Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1997 BAKERSFIELD Ke¥in McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patrieia M. Smith AMENDED Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 19, 1997 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 JANUARY 15, 1997 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES IN RIGHT-OF-WAY - Rojas B. SITE PLAN REVIEW ORDINANCE - Skousen C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE - Skousen D. SMALL LOTS - Hardisty E. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN ORDINANCE - Hardisty F. PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE -Waiters 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE AND LARGE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - Rojas ADJOURNMENT FILE COPY DRAFT BAKERSFIELD AYan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles .Staff: Gall E. Waiters Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 15, 1997 12:15 p.m. .. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:23 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Patricia Smith Absent: Councilmember Randy Rowles 2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1'1, 1996 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. KIOSK SIGN PROGRAM Representatives of the Planning Commission were in attendance to respond to the Committee's concerns about the sign program. Issues discussed included DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, January 15, 1997 Page -2- restrictions on developers; height of signs in residential areas; and transition period for developers who currently have kiosk signs. All concurred that signs in a residential area would not go above eight feet and that the transition period for developers who currently have kiosk signs would be a phased process, unless the Kiosk Sign Program determined an immediate need for the site. At that point, the developer impacted would join in the Kiosk Sign Program. The Committee endorsed the program and asked staff to prepare a report to Council. Councilmember McDermott asked that the report acknowledge his remaining concern that a developer's "private" directional signs are not necessarily inconsistent with the formal Kiosk Sign Program. B. REVISED PROPOSED 1997 MEETING SCHEDULE The Committee adopted the next meeting date of February 12. Councilmember Smith made a request to have meetings on Council meeting days. This item will be rescheduled so that the full Committee can vote on the suggestion. (After adjournment, the Chair canceled the February 12 date. Another meeting date will be scheduled later.) 6. NEW BUSINESS A. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff reported that the County ordinance for park development fees is different from what the City Council has adopted. North of the River Park District (NOR) is not subject to the City ordinance. The Committee urged staff to continue working with NOR to establish a consistent park development fee process. Staff reviewed with the Committee the particulars on land acquisition park fees and recommended that the City apply all procedures and requirements to NOR that it does for the rest of the City. The Committee recommended that the land acquisition park fee ordinance be forwarded to Council for adoption. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 1:25 p.m. GEW:jp URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 1997 PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE WEDNESDAYS (~ 12:15 PM COMMITTEE MEETING COUNCIL MEETING None January 8 January 15 January 22 None None February 19 February 19 None March 12 March 19 March 26 None April 9 April 16 April 23 None* May 7 None* May 21 June 4 June 11 None June 25 July 9 July 16 None None None August 6 August 13 August 20 None September 10 September 17 September 24 None October 8 October 15 October 22 None* November 5 None* November 19 None December 3 December 10 December 17 *No meeting scheduled because of budget hearings/holidays. Rev. 2/97 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM:/~r~'~--Rau[ M. Kojas, Public Works Director ,J DATE: February 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Standards for Utilities in Right-of-Way The City Attorney's Office and the Public Works Department are cur[ently working on an amendment to Chapter 12.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to implement the recommendations of the committee made December 11, 1996. Please see the attached draft ordinance. In the meantime, staffis implementing the committee's draft policy as shown on the attached memo. M:kPE~ S'~STREET~UKB DEV. MEM R.MRamp~ xc: R~:tin~ Filo Pro.~t File Jacqu~ R. La Rochelle .Mari~n P. Shaw Chapter 12.16 CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS Sections: 12.16.010 Construction Work In Streets - Permit Required 12.16 020 Moratorium areas - No permit shall be issued. 12.16.030 Permit reqmrements - Location, records and specifications. 12.16.040 Permit reqmrements - Supervision - Inspection fee. 12.16.050 Permit reqmrements - Pavement degradation fee. 12.16.060 Permit reqmrements - Deposit required. 12.16.070 Permit reqmrements - Security required. 12.16.080 Permit reqmrements - Proof of Insurance required. 12.16.090 Trenches-Written notification of work commencement required. 12.16.0100 Trenches-Opening in excess of six hundred feet in advance of pipe in graded street prohibited-Excavated material. 12.16.0110 Failure to protect openings-Liability for damages. 12.16.120 Depth of gas or water pipe. 12.16.130 Removal of manhole covers-Permit. Chapter 12.16 CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS 12.16.010 Construction Work In Streets - Permit Required It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to grade, pave, construct sidewalk, curb, and/or gutter, lay sewers, lay down pipes or conduits in the public streets or thoroughfares of the city, to open or tear up any roadway, street or thoroughfare Chapter 12.16 CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS E. Other situations deemed by the City Engineer to be in the best interest of the general public. All permits which are issued under A through D above shall be in accordance with the policies established by and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 12.16.030 Permit requirements - Location, records and specifications. For the purpose of this chapter it is made the duty of the superintendent of streets or his designee to have and prepare and keep in his office the necessary blanks for such permits, provided for in Section 12.16.010, and also a book in which a record shall be kept of all permits issued. (Prior code § 12.16.020). A. Permanent improvements by private contract. Plans and specifications, including profiles where required by the city engineer, of all improvements proposed to be installed and constructed by the person, firm, company or corporation applying therefor on, under, over, or across the streets, alleys, or other public places of this city, shall, along with an estimated plan check fee, be filed with the city engineer. The city shall not be obligated to inspect or accept public improvements shown on any such plan or specification constructed before the plans and specifications therefor have been approved by the city engineer. The city engineer shall keep a copy of the plans and specifications on file in his office and file a copy of the specifications in the office of the city clerk. B. Sewer Laterals. In the application for a permit to install sewer laterals, the location shall be described by giving the address of the location requiring said work. C. Opening Street. In the application for a permit to open trenches in streets, the location shall be described by giving the name of all of the streets affected and the number of the building opposite each opening, or between two opposite given numbers, and in case there are no numbers, by giving the distance fi.om such openings to the property line at the nearest street crossing. (Prior code § 12.16.130). Notification of the correct location or' any opening made for the purpose of what is termed prospecting shall be given to the superintendent of streets at all times, except when such opening becomes a part of the main trench, within twenty-four hours, approximately, a~er opening. (Prior code § 12.16.120). D. If a crossing street intersects the excavation, a driveway shall at all times be maintained. (Prior code § 12.16.150D). Chapter 12.16 CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS In all cases where cuts are allowed, the permittee is required to patch their cuts to City standards. 12.16.060 Permit requirements - Deposit required. Before issuing such permit, the superintendent of streets shall require the person, firm, company or corporation applying therefor to deposit in the office of the superintendent of streets or his designee a sum sufficient to cover all fees of the superintendent of streets and of the city engineer incurred or which may be incurred in connection therewith. Upon the completion of the proposed work, if any portion of the deposit so made remains in excess of the fees provided in this chapter, such excess shall, upon the completion of the proposed work, be refunded to the person depositing the same. Such potion of said deposit' as is required to cover the fees provided in this chapter shall, upon the completion of said work, be paid by the superintendent of streets into the treasury of the city at the time and in the manner that he deposits other moneys received by him. (Prior code § 12.16.010). 12.16.070 Permit requirements - Security. required. For all work requiring a permit by the terms of this chapter, with the exception of sewer laterals, the person, firm, company, or corporation making application for permit shall provide, prior to the issuance of said permit, security of the types allowed by Section 16.32.020, in the forms required by Section 16.32.030 and in the amounts required by Section 16.32.040. Said security shall be released 12.16.080 Permit requirements - Proof of Insurance required. Prior to the issuance of any permit under the requirements of this chapter, the person, firm, company, or corporation shall provide to the City such proof of insurance and in the amounts as required by the current policy of the Risk Manager of the City of Bakersfield. 12.16.090 Trenches-Written notification of work commencement required. A written notification that work has commenced, in the case of all main or service trenches, shall be given to the superintendent of streets on the day that work is begun. (Prior code § 12.16.140). 12.16.0100 Trenches-Opening in excess of six hundred feet in advance of pipe in graded street prohibited-Excavated material. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M 0 R,4. N D U M TO: Public Works Staff Building Department Staff- Permits FROM: Raui M. Rojas. Public Works Director DATE: Januarv 29. 1997 SUBJECT: Draft Citv Policv on Street pernuts Please find attached the drat5 Ci.ty policy, for Street Permxts. This polic3' is effective irnmediatelv. The Pavement Index is to be determined by the Public Works Department. and at least, five days must be allowed for this detm, xttnarion to be made. If the pernuttee is umx4iling to wait for this determination to be made. assume that the pavement is in "good" condition and a refund will be made at a later date. if necessary. This matter is currently under review by the C;rban DcvctoDment Committee. and these standards may change at a later date. Draft City, Policy regarding Street Cuts: The perrmttee is reqmred to pay a permit ~ee of $110 (set bv Executive Order No. 96-02, subject to annual review) and a refundable deposit equal to $2.00 per cubic foot of trench. The deposit is returned to the permittee once the permit has been signed off bv the CiLy Engineer as complete. Also required is the payment of a non- refundable pavement degradation fee collected under the folloWing conditions: Condition of Existinll Street Requirement I. Newtv Paved Streets No cuts allowed for three years 2. Pavement in "good" condition~ Cuts allowed with payment of a fee: 3. Pavement in "fair" condition Cuts allowed with pa,vment of I/2 of the fee 4. Pavement in "poor" condition Cuts allowed without payment of the fee 5. Pavement scheduled for resthffacing within the next two fiscal years Cuts allowed without payment of the fee In all cases where cuts are allowed, the permittee ~s requn-ed to patch their cuts to Ci.ty standards. The permi_tt_ee_, is required to conform to all provisions of the rider issued with their permit, which contains traffic control reqmrements, insurance requirements, etc. ;Pavement condition is based on a "Pavement Index" as established in our Pavement Management System. -'The tee is a pavement degradation fee of $8.50 per linear foot of cut with a minimum of $850, or t00 feet of trench. This fee is based upon the City's cost to resurface one lane, and includes design, cold planing, striping, raising manholes to ~ade, etc. The lineal footage of cut shall be the actual footage of trench or pothole or hellhole, measured parallel to the centerline of the street, plus 50 feet to each side of the hole or trench. Cuts less than 50 feet apart will be considered as one continuous trench - i.e. if there is a five foot hole that is tort'v-five feet from the start of a two hundred tbot long trench, the fee would be based upon ~ *- 5' + ,15' + 200' + 50', or 350'. MEMORANDUM_ February 7, 1997 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Kevin McDermott -- Chair Randy Rowles Patricia Smith FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW ORDINANCE The attached ordinance and resolution amendments all relate to the site plan review and approval process and are intended to rectify the problems addressed by the court in the Marketplace lawsuit. The site plan review ordinance divides projects into two categories. Class "A" projects require CEQA review and a public hearing. Class "B" projects are ministerial and may be approved by a staff site plan review committee without a public hearing. Such a process requires that staff's review and approval of site plans be truly ministerial. No discretion is permitted for such a process. The addition of any discretion into the process requires that an environmental evaluation be conducted in a public hearing. The thresholds for projects to become Class "A" projects are based primarily on the thresholds for requiring traffic studies. A traffic study required in order to determine which facilities are made necessary by the project, and the appropriate levels of traffic mitigation, triggers a discretionary act and requires a public hearing pursuant to CEQA. The threshold levels for traffic studies are based primarily on the requirements of our "Major Retail" resolution (Resolution No. 111-83) and on trip-generation levels of the projects. The thresholds are as follows: -- any new single-tenant commercial business with a total gross floor area of 75,000 square feet or more. (consistent with the "major retail" resolution, which requires a traffic study for such projects); -- any new shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet, (consistent with the "major retail" resolution, which requires a traffic study for such projects); -- any new industrial project or office building (single or multiple tenant) consisting of any building with a total gross floor area of 300,000 square feet or more, (based on trip generation rate of 50 peak hour trips, which triggers a city requirement of a traffic study); URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Page 2 February 7, 1997 multi-family ~esidential projects, and hotels and motels having 500 or more units (based on the CEQA threshold for projects of regional significance); an addition to any existing office or single-tenant commercial building with a gross floor area of more than 75,000 square feet which increases the total gross floor area twenty percent or more, or by more than 75,000 square fee, or any addition to a shopping center which increases the shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more, or any industrial use with a total gross floor area of more than 300,000 square feet which increases the total gross floor area by thirty percent or more, or by 100,000 square feet (consistent with the "Major Retail" resolution, which requires a traffic study for such commercial projects). The amendments to the P.C.D. ordinance eliminate shopping centers as a separately listed permitted use, instead permitting all uses which are permitted in the C-O, C-1 and C-2 zones. This amendment will eliminate any possible confusion or argument that shopping centers are not permitted in any zone other than a P.C.D., and would require a zone change rather than a site plan review and approval in the C-O, C-1 or C-2 zone. The amendment to the C-O zone ordinance adds "shopping centers" to the permitted uses in the C-O zone. Although shopping centers are already considered to be permitted uses in all commercial zones, they are not specifically listed as they are in the P.C.D. zone. This provided a project opponent with an argument, albeit a losing argument, that shopping centers are permitted only in the P.C.D. zone. With this amendment, shopping centers would also specifically be permitted uses in C-1 and C-2 zones, requiring only site plan approval, rather than a zone change. The amendment to the ordinance defining the authority of the board of zoning adjustment adds "approval of Class 'A'" site plans to the authority of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The amendment of the Bakersfield CEQA Implementation resolution removes site plan approvals from a Class 5 (minor alterations inland use limitations) categorical exemption. It adds "Class 'B' site plan approvals to Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures) categorical exemptions. This is part of the revision of the site plan review process. LCM\bsb S:\PLANW1EMO$~ITEPLN2.MMO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.53.040, SECTION 17,53.051 AND SUBSECTIONS A, B, D AND I OF SECTION 17.53.060 RELATING TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 17.53.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.53.040 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. "Approving authority" means the authority in whom decision-making responsibility is vested under the provisions of this chapter, including the site plan review committee, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the directors, to be determined in context. B. "Certificate of occupancy" means a legal document indicating that the construction of a project conforms to the approved building plans and meets all construction standards to qualify for use as proposed. C. "Change of use" means a change from one to another of the following categories: 1. Commercial/retail other than restaurant or convenience store; 2. Restaurant or convenience store; 3. Industrial; 4. Multi-family residential; 5. Office, other than medical office; 6. Church; 7. Hospital; 8. Medical office. 9. Changes from one use to another which is substantially dissimilar, as determined by the planning director. D. "Class 'A' project" means: 1. Any new single-tenant commercial business with a total gross floor area of 75,000 square feet or more; 2. Any new shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet; 3. Any new industrial use or office building (single or multiple tenant) consisting of any building or buildings with a total gross floor area of 300,000 square feet or more; 4. Multi-family residential projects having 500 or more units; 5. Hotels or motels having 500 or more rooms; 6. Additions to any existing office or single-tenant commercial building with a gross floor area of more than 75,000 square feet which increases the total gross floor area twenty percent (20%) or more or by more than 75,000 square feet, any addition to a shopping center Which increases the shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more, or any industrial use with a total gross floor area of more than 300,000 square feet which increases the total gross floor area by thirty percent (30 %) or more, or by 100,000 square feet. 7. Any project for which the applicant requests deviation from adopted standards and fees. E. "Class 'B' project" means all projects requiring site plan approval other than Class 'A' projects. F. "Directors" means the planning director and building director for purposes of this chapter. G. A "parking lot" means an off-street open area and driveway thereto and within solely for the parking of passenger vehicles. Such an area or portion thereof shall be considered a parking lot whether on the same lot as another use, whether required by code for any structure or use, and whether classified as an accessory, permitted or conditional use. 2 SECTION 2. Section 17.53.051 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.53.051 Site plan review standards. The City Council shall adopt development standards by resolution or ordinance, and these are the only standards which shall be applicable to site plan review and approval. SECTION 3. Subsections A and B of Section 17.53.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.53.060 Process. A. Application. The application shall consist Of a fee, based upon a schedule adopted by the City Council, one legible copy of the application form and two legible copies of the site plan, elevations and floor plans, and a list of off-site improvements to be constructed to comply with city ordinances and adopted standards. Class 'A' site plans shall also include information necessary for an initial study, as determined by the planning director. All applications shall consist of the following: 1. Application Form. The application form shall be provided by the planning director and shall be filled out to the satisfaction of the planning director; 2. Check List. Hazardous materials compliance check list as required by the City fire marshal; 3. Site Plan. The site plan shall be neatly dimensioned and drawn to an appropriate scale (preferred scale is one inch equals twenty feet) with a minimum size of eight and one-half inches by eleven inches, shall depict the subject parcel and contain the information specified below. It shall indicate the location of the site, project address, location of all existing improvements, the type and location of all proposed improvements, type and location of all improvements proposed to be demolished or constructed, all existing and proposed uses on-site and all evidence of a mappable nature which may be required, including: a. Location, height and material of existing and/or proposed fences and walls; -3- b. Location of off-street parking, the number of required parking spaces, the number of provided parking spaces, and the number of and location of handicapped spaces, type of paving, direction arrows depicting traffic flow, parking dimensions, and total parking lot square footage; c. Location and type of parking lot lighting, including pole locations, pole height, light source, illumination level and fixture types; d. Locations and width of drive approaches; e. Method of storm water disposal; f. Location of existing and/or proposed public improvements (such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, utility poles, fire hydrants, street lights, traffic-control signing, traffic signal devices, specific plan lines for' streets and highways, etc.); g. On-site drainage and method of sewage disposal; h. Location of trash refuse area; i. Landscaped areas in accordance with Section 17.53.061 C of this code; j. Summary of all proposed buildings including: (1) Total gross floor area; (2) Number of floors and square footages per floor; (3) Existing use or uses of the building(s) and their respective square footages; (4) Proposed use or uses of the building(s) and their respective square footages; (5) Required and provided parking ratios for each building. k. Elevations and floor plans (including description of room use) of all proposed or existing buildings or additions to existing buildings. In the case of building additions the plans shall -4- clearly show existing and proposed areas and any areas pi'oposed for demolition. 4. Environmental process documentation. The applicant for a Class'"A" project shall fill out and submit such forms and provide such information as may be required by the planning director in satisfaction of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policies. B. Procedure. 1. Acceptance. Applications shall be submitted to the planning director or his or her designee. Within thirty days, the planning director shall determine whether the application is complete and conforms to the provisions of Section 17.53.060A. No application shall be deemed complete unless the project for which the site plan was prepared is consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations of the City. If the application does not conform to the provisions of Section 17.53.060A or is inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning regulations, the planning director shall notify the applicant of additional requirements. If the application is complete, he or she shall accept it for processing. 2. Referral and review. After the application is deemed complete, the planning director shall transmit one copy of the application to the site plan committee. Each member of the site plan review committee shall review and comment on said application. 3. Class 'A' project review. a. Following the receipt of a complete application for a Class 'A' site plan review, the planning director shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon. b. Not less than ten days before the date of such public hearing, the planning director shall give notice of the date, time, place of hearing, location of the property, the nature of the application and of the determination of consistency with the zone and general plan, in the following manner: 1. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant. -5- 2. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to each local agency (if not the City) expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected. 3. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within three hundred feet of real property that is the subject of the hearing. In-lieu of utilizing the assessment roll, records of the county assessor or tax collector which contain more recent information than the assessment roll may be utilized. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to this paragraph is greater than one thousand, in-lieu of mailed or delivered notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City at least ten days prior to the hearing. 4. If the notice is mailed or delivered pursuant to subsection 3, above, the notice shall also be: (1) Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and (2) Mailed to every person filing with the planning director a written request for notice. Requests for notice must be renewed annually. 5. In addition to the notice required by this section, notice of the hearing may be given in any other manner deemed necessary or desirable by the planning director. c. A public hearing, noticed as set forth in subsection b, above, shall be conducted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. -6- d. The board of zoning adjustment shall approve or disapprove the subject site plan based on compliance with applicable codes and standards adopted by the city council and the recommendation of the site plan committee. Approval of the site plan may include mitigation measures necessary for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Disapproval shall be given only if the site plan does not comply with adopted codes, standards or policies adopted by the city council, or the California Environmental Quality Act. e. Any action of the board of zoning adjustment approving or disapproving a site plan, if not appealed shall be final. 4. Class 'B' project review. a. Once the application is deemed complete, the site plan review committee shall consider the application and related information. The committee may require additional information of the applicant and/or make a recommendation on the project at such time. Any recommendation shall be forwarded to the planning director for his or her consideration and decision. b. Decisions are made on the basis of the application, the comments received from the site plan review committee members, and the codes, standards and policies adopted by the City Council. The planning director shall approve the project only if he or she finds that it complies with codes, standards and policies adopted by the City Council; provided, however, if the proposed project does not comply with said codes, standards or policies, or if the applicant will not agree to modifications which bring it into compliance with said codes, standards and policies, the planning director may disapprove the site plan. Notice of each decision shall be given by posting a copy thereof on the bulletin board at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, within three days of the date of the decision and by mailing, within such three-day period, a copy thereof to the applicant and any person who has requested such notice by written request filed with the planning director. 5. Final site plan approval. Upon submittal by the applicant for a building permit on an approved site plan, the building director will transmit a copy of the construction plans to the planning director, who will transmit said copy of the construction plans along with the site plan review application and decision to the site plan review committee. The site plan review committee will review the plans for compliance with site plan review conditions set forth in the decision. If the committee determines the applicant has not complied with one or more of the applicable codes, standards or policies, or with all of the conditions imposed by the planning director to mitigate CEOA impacts, then the planning director shall, within five working days of said determination, notify the applicant 7 in writing. The plans will be suspended from further processing until such time as necessary corrections are made. If the applicant does correct the plans or satisfy the conditions of approval, the planning director shall, within ten working days of receiving the corrections, approve the plans and return them to the building director for further processing. 7. Commencement of construction. No development or construction based on the approved site plan may begin until the process set forth in this chapter has been completed, the time period for appeal has expired and each other permit and license required for the project to commence has been obtained. 8. Time extension. The time periods cited in this chapter for review and action on the application, other than the time periods for filing an appeal, may be extended for up to thirty days by the planning director if, in his or her opinion, additional time is required at any stage of the review process for proper and complete review of the proposed project. Should it be determined at any time in the process of review provided in this Chapter that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have not been satisfied and cannot be satisfied within the time periods specified, such time periods shall be tolled for such time as is necessary to approve or certify the environmental document. The time periods specified in this Chapter shall not be applicable to plan check procedures of the City's building director. D. Modification of site plan. The planning director may require the applicant to modify the site plan to ensure that it is consistent with city ordinances and adopted standards. Such ordinances and standards may consist of, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Provisions of the subdivision ordinance; 2. Standards requiring installation of on-site and off-site improvements (including, but not limited to, dedication of rights-of-way, street paving, sidewalks, gutters, street lights and drainage facilities; 3. Landscaping standards required of multiple-family, commercial and industrial zones; 4. All adopted laws, regulations, codes, ordinances and improvement standards whether or not cited in this chapter which have application to the project, including payment of fees and charges required thereby; 5. Time limits within which specified improvements shall be installed. Failure to complete installation of such improvements within the specified time limit shall void the approved site plan. -8- SECTION 4. Subsection I of Section 17.53.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.53.060 Process. I. Appeal Procedure. 1. An applicant not satisfied with the decision of the planning director on any Class 'B' project may, within ten days of the date of the decision, appeal to the City board of zoning adjustment by filing a written notice of appeal and payment of fees with the planning director setting forth the precise basis and issues on appeal and requesting a hearing thereon. The board of zoning adjustment shall, within thirty days of the filing of such appeal, hold a noticed public hearing thereon. 2. If any interested person is not satisfied' with the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment on any Class "A" or Class 'B" project, he or she may, within ten days of the date of such decision, appeal in writing to the City Council, by filing a written appeal and payment of fees with the City clerk. The City Council shall hold a noticed public hearing on the appeal. 3. Notice of an appeal shall be given pursuant to subsection D of Section 17.64.110. 4. On appeal to the City Council following a public hearing, the Council may uphold or overturn the decision of the board of zoning adjustment, and may approve or disapprove the site plan, with or without conditions. The decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive. 5. Failure to file an appeal within the time period prescribed therefor, or the filing of an application for a building permit following approval of a site plan application, shall be deemed a waiver of the right of appeal. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... o0o ....... 9 I HEREBY 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 By: BOB PRICE Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K, SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LCM\bsb S:',COUNClL~::)RD~SITPLAN3.ORD --.February 14, 1997 -10- , MEMORANDUM · ~ February 7~ 1997 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Kevin McDermott -- Chair Randy Rowles Patricia Smith FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney .~%-~' ~---2 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Last year, a writ of mandate was filed against the City challenging the issuance of a conditional use permit for a prison facility in a commercial zone. Although the Court refused to issue the writ after the hearing, it was clear that the conditional use permit ordinance needed some reorganization and clarification. This amendment clarifies that the City may issue a conditional use permit for any use in any zone. The uses listed as requiring conditional use permits in individual zones are for the purpose of clarifying that these uses, while similar to permitted uses in the zone, require conditional use permits. The ordinance also more specifically sets forth the hearing and appeal procedures for the issuance of conditional use permits. It eliminates the requirement that some conditional use permits may be issued only by the City Council; instead, the BZA hears all applications for conditional use permits, with appeals being heard by the City Council. LCM\bsb S:~PLAN~vlE MOS\U-D-CUP.M E M ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.04.155, 17.04.650,17.18.025, SUBSECTION A OF SECTION 17.20.020,17.20.040, 17.22.040, 17.24.040, 17.25.040,17.26.040, 17.28.030, 17.30.030, 17.31.030, 17.36.025,17.37.050, 17.42.060, 17.44.060 AND CHAPTER 17.64 AND REPEALING SECTIONS 17.16.025,17.42.090 AND 17.50.030 AND CHAPTER 17.66 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 17.04.155 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.04.155 Conditional Uses. "Conditional use" is a use which requires special review and control by the board of zoning adjustment or the city council to ensure compatibility with other existing or permitted uses in the vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 17.04.650 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.04.650 Use, Change Of. "Change of use" means a change from one to another of the following categories: t. Commercial/retail other than restaurant or convenience store; 2. Restaurant or convenience store; 3. Industrial; 4. Multi-family residential; 5. Office, other than medical office; 6. Church; 7. Hospital; 8. Medical office. 9. Changes from one use to another which is substantially dissimilar, as determined by the planning director. SECTION 3. Section 17.18.025 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.18.025 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the R-4 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Certified farmers markets. B. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. C. Residential facilities housing seven or more juveniles or adults in custody or court-ordered living restrictions for violations of local, state and federal law, including, but not limited to, halfway houses and detention centers. SECTION 4. Subsection A of Section 17.20.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.20.020 Uses Permitted. The following uses are permitted in a C-O zone: A. Any one or more of the following uses: 1. Accounting, auditing, tax preparation and bookkeeping services. 2. Advertising agencies. 3. Banks, savings and loans, credit unions and other financial institutions. 2 4. Business and management consulting services. 5. Business and professional membership organizations. 6. Commercial art and graphic design. 7. Commercial photography, including portrait studios. 8. Computer programming and data processing services. 9. Consumer credit reporting and collection services. 10. Day care nurseries. 11. Detective and security systems services. 12. Direct mail advertising services. 13. Employment agencies and help supply services. 14. Engineering, surveying, architectural and environmental planning services. 15. Family and social services, clinics and centers. 16. Governmental services and administration, libraries, museums, galleries, judicial courts, police, fire and other emergency service alarm centers. 17. Insurance services. 18. Legal services. 19. Management and public relation services. 20. Medical, dental, psychiatric and other health practitioner offices and clinics, including chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy and blood banks. 21. Medical and dental laboratories. 22. Mortgage, loan and personal credit institutions. 23. Palm reading, fortune telling, astrologic and psychic services. 24. Pharmacies, in conjunction with medical clinics. 25. Post office and other courier or parcel delivery services. 26. Public and private utility administration. 27. Real estate development, sales and property management services. 28. Secretarial and court reporting services. 29. Telecommunications administration. 30. Television, radio and cable broadcasting stations. 31. Title and escrow offices. 32. Travel agencies. 33. Trusts and investment agencies. SECTION 5. Section 17.20.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.20.040 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit, While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the C-O zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Any use listed in the Uses Permitted section in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. B. Any of the following uses: 1. Bail bond services. 2. Garment cleaning, pressing, alteration and repair. 3. Hair styling shop and beauty salon, including tanning salons. 4. Photocopying and duplicating services. 5. Scientific research and testing services. -4- 6. Vocational and specialized schools providing technical or cultural training. 7. Veterinary services. SECTION 6. Section 17.22.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.22.040 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the C-1 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Any'use listed in the Uses Permitted section in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. B. Any of the following uses: 1. Automobile accessory or parts stores, including stereo, phone, upholstery, and tires. 2. Automobile tuneup specialty shops providing electrical and carburetor tuneup services and related work, when not done as a part of, or incidental to, the operation of an automobile service station. 3. Carwashes, including detailing. 4. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. 5. Funeral services, including a crematory provided it is incidental to the main use. 6. Hotels and motels. 7. Kennels. 8. Mobilehome or travel trailer parks. 9. Nurseries, lawn and garden supplies. 5 10. Scientific research and testing services. 11. Restaurant and related eating places with on-site alcohol sales, entertainment or drive-through services. 12. Small appliance and electronic goods repair. 13. Theaters and cinemas. 14. Trade, vocational or specialized schools. SECTION 7. Section 17.24.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.24.040 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the C-2 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Any use listed in the Uses Permitted sections in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. B. Any of the following uses: 1. Amusement parks, including miniature golf, water parks, batting cages and miniature car tracks. 2. Automobile body and fender repair and painting. 3. Automobile machine shops. 4. Bars, cocktail lounges or other establishments selling alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption where said use is the primary business. 5. Boat and recreational vehicle dealership, new and used. 6. Bus, train and other transit stations. 7. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. -6- 8. Golf driving ranges. 9. Kennels. 10. Mobile home or travel trailer park. 11. Mobile home sales, new and used. 12. Pest control services. 13. Recycling collection center not in conjunction with a retail center required by state law to provide collection services for recyclables. 14. Scientific research and testing services. 15. Swap meets, flea markets and auction yards. 16. Tool, equipment and utility trailer rental establishments. 17. Warehouses. SECTION 8. Section 17.25.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.25.040 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the C-B zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Any use listed in the use permitted section in the R-3 and R-4 zones. B. Any of the following uses: 1. Apartment hotels and roominghouses. 2. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. 3. Scientific research and testing services. 4. Swap meets, flea markets and auction houses. 7 SECTION 9. Section 17.26.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.26.040 Uses Permitted Subject To Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the C-C zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Bars, nightclubs, cabarets, cocktail lounges or other establishments selling alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption where said use, including entertainment, is the primary business. B. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. C. Kennels. D. Scientific research and testing services. E. Swap meets, flea markets and auction houses. F. Single family dwellings which are not accessories to a commercial use. SECTION 10. Section 17.28.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.28.030 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the M-1 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Agricultural packing plants. B. Aircraft and automobile factories. C. Automobile parts manufacturer. -8- D. Battery manufacturer. E. Breweries and distilleries. F. Clinics, hospitals, sanitariums or other buildings for contagious, mental, drug or liquor addiction cases. G. Equestrian establishments, stables, riding academies, schools.or amusements. H. Freighting or trucking yards or terminals. I. Livestock slaughtering and processing. J. Machine shops, including punch presses and automatic screw machines. K. Planing mills. L. Residential dwellings. M. Tire rebuilding, recapping and retreading plants. N. Food and/or shelter service agencies as defined in Section 17.04.285. SECTION 11. Section 17.30.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.30.030 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.84.020, the following uses are not permitted in the M-2 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Acid manufacture. B. Ammunition manufacture. C. Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of Paris manufacture. D. Chemical manufacture. E. Curing, tanning and storage or raw hide or skins. -9- F. Dairies and livestock feeding yards. G. Distillation of bones. H. Drop forge industries manufacturing forgings with power hammers. I. Dumps and refuse disposal areas. J. Explosives, manufacture or storage. K. Fat rendering. L. Feed and fuel yards. M. Fertilizer manufacture. N. Food and/or shelter service agencies as deft.ned in Section 17.04.285. O. Garbage, offal or dead animal reduction or dumping. P. Gas manufacture. Q. Gelatin or size manufacture. R. Glucose or dextrine manufacture. S. Glue manufacture. T. Nonmineral oil extraction plants. U. Poultry and rabbit raising, slaughter. V. Sewer farms or sewage disposal plants. W. Smelting of tin, copper, zinc or iron ores. X. Stockyards and animal slaughter. Y. Scrap metal yards, junkyards. Z. Wineries. -10- SECTION 12. Section 17.31.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.31.030 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the M-3 zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Coal-fired cogeneration facilities or steam generators. B. Community septic disposal systems. C. Electrical power generator plants. D. Hazardous waste disposal facilities. E. Mining and mineral extraction. F. Nonhazardous oily waste disposal facilities. G. Sanitary landfills. H. Septage disposal sites. I. Sewage treatment plants. J. Transfer stations. K. Waste-to-energy facilities. SECTION 13. Section 17.36.025 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.36.025 Uses permitted subject to conditional use permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the Ch (Church) zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: -11 - A. Certified farmers markets. B. Lighted play fields. C. Day care centers. D. Private schools. SECTION 14. Section 17.37.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.37.050 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use.permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are not permitted in the OS zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Single-family residential uses. B. Public and private campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. C. Public utility structures. D. Archery ranges. E. Equestrian facilities. F. Golf courses and driving ranges. G. Gun clubs or shooting ranges. H. Racetracks. I. Baseball batting ranges. J. Wholesale nurseries. SECTION 15. Section 17.42.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as foJlows: -12- 17.42.060 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. Notwithstanding Subsection B of Section 17.64.020, the following uses are the only uses permitted by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. Public and private open recreational or sporting uses, including parks, aquatic facilities, playgrounds, campgrounds, golf courses, golf driving ranges, fishing and hunting clubs. B. Parking lots. C. Public utility structures. D. Temporary and readily removable structures accessory to uses permitted under Sections 17.42.030 and 17.42.040. SECTION 16. Section 17.44.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.44,060 Uses Permitted Only By Conditional Use Permit. While any use may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to Subsection B of Section 17.64.030, the following uses are not permitted in the FP-S zone except by conditional use permit issued in accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter 17.64 of this title: A. All uses permitted in the underlying or base zone, if any, which are not allowed pursuant to Section 17.44.030. B. All uses which may be permitted subject to planning director approval or conditional use permit in the underlying or base zone, if any. C. Recreation areas, parks, campgrounds, playgrounds, fishing lakes, hunting and gun clubs, golf courses, golf driving ranges, parking lots. D. Temporary and readily removable structures accessory to recreational or agricultural uses. E. Riding stables. F. Public utility facilities. -13- SECTION 17. Chapter 17.64 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 17.64 MODIFICATIONS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AMENDMENTS AND APPEALS Sections: 17.64.010 Scope. 17.64.020 Authority of board of zoning adjustment. 17.64.030 Authority of planning commission. 17.64.040 Initiation. 17.64.042 Fees. 17.64.045 Zone changes - Consistency determinations. 17.64.050 Hearings-Notices. 17.64.060 Modifications and conditional use permits - Hearing - Decision and findings. 17.64.070 Zone changes - Hearing - Decision. 17.64.080 Title 17 text amendments - Hearing - Decision. 17.64.090 Appeals - Modifications, conditional use permits and zone changes. 17.64.100 Zone changes - council action when planning commission decision not appealed. 17.64.110 Conditions for reapplication. 17.64.010 Scope. The regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply to modifications, conditional use permits, the enactment of text amendments to Title 17 and zone changes (amendments changing property from one zone to another or changing the boundary of any zone.) 17.64.020 Authority of board of zoninq adjustment. The board of zoning adjustment shall have authority to grant, subject to appeal to the city council under the provisions of this title, the following: A. Modification or waiver of: 1. Automobile parking space or loading requirements on private property, and -14- 2. The height, yard and lot area regulations on a lot or lots, including, but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero-lot-line or other typical subdivision development; and 3. Fence, wall and hedge regulations as may be necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on a lot; and B. Conditional use permits permitting any use in any zone in which that use is not permitted by this title, subject to the findings set forth in Section 17.64.060(C). 17.64.030 Authority of Planning Commission. The planning commission, as the advisory agency, shall have the sole authority to grant modifications of minimum lot size standards on a lot or lots within a subdivision in the course of approval or conditional approval of any tentative map. The hearing on any such modification shall be consolidated with the hearing on the tentative map, shall be noticed with the notice of hearing on such map, and the commission shall not approve such modification unless it makes the findings specified in Section 16.28.170(0). Appeal of the commission decision on such modification shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 16.52. 17.64.040 Initiation. A. Applications for modifications and conditional use permits shall be filed with the planning director or his or her designee on forms provided by the planning director. B. Proceedings for redistricting of property may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, planning director or by filing with the planning director an application signed by one or more of the record owners of the parcel of property which is the subject of the application or an agent of the owner authorized in writing. In the event that an application by owners involving more than one parcel of land is submitted for district amendment or adoption, owners of parcels representing at least sixty percent of the area involved must sign the application. The names of all record owners of all land involved must be stated on the application. C. Proceedings for amendment of any provisions of Title 17 of this code, other than amendments changing property from one zone to another, may be initiated by city council action, planning commission action or action of the city staff. 17.64.042 Fees. The city council shall by resolution set fees for application for modifications, conditional use permits, changes of zones and for appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination of the board of zoning adjustment. Such fees shall be in -15- amounts necessary and appropriate to reimburse the city for all costs related to the processing of and acting upon--each such application or appeal. No application or appeal shall be deemed complete until the prescribed fee has been received by the city. 17.64.050 Hearings - Notices. A. Upon the receipt in proper form of a complete application for a modification, conditional use permit, or zone change, along with the fee adopted pursuant to Section 3.70.040, the planning director shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon in the following manner: B. Not less than ten days before the date of such public hearing, notice of the date, time and place of hearing, along with the location of the property and the nature of the request shall be given in the following manner: 1. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed .or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant. 2. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to each local agency (if not the city) expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected. 3. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within three hundred feet of real property that is the subject of the hearing. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to this paragraph or subsection B. 1 is greater than one thousand, in-lieu of mailed or delivered notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the city at least ten days prior to the hearing. Notice of hearing upon each application for a conditional use permit to allow drilling for and production of petroleum pursuant to Chapter 15.66 shall be mailed to such owners of all property within one thousand feet of the property line containing the well site. 4. Notice shall be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the city at least ten days prior to the hearing. 5. Notice shall be mailed to every person filing with the planning director a written request for notice. -16- C. When proceedings are initiated for the amendment of any provision of Title 17, other than amendments changing property from one zone to another, or changing the boundary of any zone, a public hearing shall be held. Notice of such hearing shall be given once by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, which notice shall state the time, date and place of such hearing and a general description of the nature of the proposed text amendment. 17.64.060 Modifications and conditional use permits - Hearinq - Decision and Findings. A. Following the public hearing, the board of zoning adjustment, planning commission or city council may grant, grant in modified form, conditionally grant or deny the requested waiver or modification. Such decision shall be reflected in a formal resolution containing the findings and the facts upon which the findings are based. B. Findings Required for Modification. A modification shall be granted only when it is found that: 1. The granting of such modification would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located; and 2. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or lots, including but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero-lot-line or other atypical subdivision development; and 3. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of this code. C. Findings Required for Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit shall be granted only when it is found that: 1. The proposed use is deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; and 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans. D. Conditions. The issuance of any modification or conditional use permit pursuant to this title may be granted subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate or necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare. Dedications of real property may be required and improvements of public -17- streets shall be in accordance with standard specifications of the city on file in the office of the city engineer. -- E. Exercise of Rights. The exercise of rights granted by a modification or conditional use permit shall be commenced within one year after the date of the final decision. F. Termination of Rights. The modification or conditional use permit shall terminate, and all rights granted therein shall lapse, and the property affected thereby shall be subject to all of the provisions and regulations of Title 17 applicable to the zone in which such property is classified, when any of the following occur: 1. There is a failure to commence the exercise of rights as required by subsection F of this section, or within any duly granted extension; 2. There is a discontinuance for a continuous period of one year of the exercise of the rights granted. G. Extension of Time. Any time limit contained in this chapter or in any decision, for good cause shown, may be extended by the body issuing the initial conditional use permit or modification for a period which shall not exceed one year. 1. The property owner may request an extension of the time limit by written application to the planning director or his or her designee. Such application shall be filed before the expiration date of the conditional use permit or modification. The application shall provide reasons for extension of the permit or modification. 2. Upon the receipt in proper form of an application for an extension, along with the fee adopted pursuant to Section 3.70.040, the planning director shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon. The hearing shall be noticed as set forth in subsection B of Section 17.64.050. 3. Following the public hearing, the hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve or deny extension of the conditional use permit or modification. H. Revocation of Rights. The board of zoning adjustment may revoke the rights granted by such modification or conditional use permit and the property affected thereby shall be subject to all of the provisions and regulations of Title 17 of this code applicable as of the effective date of revocation. Such revocation shall be for good cause, including, but not limited to, the failure to comply with conditions or complete construction as required by subsection F of this section, the failure to comply with any condition contained in the modification or conditional use permit, or the violation by the owner or tenant of any provision of the municipal code pertaining to the premises for which such modification or condition use permit was granted. -18- 1. Notice of the intent to revoke shall be given, together with the reasons therefor, either by personal delivery to the occupant of such premises, to the owner of such premises, to any person indicated in the permit as being entitled to exercise the permit, or by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to such person(s) at his last known business or residence address as the same appears in the records of the modification or conditional use permit. Service by mail shall be deemed to have been completed at the time of deposit in the post office, or any United States mailbox. 2. The decision of the board of zoning adjustment shall be final, subject to appeal to the city council within ten days after notice. 4. When a proper appeal has been filed, public hearing upon the matter shall be set before the city council within thirty days after the appeal is filed. 5. Not less than ten days before the date 'of such public hearing,, notice of the time and place of the hearing before the body shall be given as set forth in subsection B of Section 17.64.050. 6. On appeal, the city council may affirm the revocation, overturn the revocation or modify the order of revocation. 7. The decision of the city council shall be final and conclusive. I. Date of Issuance. No permit or license for any use involved in an application for a modification or conditional use permit shall be issued until same has become final by reason of the failure of any person to appeal or by reason of the action of the city council. 17.64.070 Zone changes - Hearing - Decision. A. A public hearing shall be held and conducted by the planning commission or city council, notice of which shall be given as set forth in subsection B of Section 17.64.050. B. The planning commission or city council shall either approve and recommend the enactment of the proposed amendment, disapprove it or recommend an alternative zoning district more restrictive than that proposed. C. If any proposed zoning is disapproved by the planning commission and no appeal is filed, such action by the planning commission shall be final and conclusive. The disapproval of a matter initiated by the planning commission itself shall be final, and not subject to appeal. -19- D. All approvals and recommendations of zone changes by the planning commission shall be presented to the city council for final action following public hearing by the planning commission. Matters so presented to the city council for final action shall not require a noticed public hearing before the city council except as required by Section 17.64.140 or unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 17.64.130. 17.64.080 Title 17 text amendments - Hearing - Decision. A. A public hearing shall be held and conducted by the planning commission, notice of which shall be given as set forth in subsection C of Section 17.64.050. B. The planning commission shall either approve and recommend the enactment of the amendment as proposed or as altered, or shall disapprove the amendment. C. The disapproval of a matter initiated by the planning commission shall be final. All other matters shall be presented to the council for final action as soon as a proper record can be prepared and the matter conveniently placed upon the council agenda. D. The council may enact into ordinance, in accordance with its normal procedure, any text amendment to Title 17 presented to the council for final action. The action of the council shall be final. 17.64.090 Appeals - Modifications, conditional use permits and zone change-~. A. The action of the board of zoning adjustment or planning commission shall be final unless, within ten days after the decision, the applicant or any other person shall appeal therefrom in writing to the city council by filing such appeal with the city clerk. A decision of the city council shall be final and conclusive. B. The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed, and specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action from which the appeal is taken should not be upheld. C. The city clerk shall set the date for hearing the appeal. Notice of the appeal hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 17.64.050. D. For modifications and conditional use permits, on appeal following the hearing, the city council may grant, grant in modified form, or deny the requested modification or conditional use permit. The decision of the council shall be final and conclusive. - 20 - E. For zone changes, on appeal following a public hearing, the council may enact into ordinance the zoning amendment giving rise to the appeal or any alternative zoning district more restrictive than that proposed, may affirm any conditional approval and recommendation of the planning commission and, or may decide against adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The decision of the council shall be final and conclusive. 17.64.100 Zone changes - Council action when planning commission decision not appealed. A. When no appeal is filed in accordance with Section 17.64.090, the city council may enact into ordinance any zone changes as approved and recommended by the planning commission in accordance with its normal procedure as in the case of any other ordinance of the city. B. If the council decides to disapprove the recommended zone change, approve a district more restrictive than that recommended, or change any of the conditions recommended by the planning commission, the city council shall set the matter for a noticed public hearing at the next available regular meeting for which notice, as required in Section 17.64.050,~ may be published, posted and mailed. C. At the public hearing, the city council may approve the zone change as recommended by the planning commission, disapprove the zone change, approve a district more restrictive than that recommended or change any of the recommended conditions. D. No permit or license shall be issued for any use involved in an application for a change of zone until the same has become final on the effective date of an ordinance. 17.64.110 Conditions for reapplication. Where an application for a zone change, conditional use permit or modification has been finally determined by the city council, planning commission or board of zoning adjustment, no reapplication or new application for the same zone change, conditional use permit or modification shall be considered or heard by the planning commission, city council or board of zoning adjustment for a period of one year. However, where a change has occurred which, in the sound discretion of the city council, planning commission or board of zoning adjustment (whichever previously made the final determination) indicates that a new hearing should be had on an application for a zone change and where a showing has been made that the public interest would best be served by reconsideration or new consideration, the prohibition of this subsection may be waived after a finding by the body petitioned that the public interest would best be served by a reconsideration of a new hearing. -21 - SECTION 18. Section 17.16.025 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to uses permitted subject to conditional use permit, is hereby repealed. SECTION 19. Section 17.42.090 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to the applicability of Section 17.66.020 in the floodplain primary (FP-P) zone, is hereby repealed. SECTION 20. Section 17.50.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to uses permitted subject to conditional use permit in the MH zone, is hereby repealed. SECTION 21. Chapter 17.66 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to Conditional Use Permits, is hereby repealed. SECTION 22. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... o0o ......... - 22 - I HEREBY 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 BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED astoform: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LCM\bsb S:\COUNClL\ORD\CUP,ORD --February 14, 1997 - 23 - --MEMORANDUM February 13, 1997 TO: CITY COUNCIL URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REFERRAL REGARDING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL APARTMENT PROJECTS BACKGROUND: In October 1995, the Urban Development Committee referred two issues to the Planning Commission for consideration. These items were: 1) Definition of elements unique to the project for "small lot" single family subdivisions; and 2) Open space requirements for small lot apartment projects. Item one (1) has been addressed on the Council approved ordinance changes clarifying the requirements for small lot subdivisions at their January 22, 1997, and February 19, 1997, Council meetings. This transmittal is in response to the second item. The proposal by the Planning Commission Subdivision and Public Services Committee, which consists of Commissioners Boyle (Chairman), Brady and Hersh, specifically addresses two (2) to four (4) unit multiple family development projects. At its committee meeting of December 16, 1996, the Commission committee members requested that staff provide the Council Urban Development committee with this proposal for input and direction. PROPOSED CHANGES: The Planning Commission committee recommends development standards which promote visual diversity through architectural variation, setback staggering and landscape enhancement. Three options would be available to applicants. These options are as follows: Option A 1) When five or more adjacent lots exist for the purpose of providing multiple family housing, every third lot shall have a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Urban Development Committee February 13, 1997 Page 2 2) No more than two adjacent lots shall be occupied with multiple family structures having identical wall and roof lines on the street side elevation(s). 3) No more than two adjacent multiple family dwelling units shall have identical wall and rooflines. In the alternative, in addition to required landscaping, the developer shall provide one 24" box size tree in front of each dwelling unit. 4) In addition to the landscaping required in the City's site plan review ordinance, every multiple family dwelling project shall include one "fast-growing" (begins to assume its mature landscape form in 1-4 years) 24" box tree within the front yard setback for every 50 feet of linear lot frontage (or portion thereof). 5) All mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or ground shall be screened from view from the street. Utility meters and equipm'ent must be placed in locations which are not exposed to view from the street or must be architecturally screened from view from the street. Option B 1) Dwelling units subject to the front yard setback shall be designed so that the units front elevation and primary pedestrian entrance face the street. The garage for such a unit need not face the street. 2) No more than two adjacent lots shall be occupied with multiple family structures having identical wall and roof li~nes on the street side elevation(s). 3) In addition to the landscaping required in the City's site plan review ordinance, every multiple family dwelling project shall include one "fast-growing" (begins to assume its mature landscape form in 1-4 years) 24" box tree within the front yard setback for every 50 feet of linear lot frontage (or portion thereof). 4) All mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or ground shall be screened from view from the street. Utility meters and equipment must be placed in locations which are. not exposed to view from the street or must be architecturally screened from view from the street. Option C 1) Submission of development plans to the Planning Commission through the Planning Director for review and approval of architecture and site layout on a parcel-by-parcel basis or at the tentative tract stage. Urban Development Committee February 13, 1997 - Page 3 Plans shall adhere to city site plan review and ordinance design standards and be designed to meet the intent of this resolution and specifically address setbacks, architectural diversity, landscaping, and shielding of mechanical equipment and utilities. The Planning Commission committee arrived at these options after review of existing development standards and a mobile committee meeting in August of 1996 with City staff and representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA). During the field visits to various four-plex development projects, Commissioner concerns focused on the need for architectural diversity, spatial diversity, increased landscaping and the screening of utility meters and mechanical equipment (air conditioners). The committee is of the opinion that there is a lack of architectural diversity in many of these projects because building height, bulk and facades are the same throughout a project, and there is too much hardscape in the projects because concrete pavement between structures dominates the landscape and tree specimens used in landscaping are too small. Options A and B provide development standards for staggered front yard setbacks, variation in roof lines, increased landscaping and screening of mechanical equipment. These standards would be implemented and enforced during the normal site plan review process. No delays in permit processing would result from selection of Options A or B. Selection by the applicant of Option C would require review and approval of site plans and elevations at an advertised public hearing by the Planning Commission at the tentative tract stage or on a parcel-by-parcel basis. A fee of $330 (current fee) would be charged to process such plans through the Commission. The BIA has been present at Commission committee meetings. The BIA is of the opinion that the Commission committee veered from their appointed course of addressing open space and that the recommended design criteria are unnecessary and cumbersome. JM:pjt m\mudc12-2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION D.1 OF SECTION 17.60.030 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTICE FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection D. 1 of Section 17.60.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.030 C_ompr_ehensJYe sign_plans. 1. All comprehensive sign plan requests shall be heard by the planning commission at a noticed public hearing. Notice of the date, time, place of hearing, location of the subject real property and the nature of the request shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date set therefor by delivery or mailing, through the United States mail, in the following manner: a. To the applicants, their authorized agent, the property owners and operators of the businesses within the subject project; and b. To every person filing with the planning director a written request for notice. c. By mailing a notice, postage prepaid, to the applicant and to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property involved, using for this purpose the name and address of such owners as shown upon the latest county assessment roll. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution 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 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OFBAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney City of Bakersfield LCM\bsb s:\cspn.ord January 2, 1997 (rev. JEng) Page 2 of 2 Pages ~ MINUTES Of THE REGULAR MEETING ~ OF THE ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ..... ~_ OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held October"l,7~ 1996 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfi_el_d, Califo'~ COMMISSIONERS: ~ KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY * ORTIZ TAVORN JEI TKAC Absent: MICHAEL NS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, En r IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Jim VVhitehead submitted a speaker's card and spoke on the issues of public notice concerning signage for the Marketplace Shopping Center. He stated citizens are customers of the city and have the right to know what is being proposed. He proposed that key public locations be identified such as libraries, schools, etc. where agendas can be posted. *Commissioner Ortiz was seated. Frank Pecarich spoke after submitting a speaker's card. He stated he felt public participation builds commitment for the overall project, it allows for new information. Ann Anderson submitted a speaker's card and spoke regarding the amount of signage for the Marketplace, stating she felt it to be excessive. She was concerned that residents were not notified. She asked that this request be reheard with proper notification given. She also asked that the city ordinance be adhered to. Minutes, 10/17196 Page 2 Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Anderson to cite the ordinance which she felt had not been followed. She stated she could not cite an ordinance. Jill Kleiss asked that she be allowed to address the signage issue for the Marketplace at the time the discussion item comes forth on the agenda. Commissioner Brady stated he would recognize Ms. Kleiss at the time this item is discussed. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. ~,~ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4. APPEOVAL OF MINUTES Motion w~made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded b~ Commissioner Brady to approve minutes of th'e, lular meetings held September 16, and September 19, 1996. Motion carded. o Staff report recommenc ~proval was given. Mr. LaRochelle stated Public requested a change to Condition #1 of Exhibit "A," to read as follows: The subdivider shall dedicate )nstruct right turn deceleration lanes at the main allowable access points from Road at the time of development. The right turn deceleration lanes shall be ned and constructed with a minimum 150 feet of storage. Access from Coffee lad to both phase I and phase 2 shall be limited and shall be determined at ime of development as approved by the City Engineer. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in o or in favor. Steve DeBranch represented the subdivider. Commissioner Hersh stated his concern about last minute changes to Public portion of the headng was closed. Commissioner Brady asked for explanation as to the addition to Condition access to Coffee Road. Mr. LaRochelle felt there is a concern regarding access points.~.~ Mr. DeBranch stated the language is acceptable. Minutes, 1/4/96 Page 2 This items was continued fro ,ber 17, 1996. Staff report recommending approval was updated with respect to the 'ssue. Hearing was opened. Commissioner Brady asked if copies of the large maps ~e submitted to the Commission before Thursday's hearing. Commissioner Brady stated he would like Mr. LaRochelle to comment re the traffic patterns, flow and difficulties which he feels justify crossing the canal connecting to Panama Lane. Commissioner Dhanens asked about the source of the map showing the connection to Panama. Mr. LaRochelle said this was provided by the'applicant's engineer at staff's request. ...... 51 PUBLIC HF_ARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION D.1 OF SECTION 17.60.030 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN~ Mr. Grady stated this ordinance was drafted at the request of the commission. It provides for notice to anyone requesting it on a comprehensive sign plan. He also cited several issues of clarification which the commission needs to address. Commissioner Boyle asked if there were other items which may appear on agendas but would not be considered public hearings. Mr. Grady cited general plan consistency findings as an example. Mr. Grady said that notice can be obtained from persons wishing to be informed about all agenda items by subscribing to the agenda. He explained the process. The city does not have the ability to send notice to everyone if it is not project specific. Commissioner Boyle also asked if there should be a time limitation on requests for special notice. Mr. Grady said he would look into whether there is a provision in the ordinance. Commissioner Dhanens asked if these changes would make items public hearings which are currently not designated as such. Mr. Grady said the commission currently has the option of taking testimony on items which are not public hearings, these changes would allow those not currently noticed to be noticed of the fact that an item is on the agenda. Commissioner Dhanens asked if there had been any such instance in the past with a comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Grady stated he could not recall one. This item was continued to Thursday's meeting. Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 3 Henry' Pacheco, Acting Fire Chief stated he would accept the change to condition as.recommended above. Public portion of t'fie~hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated~.e could accept the access on Panama as proposed so long as no connection bet~ee~n Tract 5699 and the adjacent tract to the east is made other than emergency acdes. S. Commissioner Boyle asked if the 25-foot~e'm~rgency access were coming off Lot 16. Mr. Robertson clarified the wording shoul~q3~ revised so that it would read "Cherry Blossom north of March Meadows Way." ~, Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle~ seconded by Ce~missioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declar~n, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5699 with findings and conditio-~as presented in said resolution with the following amendment to Conditio-'n~ of Exhibit "A," to read as follows: -.~.~ Pdor to recordation of phase 2, emergency access shall be provided to .... ~ ..... the area east of lots 13 through 26 from Cherry Blossom Court and north ' of March Meadows Way. The improvements for the emergency access """~ shall be approved by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. Motion carded. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION D.I OF SECTION 17.613.030 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODI- RELATING TO NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN~ Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Brady asked for clarification on openness of discussion. Mr. Grady said discussion is limited to amendment of the ordinance with respect to expanding noticing requirements for comprehensive sign plans only. Jill Kleiss said the commission has the right to expand noticing requirements beyond the comprehensive sign plan citing a memo which was submitted by Ms. Marino, City Attorney. Ms. Marino said the only issue on this agenda is that of changing noticing requirements for the comprehensive sign plan. Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 4 Ms. Kleiss cited the last page of Title 17 saying this item can be expanded upon at this time. Commissioner Brady did not feel the commission is precluded from discussing additional items at a future time, however is precluded at this time because they are not on the agenda. Ms. Kleiss felt the commission has the right to expand, amend or reject. She asked that the following be made part of the noticing ordinance: "The city shall include among those sent public notice of commission and council hearings all homeowners within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the property that is the subject of the hearing. Such notice shall be given at least 10 days in advance of the hearing and shall be given of all agenda items requiring Commission or Council approval or modification including but not limited to any site plan, sign plan, landscape plan, conditional use permit, subdivision map, change in use or other approval. Such notice shall also be posted on the exterior boundary of the project site. Additionally the notices shall also be mailed to any person who has filed a written request for the above-mentioned notices with the Planning Department. The request for notices shall be renewed annually." She felt this would be a fair resolution to the noticing problem. Renee Donato Nelson felt Commissioner Boyle brought the issues stated by Ms. Kleiss up at the last hearing. She was concerned that it was not what was placed on the agenda, however was what was discussed. Commissioner Boyle felt his request was more broad than what was noticed, however the Brown Act states that what is noticed is what must be discussed. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady felt the effort set forth on this noticing issue is a piece-meal approach which he felt would not solve all of the problems and for this reason he would not support the motion. An overall approach needs to be looked at, it needs to be studied and input given. He stated he would support a motion that a committee be formed to study public notice of all types of hearings in the broadest scope. In response to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Marino explained the noticing requirements for vadous applications. Commissioner Boyle felt perhaps a committee was necessary to look at the overall noticing of projects. He stated he was not in favor of giving notice to property owners within 300 feet of.a sign plan. He felt the proposed ordinance provision that allows for notice to those requesting special notice is adequate Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 5 because there has not historically been any controversy regarding these items. The ordinance should include a provision that the request for special notice has to be filed within a certain amount of time. There should be some type of sunset provision. He said he would like to have an item placed on an agenda for a status report on where the commission is with the site plan review process. He stated his willingness to support the motion with a provision of a sunset clause on how long a request for special notice is good and had no objection to appointing a committee to look into this to see what other changes may need to be changed in a broad-based ordinance. Commissioner Delgado stated he was not opposed to headng a broader issue in light of the fact that it appears to be very important to the public as a whole. He stated he would be in favor of seeing the 300-foot notification as well as ensudng that anyone requesting special notice receive it. He asked how this requirement would be incorporated into the ordinance presented. Ms. Marino said the draft ordinance states that notice of the date, time and place of headng, location, etc. will be given to a) the applicants, b) every person requesting notice and she suggested an item c) be added such that notice be given to those persons within 300 feet. Commissioner Delgado stated he was not opposed to a committee looking at the noticing issue as a whole, however with respect to this particular ordinance he would approve it but would like to see property owners within 300 feet included within the notice requirement. Commissioner Tavorn felt perhaps the committee needs to be appointed to look at noticing requirements. He asked if it would be possible to hold committee meetings during the latter part of the day instead of the noon hour. Chairman Hersh agreed with previous comments made by commissioners stating he did n3t feel the 300-foot noticing for sign plans nor a special notice requirement with a sunset clause was unreasonable. He stated he would like to see a motion to appoint a committee to meet during the late day hours to swiftly make the neceSsary alterations and bdng it back to the commission for consideration or an alteration at this meeting to address the points which were brought up at this hearing. He suggested that if a committee is formed that it allow for public input. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado to continue this item to the next meeting and a committee meeting to be formed so that a compromise resolution can be worked out. Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 6 Commissioner Brady stated his opposition to this motion because the issue that has been raised is public notice on more than just the sign ordinance. If this motion passes the comprehensive sign plan is going to be looked at in a vacuum. The commission will be focusing on one minor issue. He felt the ordinances need to be compared with respect to why certain projects are noticed within 300 feet and others are not. He did not feel this should be done in a piece-meal fashion. Commissioner Boyle felt if this matter is simply continued the same limitations will apply with respect to what can be discussed. He felt this ordinance should be adopted and a committee formed to look at noticing. However there is a possibility that the study may conclude that the other headngs already provide the proper noticing. In this case this piece-meal approach may solve the issue and if not some type of more exhaustive ordinance can be recommended. Mr. Grady suggested staff could prepare a report which identifies the public hearing items and current notice requirements. He felt the decision can be reached on this issue with respect to whether sign plans should be noticed and the report could give information and possibly direction with respect to other items which may need amendment. Commissioner Brady felt the system needs review, however he did not want to attempt to fix a problem of which this is not the source. He felt the source of the problem needs to be looked into. He asked that a motion be made to begin addressing the problem of public input on large commercial developments. He opposed any motion to approve this or continue it. Chairman Hersh asked if Commissioner Brady felt approval of this ordinance would allow operativeness until the issue of site plan review is dealt with. Commissioner Brady felt there are projects with comprehensive sign plans which have no public notice problems and this would place a burden on those projects. Commissioner Delgado felt every issue the commission deals with affects someone citing some contain major impacts and some minor. He withdrew his previous motion. Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado to adopt the resolution with all findings and conditions, approving the proposed ordinance and recommend adoption to the City Council, with the amendment of Resolution 102-96, Item #3 to read as follows: The proposed amendment is hereby approved and recommended for adoption by City Council. Also amendment to Section 17.60.030 - Comprehensive Sign Plans, Item #1 .c. to include a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project. Commissioner Boyle shared Commissioner Brady's concern that not all comprehensive sign plans need notice. He gave an example of a shopping center and asked for an estimate of square footage. Mr. Grady estimated 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and stated it should be noted that most shopping centers are not built with a comprehensive sign plan and gave reasons for a developer to request one. Commissioner Brady felt a continuance of this item will not solve the problem and he felt the piece-meal approach is the wrong approach to take. Commissioner Tavom seconded Commissioner Delgado's motion. Commissioner Boyle stated he would not support the motion as presently drafted. Chairman Hersh felt this proposal will allow the public to be notified as they have requested and for this reason he would support the motion and would appoint a site plan review committee. He stated he would therefore support the motion as made by Commissioner Delgado. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ortiz, Tavom, Delgado, Hersh NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Tkac Ms. Marino cited a problem in that the language placed in subsection C does not really cover how those property owners within 300 feet are known or define the exterior boundaries of the property. She suggested a reconsideration of the motion and additional language as follows: By mailing a notice postage prepaid to the applicant and to the owners of all property within 300 feet of the extedor boundaries of the property involved using for this purpose the name and address of such owners as shown upon the latest county assessment roll. Minutes, PC, 11/7/96 Page 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Tavom to reconsider the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady abstained. Commissioner Delgado made a motion to amend his previous motion to include the language suggested by Ms. Merino. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tavorn. Motion carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado, Harsh NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Tkac ABSTAINED: Commissioner Brady Chairman Hersh appointed Commissioner Delgad0 as Chairman of the Site Plan Review Committee. He also appointed Commissioners Tavom and Dhanens to that committee. He asked that this committee meet with staff to bdng the commission up to date on what has been accomplished on the site plan review issue as quickly as possible. 6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE CITY'S FIVE-YEAR CAPITAl · .....~ . IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE - JACK LaROCHELLF ~Ted Wright, Public Works Department, submitted information on this item and 'g~e an overview of it. Commis~en.?r Tavorn asked if he felt White Lane would last until 1998-1999 wh,e_n t_h.e__i_mp~ent plan has it slated for resurfacing. Mr. Wright said staff Ioo.ks_ a,? r,,esurfa.cin~!ects every year and repfioritizes projects. Ms. LaRochelle said sever~lt-major arterial roads which were constructed under a previous standard are in disrepair. Commissioner Tavom asked if Pana/l~a..Lane is proposed for rewidening. Mr. Wright said the Panama Lane overcross~out for bid. The widening of Panama Lane from Wible Road easterly to the"'P,e.w overcrossing project is under construction. Commissioner Delgado asked about funds projected for the Wa~ewater treatment plants. Mr. LaRochelle said wastewater treatment planters 2 and 3 are about to reach capacity and expansion is necessary. ~'~-~.~ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM:/i~' Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: February 18, 1997 SUB,1ECT: Transportation Impact Fee and Large Retail Developments The Phase II Transportation Imact Fee program went into effect on February 10, 1997. This program is governed by Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Co'de. In regards to large retail developments, Chapter 15.84.040C says "Nothing in this ordinance shall exempt land development from the requirements of the site plan review policy regarding major retail projects adopted by City Council Resolution No. 111-83." In other words, if a retail project is large enough, the transportation impacts of the project must be determined separately and fully mitigated, either by construction of required facilities or by payment of the project's proportionate share of those required facilities. The Transportation Impact Fee program does not apply to these projects since they must determine their impacts individually. The Traffic Engineer has determined the methodology to assess regional and local transportation impacts - please see the attached memo of the draft methodology. P:\TIF',PHASE2\URBDE V. MEM R2V~:ml~ xc: Reading File Projmt File lac. que~ R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw A--K E R S F I E LD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DRAFT MEMO TO: Interested Parties FROM: Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer DATE: January 31, 1997 SUBJECT: Summary of Methodology For Assessing Regional Impact Fees as Required by City Ordinance (15.84.040.D & 15.84.050.D) Amended City, Ordinance 3736 implementing Phase II of the Transportation Impact Fee (T[F) for new development along with Council Resolution 142-96 adopting the fee schedule calls for an independent study to assess the impact and determine fees for certain types of projects. The ordinance states that 'The independent fee calculation study shall measure the impact of the development in question on the road system by following the prescribed methodologies and formats for the study established by the Admini.~trator." The Admini.~trator being the Public Works Director or designee. What follows is a s-mmarv of said methodology which is being incorporated into the proposed Chapter 4.1 'Traffic Studies", of the Subdivision Design Manual The fully revised manual is expected to be complete later this year. General Plan Amendments (15.84.040.D) (Exemption from Detailed Anal'Isis) General Plan Amendments which will result in either an insi~tmific~nt increase or in a · reduction ia trip generation are exempt from the requirement to perform an independent impact analysis. These are allowed to be subject to the fixed rate impact fee assessment. To be eligible, a traffic analysis shall be submitted and approved which computes trip generation with existing and proposed land uses. Said analysis shall show that increase in peak hour trip generation does not exceed 40 trips. Exemption will be allowed ff analysis is approved and accompanied by a request that the TIF fixed rate fee schedule be used. Non-exempt General Plan Amendments GPAs which do not meet the above criteria shall perform a regional traffic impact study. The affected area for the study will be baseci on distribution of trips extending out on the Transrmrtation Imf)act Fee Policy Summary for Inder~endent Anaivsis Page 2 of 2 roaci system until r~eak project traffic has reducea to the thresholds in Chapter 4.1 on any faciiitv on the TiT list. Since the TiT is basea on mitigation to LOS "C" or better that level shall generally be taken as 40 r)eak trips or less. The TIF calculation shall comr~ute the project share for each of the affected TIF facilities. The compute0 share will be the project traffic divided by total traffic at the buildout year. The buildout year is the KemCOG model year used in the current TIF program (presently 2020). Total trnt:fic will be the sum of: traffic derived from accepted model data plus project traffic plus trnffc fi.om other approved GPAs (not already accounted for in model data). A table shall be provided showing project traffic, total traffic, percent share and cost share. The spreadsheet containing the current TIF list is available for use. A sample computation is attached. The study will also assess whether the facilities on the TIF list will still provide LOS "C" or better and provide recommendations for any additional mitigation needed. All other elements of a trnffc study as defined in Chapter 4.1 apply. Major Retail Projects (15.84.040.D) Major retail projects are presently defined as either a single retail store or business 75,000 SF GLFA. a shopping center of 100.000 SF GLFA. or an increase to a shopping center having 100,000 SF Gl_FA by either 20%. 75,000 SF or to over 150,000 SF GLFA. Major retail projects will be required to perform the same TIF computation as discussed previousiy for GPAs to determine share of facilities on the TIF list. Additionally, all the elements of a traffic study as defined in Chapter 4.1 apply. The study shall assess impacts and recommend mitigation and improvements necessary at opening day. The study will also examine all site access needs, restrictions, etc. Applicant Request to Have independent Fee Calculation (15.84.050.D) The ominance allows a fee payer to perform the independent analysis for any other .type of project rather than using the fixed rate fee. These projects will be required to perform the same TIF computation as discussed r)reviouslv for GPAs to determine share of facilities on the TIF list. No additional traffic stu~iv or levei of service analysis is required. Attachment p u Oflc _wor .nt ~vol l:~rou~at ~ mliv'.suixi~v.maa mc'w _rz~.mem Sample Project Calculation . Regional Traffic Impact Fee Improvements SltIEET LIMITS Length Development TOTAl_ Devolopmei~l Iml)roveln~nl NAME FROM' .... TO .... (~) ~H~N'I-NO~ TRAFFIC 1RAFFIC StlARE Cost Tolal $214.090 s:~lolus\rllfi, salnl}lo.wkl 31 ,Jdn 97