any building perr~it for the project, the applicant for Such projec=,~by cash deposit, con=tact and corporate surety bond, or irrevocable instrument of credit from one or more responsible financial institutions regulated by the s~ate or federal government and r on deposit and ~uaran~eed for payment pledging that the funds a e . ~ . upon the City's demand, and/or dedicaZion or offer of dedication, as determined by ~he City Engineer, shall make, or pay its proportionate share of %he cost of, 'additions cc, upgrading or construction cf public faci!i~ies the need for which is wholly or par=ia!iy at:ribu%able =o the project. 2. It is reccr~cndsd tha~ the time limits specified in Chapter 17.53 be ex~ended for projects as to which a ccnsui~an~ is hired, as provided above, ~rovided fha: such exuension shall not exceed ninety (90) days. 3. That the Secreuary cf ~he Plannin~ Commission is hereby directed to forward ~s.... Resolution to :he C~';... Council for approval cf the Site Plan Review objec:ives and policies se: forth herein. 4. Tha~ ~he above Site Plan Review objective an~ policy shall be considered in effec: and shall be utilized in the review of site plans final construction drawings and c~her re~a:e~ ~ccuman:s nave nc: been submitted for plan check and building perm. i~ prior to I-_..--~'. CERTIFY th-~= -~_.._ f~re~c±n~. . Resolution was passed and adopte~ by the Planning Com~.issicn cf ~he Ci:y of = ~ == tk_ra:f .,elf c.n the ~. .... davy cf NOES: .~BSENT: DATED: PLAi~Ii:G CO~.E,~!SS!ON C'F DEWEY SCEALES, Secretary Planning Direcucr AJM:mro 7-!3-83 7-19-83 8-02-83 8-10-83 8-12-83 S-18-83 A. For purposes cf this policy, the term "major re=ail project" is defined to include each of ~he following: (1) Any single retail store or business with a to,al gross floor area of 75,000 square -~.=~. (2) A.~'y re:ail shopping center wi~h a g~oss floor area of more than 100,000 square fee=. (3) Any addition to any existing retail shopping center with a.gross floor area of more than 100,000 square.feet increasing the total gross floor area by more than twenty Dercent (-20%) or by more than 75,000 square feet, Or any addition ~ any exis~in~ shopping center increasing the' gross square footage of t_he shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more. B. For purposes of this policy, a shopping center means any group of at least two businesses on a single c~ separate parcels of property which group utilizes cc:r~on cfr-street parkin? facilities and access. .C..'As used herein, "public facilities" means streets, :.reef and bridge (including overpass) widen£ngs, paving, street lights, =raf~ic signs and signals, cur~s, gut:ers, sidewalks, medians, median ~rriga:ion systems and landscaping, intersection and access constructions and reconstructions, freeway access and exit constructions and reconstructions; wa=er mains, wells, pu~ping and storage facilities, including construction ~nd upgrading to increase fire flows; sewer mains, pumping and lift stations; drainage lines, culverts, sumps, and pumping facilities; utility system extension or upgrading; fencing and landscape screenlng (including irriga=ion therefor) for any of the foregoing; transit stops; and any equipment or facility made necessary by =he project and to be used primarily in relation to the project, including the fees and costs for plans and specifications for such public facilities. D. Unless the City Engineer and the applicant otherwise agree, such needs and appor~io~ment of such costs shall be assessed and made pursuant ~o the written'report of one or more consultants hired for such purpose by the City. whose fees and costs are advanced to the City by and are the responsibility cf the~applicant. Unless the applicant and the City Engineer agree upon a consultan: or consultants, the applicant shall select the consultant from a lis~-o-f- three provided'by the City Engineer." If more than one consultant is to be used, the City Engineer shall provide a list of three names for each to be selected. Such report shall be prepared in accordance with parameters set by the City Engineer. E. C~s:s assessed pursuan: hereto shall, un:il cons=rue- r. ion of such facilities, be deposited in a special account for each public faci!itv for which they were assessed. Should a Ki=e plan expire under the provisions of Section 17.53.060 H. or a project be abandoned by written notice to the City's Planning Director and City Engineer after approval of a site plan, the the public facility, shall be refunded. Such refund shall be made to the owner of the pro]eot as shown on ~he site plan application on file with the City's Planning Deparr~nent. Should such ownership change after any ~uch assessmen:s have been made and paid, it shall be the mutual responsibility of both ~he former and the new owner~ to advise the Planning Director of the City in writing of the party to whom refund is to be made should the site plan expire cr be abandoned. F. Each public facili=y for which an assessment has · been made and paid and the account therefor shall, "'~ facility's construction, be reviewed by the ~ity Council an a noticed hearing each. year af=er the date cf payment to assess the continuing need for such facili=y. The owner of any project assessed may.petition the City Council at any time for a de~erm..inaticn that such need no !unger exists. Should it be determined by the City Council that such need no longer exists, or shou!~ any facility for which an assessmenu has been made and paid not De budgeted ~v the City ~"- construction within ten (10) v- r- following payment to ~he City and construction began or purchase order issued within one (1) year :hereafter, the amoun= asses=e= therefor, including an':, interest earned, shall be refunded. G. The timing of construction of such public facilities shall be at the sole discretion of the City. H. Assessments imposed hereunder may be appealed in accordance with Sec=ich 17.53.060 !. I. For purposes of ~nis oolicy ~. is recognized sequential development on separate but adjacent parcels may - ....... -~-- c= this ~!ic~' ~iUh~'uih no single-deveiopmen= oh any such_parcel constitutes a_major retail project as defined above. Accordingly, the total square footage cf all reuai! facilities constructed cr to ~e constructed cn parcels creaue~ in the course of one subdivision or resubdivision -~r='!- shnl! =-- ~ur:,~ses cf of one cr :::cra ad~a ~ ~- = ~ ' -~- - - t_his policy, 'be Considered cumulatively to determine whether the minimum recuirements-to ccns=itute a major :etai! project are me=. The oblige=ions imposed hereunder shall be deferred as any de,.,eic~ment ~-~;";~"~ .... ~ cumulative~.,- belo%¢ -"=h .... and the applicant for si=e plan approval therefor shall, as a condition of approval, contract ~i=h the City to pay his preportiona=e share of any consu!tant's fees and assessments determined after application for si~e plan approval on behalf of a proDect which, when added to'those proceeding it within the shopping center, exceeds the threshold, and evidence cf such contract shall be recorded agains= the proper~y. The need for public facilities shall be determined cn the basis of a fully built-out shopping center an=, once assessments have been apportioned, pa,;~ment of ~. apportioned share shall be made ~ condition of site ~lan approval for each subsequent deveiopmen= within the shopping cen=er.