Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/96 . /' ;."f/'š , , Æ . -- BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM March 15, 1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ð1 SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION { / 1. Some good news! We are one of three finalists for a statewide award for the 1995 Development Partnership Award granted by the California Association for Local Economic Development for the hotel project. A memo :tì-om Jake Wager is enclosed. 2. We had what seemed like a positive meeting with the new spokespersons for Riverlakes this week. Another session which should give more definitive direction is scheduled next week. They did ask for the payoff amount on the delinquent assessments. If they pay, we'll sure let you know. 3. Our Annexation Task Force is seeing some behind the scenes progress. Meetings with at least some individual businesses in Chester and Dennen areas have been positive. We also had a session in Old Stockdale this week with some opponents. We don't know if we won them over but, at a mirumum, it improved relations. Our latest status report is attached, along with the first newsletter and the postcards we have sent out. 4. We are doing research on a large screen video system for the Convention Center. It brings big events, such as Newt Gingrich, large religious conferences, and ice hockey closer to the audience. It can be a revenue source by charging for it. Technical issues and costs are under reView. S. The "loyal opposition" to the Marketplace continues to circulate rumors and is trying ITom behind the scenes to set the City and Castle & Cooke off against one another. Same stuff - new phase. 6. As mentioned in General Information several weeks ago, a bill has been introduced to unify the enterprise zone and incentive area program, as endorsed by the City Council. 7. There is a report attached regarding Federal Unfunded Mandates. The recommendations as proposed by the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations are summarized. 8. A memorandum from Development Services regarding the status of the proposal to build a new train dept near the Convention Center, rather than F Street, is attached. Kern COG's grant application for funds to conduct a feasibility study has been approved. The study will commence in July. -- . - JYr- ~jl-J¿ / . Honorable Mayor and City Council March 15, 1996 Page 2 9. The County has requested that we submit, in writing, any requests for information regarding our feasibility study on Envirorunental Health Services, and we have done so (copy of request attached). 10. A copy of the Planning Commission's resolution and proposed ordinance for off-site directional signs is attached. 11. A report on Merit Step Increases for the 3rd quarter of 1995 is attached. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst l 'I 03/15/96 FRI 12:44 FAX 805 328 1548 BFLD ECON & COMM DEV ~~01 ---- MRR 15 '96 11:13AM CITY OF MURRIETA '-- 1 Post-If' Fax Note 7671 Date To From .j Co,lDepl. Co, Phone # Phone 1/ Fax 1/ Fax 1/ March IS, 1996 JobnP, Wager. II. &anomie: Development Director City of Baker.field 51S Tnmun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Wager: Congratulations! Your project "Holiday Inn Seleçt - Convention Center Hotel Project" bas been selected by our Awards Committee 89 one of the three finalists for our 199' Development Pannenhtp Award, This means that your project exemplifies the best of California's current crop of economic development projectS and is one of three that will receive one of our prestigious Awards of Excellence, AI one of oUt fmalists, your project Is allO eligible to be further honored as our Grand Prize recipient. As a 1995 Award of Excellence winner, you are ,pwally invited to attend CALBD's 16th Annual Eeonomic Development Conference slated tOr San Diego, April 2-5, 1996. Your award will be presented during the Awards luncheon on April 4, 1996 and will be featured in the conference program, as well as in a subsequent CALm Bulletin. If you have not already registered for the conference, I encourage you, other members of your organization and all who have played a role in this successful project to do so now. I believe that this will be an exçellent opportunity for all of your project's participants to receive much deserved state-wide recognition. In addition, because of your efforts to nominate a project for our awards program, the regJstration rate applicable to your own COlt of registration has been reduced to 5275.00. To take advantage of this special discount, simply submit your registration form to the conference registrar with a check In the appropriate amount, and a copy of this lelt.. CALED staff' will take care of the rest. On behalf of CALED's Board of Direc:rors, we appreciate the fme work you have done to further the profession of economic development in California and look forward to seeing you in San Diego. In the interim, If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (114) 717-7795. Should you have any questions regarding registering for the conference or the. awards ceremony. please contact Linda Sayles of CALm at (916) 441-8252. Slncwe1y, ~ð~ Kim Shaw 1995 CALED Awards Program Selection Committee Chair 1010 F Street, "100 L] Sacramento, California 95814 0 916/448-8252 c FAX 916f448.3811 --- Æ . - B A K E R 5 F I E L D MEMORANDUM MARCH 15, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER . FROM'~ ,ß, TEUBNER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RE: ANNEXATION STRATEGY UPDATE This is an update on the progress of implementation of the Annexation Strategy. We have moved into an active phase of neighborhood meetings and have begun active marketing of the hotline. I have attached examples of the meeting invitation cards and the hotline information card which we are sending out. The invitation card is used to inform residents of meetings which are hosted in homes in the annexation areas and the guest lists are developed with the input of the meeting host. We have held one neighborhood meeting in Old Stockdale at the Pryor home that was attended by nine of the twenty people invited. This meeting confirmed the strategy of holding small group meetings in homes, because it provides a more relaxed conversational setting in which to address resident issues, concerns and questions. It also allows for more time to be spent on each person's individual concerns. We have a meeting scheduled in Dennen this afternoon. Next week we have meetings scheduled in Dennen, Old Stockdale and Chester. We also met this week with the owner of Poston Furniture in the Chester area. He was satisfied with our assurances that his concerns can easily be addressed and indicated that he would support annexation and pròvide an endorsement for the newsletter. Floyd Burcham, former owner of the Floyd's Stores on Chester, also is endorsing annexation. We will be developing a Chester Businesses for Annexation group in that area and covering their endorsement in our newsletters. The hotline cards have gone out to Dennen residents and Old Stockdale residents so far. Next week they will go out to the Chester area and selected neighborhoods in Casa Loma. Although the press coverage has not been great, the hotline has received several calls this week, some from supporters or those that are neutral. I believe one of the advantages of the hotline will be to help us identity those that support or are neutral on annexation. These people frequently do not attend meetings but will take the time to make a quick phone call. We have been asking these individuals I to hold neighborhood meetings and/or to pass out copies of the newsletter in their area. The first edition of the newsletter will be available late this afternoon and will be distributed to Dennen residents at our meeting. Attendees of previous meetings will receive them in the mail along with follow up letters. The primary means of distribution will be through neighborhood volunteers and through neighborhood meetings. With the recent meetings we are getting a lot of good issues for the next editions and the task force is working primarily on preparation of these editions, which will be out in mid-April. Third and fourth editions will come out in May and June. If you have any questions, please let me know. I II I I --- 1"".. Æ . c ,.. '.c . - B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM March 13, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Gt:'uaiters, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Feral Unfunded Mandates In conjunction with my participation as a member of the ICMA Public Policy Committee (and the work I did while in Washington), I have been trying to keep up with the developments at the federal level regarding unfunded mandates. During our meeting last week, we received a copy of the preliminary report by the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) which makes several bold recommendations regarding previously imposed mandates. Before getting into the specific recommendations, however, just a little background on the ACIR. The Commission was created in 1958 to bring together representatives of federal, state and local governments to discuss national domestic issues. Over time because of changing priorities at the congressional level, the Commission has been losing its luster and its funding. In 1993, the work of the National Performance Review task force made a pitch to Congress to renew the Commission's purpose and funding. This lasted approximately one year and now Congress has voted to de-fund the work of the commission altogether. It is expected that the recent work of the Commission will be its last. Membership on the Commission consists of the following individuals: Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Mayor Victor H. Ashe, Knoxville, TN Administrator Carol Browner, US EPA Senator Paul Bud Burke, Kansas Governor Arne H. Carlson, Minnesota Governor Howard Dean, Vermont Senator Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Senator Dave Durenberger, Minnesota I Daniel J. Elazar, Center for the Study of Federalism i Marcia L. Hale, Assistant to the PresidenUDirector of Intergovernmental Affairs '---.. r. -. '.'..' ACIR Unfunded Mandates March 13, 1996 Page 2 Art Hamilton, Minority Leader, Arizona Mayor Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, CO' Mary Ellen Joyce, Senior Regulatory Analyst, American Petroleum Institute Governor Michael O. Leavitt, Utah Governor Bob Miller, Nevada County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Los Angeles Representative James Moran, Virginia Senator Samuel B. Nunez, Jr., Louisiana Representative Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Mayor Edward G. Rendell, Philadelphia, PA Secretary Richard Riley, Department of Education Representative Steven H. Schiff, New Mexico Commissioner John H. Stroger, Jr., Cook County, IL Commissioner Barbara Sheen Todd, Pinellas County, FL Mayor Bruce Todd, Austin, TX William F. Winter, of Watkins, Ludlam and Stennis, Jackson, MS The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 directs the ACIR to investigate and review the role of federal mandates in intergovernmental relations and to make recommendations to the President and Congress as to how the federal government should relate to state, local and tribal governments. In their preliminary report of January 1996, the ACIR "proposes for public review and comment recommended changes in federal policies to improve intergovernmental relations while maintaining a commitment to national interests." More than 200 separate mandates were identified by state and local governments, involving about 170 federal laws. The ACIR notes that relief from existing federal mandates will be especially important if state and local governments are to assume greater responsibilities from federal devolution." ACIR's proposed recommendations for individual mandates are summarized into three categories: A. Repeal the provisions in these laws that extend coverage to state and local government. Fair Labor Standards Act Family and Medical Leave Act Occupational Safety and Health Act Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Drivers Metric Conversion for Plans and Specifications Medicaid: Boren Amendment* Required Use of Recycled Crumb Rubber ..... "'~- '.. ACIR Unfunded Mandates March 13, 1996 Page 3 B. Retain these mandates with modifications to accommodate budgetary and administrative constraints on state and local governments. Clean Water Act Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Americans with Disabilities Act C. Revise these mandates to provide greater flexibility and increased consultation. Safe Drinking Water Act Endangered Species Act Clean Air Act Davis-Bacon Related Acts Attached are individual assessments of each of the mandates noted above. The analysis was completed by staff to the ACIR. Note that mandates with an asterisk do not directly impact the City. You might well expect that it will be recognized that some of the recommendations are far re~ching and may not have any chance of being acted upon. However, since the Commission has indicated that the preliminary report is for "public review and comment," I wonder if we would be interested in commenting on any of the proposed recommendations? Should that be the case, I will seek more information as to how to proceed. , , ' i I I 8 I SEN ATE BILL No. 2023 ¡ Introduced by Senator Costa 8. I 1 1 February 23, 1996 An act to repeal and add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) of, and to repeal Chapter 12.9 (commencing I; with Section 7080) of, Division 7 of Title 1 of, the Government Code, arid to add Sections 17079 and 23005 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to economic development. 8. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2023, as introduced, Còsta. Enterprise and employment zones. ., 8. The Enterprise Zone Act provides for the designation of enterprise zones by the Trade and Commerce Agency, according to specified criteria, pursuant to which certain entities may receive regulatory, tax, and other incentives for private investment and employment. The Employment and Economic Incentive Act establishes the Employment and Economic Incentive Program, pursuant to which targeted economic development areas, I neighbòrhood economic development areas, or program areas are designated. by the Trade and Commerce Agency, 8. according to specified criteria, for the provision of tax incentives, special assistance, startup capital, and other incentives for pfivate investment and employment. This bill would repeal these provisions. It would enact the Enterprise and Employment Zone Act, to provide for the . designation of economic and employment zones by the Trade 8. and Commerce Agency, according to specified criteria, pursuant to which certain entities within the zone may i 99 ! ¿,-/->, SB 2023 - 2 ~ . . 8 recéive regulatory, tax;and other incentives for economic and employment development and private investment. 'Thisbill w0uld specify that any enterprise zone designated under the Enterprise Zone Act, or any targeted economic development area, neighborhood economic developmE(nt . area, or program area designated under the Employment and Economic Incentive Act, shall be deemed designated as. an enterprise and em ploymen t zone pursuant to these provisions. It would additionally specify that a person or entity eligible . for specified tax incentive's by application of either act shall be deemed to be eligible by application of the provisions of the bill. ' . . Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no., The people of the State ofCalifornÍà do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. . Chapter 12.8 of Division 7 of Title 1 of 8 2 the Go,:"ernment Code is repealed. . ' 3 ,SEe. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing witPl Section 4 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government 5 Code, to read: 8 6 -7 CHAPTER 12.8 ENTERPRISE. AND EMPLOYMENT ZONE ACT 8 9 7070. This chapter shall be known and may be cited 10 as the Enterprise and Employment Zone Act. 11 7071. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: 12 (a) The health, safety, and welfare of the people of 13 California depend upon the development; stability, and ' 14 expansion of private business, industry, and commerce, 8 15' and there are certain areas within the state that are 16 . economically dèpressed due to a lack of investplent in the 17 private sector. Therefore, it is declared to be the purpose 18 of this chapter to stimulate business and industrial growth 19 in the depressed areas of the state by relaxing regulatory 20 controls that impede private investment. 21' (b) It is in the economic interest of the state to have 8 - 22 one strong, combined, and business-friendly incentive 99 ' 'I 8 -3- SB 2023 program to help attract business andindustry to the state, 1 2 to' help retain and expand existing state business and 3 industry, and to create increased job opportunities for all 4 Californians. 5 (c) No 'enterprise and employment zone shall be 8' 6 designated in which any boundary thereof is drawn in a 7 manner so as to include larger stable businesses or heavily 8 residential areas to the detriment of areas that are truly 9 economically depressed. '. 10 (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to , 11 infringe upon regulations relating to the civil rights, equal f 12 employment rights, equal opportunity rights, or fair 13 housing rights of any person. 14 , 7072. For purposes òf this chapter, the following 15 definitions shall apply: 16 (a)" Agency" means the Trade and Commerce 17 Agency. '. . 18 (b) "Eligible area" means either of the following: 8. '19' (1) An area approved as an enterprise zone pursuant . 20 to Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070), as it 21 read on December 31, 1996,. or as a targeted economic 22 development area, neighborhood development area,. or 8. 23 . program area pursuant to Chapter 12.9 (commencing 24 with Section 7080), as it read on December 31, 1996. 25 (2) For a proposed enterprise and employment zone, 26 a geographic area that, based upon the determination of ' 27 the agency, fulfills at least one of the following: 28 (A) The proposed geographic area meets the Urban 29 Development Action Grant criteria of the United States 30 Department of Housing and Urban Development. 31 (B) The area within the proposed. zone has 32 experienced plant èlosures within the pa~t two years 8 33.. affecting more than 100 workers. ". 34 (C) The city or county has submitted material to the 35 agency for a finding that the proposed geographic. area' 36 meets criteria of economic distress related to those used 37 in determining eligibility under the Urban Development 38 Action Grant Program and is therefore an eligible area. '8 99 -- ---------- ;1 SB 2023 -4- 8 1 (D) The area within the proposed zone has a history " 2 of gang-related activity, whether or not crimes of 3 violence have been committed. ¡ 4 (c) "Enterprise and employment zone" means any 5 area within a city; county, or city and county that is /' 6 designated as such by the agency in accordanèe with the 8 7 provisions of Section 7073... . 8 (d) "Governing body" means a county board. of 9 supervisors or a city council, as appropriate. .. 10 (e) "High ,technology industries" include, but are not 11 limited to, the computer, biological e,ngineering, 12 electronics, and telecommunications industries. 13 (f) "Resident," unless otherwise defined, means a 14 person whose principal place of residence is within a . 15 targeted employment area. , 16 (g) "Targeted employment area" means an area ¡ 17 within a city, county, or city and county that is composed 18 solely of those census tracts designatea by the United 19 States Department of Housing and Urban Development - : 20 as having at least 51 percent of its residents of low- or " 21 modèrate-income levels, using the most recent United 22 . States Department of Census data to 'determine that , 23 eligibility. A targeted employment area may be, but is not -' ' 24 required to be, the same as all or part of an enterprise and 25 employment zone. A targeted employment area's 26. boundaries need not be contiguous. 27 .7073. (a) Any city, county, or city and county with an 28 eligible area within its jurisdiction may complete a 29 preliminary application for designation as an enterprise 30 and employment zone. The applying entity shall establish I 31 definitive boundaries for the proposed enterprise and ' 32 employment zone. . -. 33 (b) (1) In designating enterprise and employment - 34 zones, the agency shall select from the applications 35 submitted those proposed enterprise and employment 36 zones that, upon a comparison of all of the applications 37 submitted, indicate that they propose the most effective, , 38 innovative, and comprehensive regulatory, tax, progtam,~- , 39 and other incentives in attracting private sector 8 I 40 investment in the zone proposed. . ~ 99 ., ,; .;1 >-- -5- SB 2023 8 1 (2) For purposes of this subdivision, J.:egulatory 2 incentives include, but are not limited, to, all of the 3 following: 4 (A) The suspension or relaxation oflocallyoriginated 5 or modified building codes, zoning laws, general -- 6 development plans, or rent controls. 7 (B) The elimination or reduction of fees for 8 applications, permits, and local government services. ' . 9 (C) The establishment of a streamlined permit 10 process. , 11 (3) For purposes of this subdivision, tax inqmtives 12 include, but are not limited to, the elimination or 13 reduction of construction taxes or business license taxes. . 14 (4) For the purposes of this subdivision, program and 15 other incentives may include, but are not limited to, all 16 of the following: 17 (A) The provision or expansion of infrastructur,e. 18 (B) The targeting of federal block grant moneys, 19 including small cities, education, and health and welfare 8 20 block grants. .: 21 (C) The targeting of economic development grants '. 22 and loan moneys, including grant and loan moneys I' 23 provided by the federal Urban Development Action 8 24 Grant program and the federal Economic Development " 25 Administra tion. 26 , (D) The targeting of sta te , and' federal job 27 disadvantaged and vocational education grant moneys, 28 including moneys provided by the federal Job Training 29 Partnership Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-300). 30 (E) The targeting of federal or state transportation. 31 grant moneys. 32 (F) The targeting of federal or state low-income '8 33 housing and rental assistance moneys. 34 (G) The use of tax allocation bonds, special assessment 35 bonds, bonds under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities' 36 Act of 1982 (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 37 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2), industrial development 38 . bonds, revenue bonds, private activity bonds, housing '8 39 bonds, bonds issued pursuant to the Marks-Ross Local 40 Bond Pooling Act .of 1985 Article 4 (commencing with " 99 ; I: -= i I SB 2023 ..:.... 6 - , 1 Section 6584) óf Chapter 5), certificates of participation, 8 2 hospital bonds, redevelopment bonds, and school bonds, . ,3 ' and including all special provisions provided for. under 4 federal tax law for enterprise zone bonds. ! 5 (5) In the process of designating new enterprise and 6 employment zones, the agency shall take into 8,' 7 consideration the location of existing zones and make 8 every effort to locate new zones in a manner that will not 9 adversely affect any existing zones. ' 10 (6) In designating new enterprise and employment 11 zones, the department shall include in its criteria the fact 12 that jurisdictions have been declared disaster àreas by the 13 President bf the United States within the last seven years. 14 (c) In evaluating applications for designatiòn, the 15 agency shall ensure that applications are not disqualified '16 solely because of technical deficiencies, and shall provide 17 applicants with an opportunity to correct the 18 deficiencies. Applications shall be disqualified if the 19 deficiencies are not corrected within two weeks. 20 (d) A designation made by the agency shall be binding 8 21 for a period of 15 years. ", 22 (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 23 any area designated as an enterprise zone pursliant to 24 ' Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) as it read 8', 25 on December 31, 1996, or as a targeted economic 26 , development area, . neighborhood economic 27 development area, or program area pursuant to Chapter 28 12.9 (commencing with Section 7080) as it read on 29 December 31, 1996, shall be deemed to be designated as 30 an enterprise and employment zone pursuant to,this 31" chapter. The effèctive date of designation of the .32 enterprise and employment zone shall be that of the 33 original designation' pursuant to Chapter 12.8 8_-- 34 (commencing with Section 7070) as it read on December 35 31, 1996, or Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section . 36 7080) as it read on December 31, 1996. . 37 (2) Notwithstanding any other provisIon of law, any 38 additional enterprise zone authorized pursuant to. 1 39 Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) as it read 8~- ,'II 40 on December 31,1996, shall be deemed to be aut}:lOrized ¡ 99 I r I' - I I -7- SB 2023 I (, 8 1 as an enterprise and employment zone pursuant to this I 2 chapter. 3 (3) Notwithstanding any other 'provision of law, any 4 expansion of a designated, enterprise zone or program 5 area authorized pursuanfto Chapter 12.8 (commencing . 6 with Section 7070) as it read on December 31, 1996 or 7 Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 7080) as it read 8 on December '31, 1996, shall be deemed to be authorized 9 as an expansion for a designated enterprise and 10 ' employment zone pursuant to this chapter. 11 (4) No part of this chapter shall be construed to 12 require a new application for designation by. an 13 enterprise zone designated pursuant to Chapter 12.8 14 (commencing with Section 7070) as it read on December 15 31; 1996, or a targeted economic development area, 16 neighborhood economic development area, or program '17 area designated pursuant to Chapter 12.9 (commencing .18 with Section 7080) as it read on December 31, 1996. 19 7074. (a), In the case of any existing enterprise and. 8 20 employment zone, including an enterprise and 21 employment zone formerly designated as an enterprise 22 zone pursuant to Chapter 12.8 (commencing with 23. Section 7070) as it read on December 31, 1996,' or as a 8 ~4 program area pursuant to Chapter 12.9 (commencing 25 with Section 7080) as it read on December 31,1996, a city, 26 or county, or city and county may propose that the 27 enterprise and employment zone be expanded by 15 28 percent to include definitive boundaries that' are I. 29 contiguous to the enterprise and employment z.one. The 30 agency may ápprove that expansion based upon the 31 criterion specified in subdivision (b) of Section 7073. - 32 (b) An existing enterprise and employment zone that 8 33 is located in the unincorporated area of a county may 34' propose to uSe eligible expansion allotment to expand 35 into an adjacent city or cities pursuant to this section if, 36 in 'addition to approving the expansion based òn the 37 criterion described in subdivision (b) of Section 7073, the 38 agency finds that all of the following conditions exist: 8 39 (a) Each of the cÜ:ies' governing bodies approves'the 40 expansion by adoption of an ordinance or resolution. I . ' 99' --------- ! I, SB 2023 -8- 1 ' . (b) Land included within the proposed expansion is 8 2 zoned for industrial, com~ercial,or agricultural use.. I: 3 . (c) Basic'infrastructure, including~ but not limited to, 4 gas, water, electrical service, and sewer systems, is ' 5 'available to the area that would be included in the 6 expansion. '.' . 8 ¡ 7, 7075.' (a) Upon filing 'a preliminary application, the " 8 applicant, as lead agency, shall submit an initialstudy and I, , 9 . a' notice of preparation to the agency,' the' state ' 10 clearinghouse, and all responsible agencies. I í 11 (b) Only a city, county; or city and county chosen by 12 the agency as a final applicant shall prepare, or cause to ,13 be prepared, a draft environmental impact report, which 14 shall set forth the potential environmental impacts of any 15 and an development planned within the enterprise and 16 employment zone. The dràft. environmental impact 17 report shall be submitted to the agency with the final ; 18 application. 19 (c) Prior to final designation by the agency, the 20 applicant shall . complete and certify the final 8 '.21 environmental impact report. 22 '. (d) The environmental impact report shall comply 23 with the information disclosure 'provisions and the . 24 sùbstantive requirements of Division 13 (commèncin~ 8 25 with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. . 26 (e) No further environmental impact report shall be 27 required if the effects of the project were any of the 28 following: 29 (1) Mitigated or avoided as a result of the 30 environmental impact report prepared for the a~ea. 31 (2) Examined at a sufficient level of detail in the 32 environmental ,impact report for the area to enable those 33 effects to be mitigated or avoided by. specific site . 34 revisions, the imposition of conditions; or other means in 35 connection with the designation of the area. . 36 (3) Identified in the final environmental impact 37 report and the lead agency made written findings that . 38 specific economic; social, .or other . considerations made 39 ,the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified 8 40 in the final environmental impact report unfeasible. 99 I -9- SB 2023 . 1 7.076. (a) (1) The ,ag~ncy shall provide technical 2, assistance to the ente~prise and employment zones ,3 designated pursuant'to this chapter with respect to all of 4 the following activities: 5 (A) Furnish limited onsite assistance to the enterprise 6 and economic development zones when appropriate. 8 7 (B) Ensure that the locality has developed a method 8 to ,make residents, ,businesses, and neighborhood 9 'organizations aware of the opportunities to participate in 10 the program. , ' 11 (C) Help the locality develop a marketing program for 12 the enterprise and employment zone. 13" (D) Coordipate activities of other state agencies 14 regarding the enterprise and employment zones. 15 (E) Monitor the progress of the program. I 16 (F) Help businesses tq participate in the program. l ,17 (2) Notwithstanding existing law, the provision of 18 services in subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, shall be 19 a high priority of the agency. 8 2Q (3) The agency may, at its discretion, undertake other 21 activities in 'providing management and technical 22 assistance for successful implementation of this chapter. 23 (b) The applicant shall be' required to begin 8 24 implementation of the enterprise and employment zone 25 plan contained in the final application within six months 26 after notification of final designation or thé enterprise 27 and employment zone shall lose its designation. 28 7077. Notvyithstanding any other provision of law, 29 state and local agencies may lease land to businesses in a 30 designated enterprise and employment zone at a price 31 below fair m,arket value, pro,vided that it serves a public 32 purpose to lease at below fair market value. 8 33 7078. (a) The limitatiohs in Seçtion 91503 on the 34 allowable uses of proceeds, of bonds issued pursuant tò 35 Title 10 (commencing with Section 91500) shall not apply 36 to bonds issued on behalf of any enterprise and 37 , employment zone or any portion of that zone. 38' (b) (1) Notwithstanding the bonding limitation 39 specified in Section 91573, the California Industrial ~ 8, 40, Development Financing Advisory Commission shall 99 ~ I' f - - ----- : SB 2023 -10- I 1 authorize an annual maximum amount of qualifying . 2 bonds of seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000). This 3 annual maximum bonding authority is exclusive of, and 4 in addition to, the maximum bonding authority specified 5 in Section 91573. 6 (2) Notwithstanding Section 91503, the bonding . 7 authorization contained in paragraph (1) shall be used for 8 'providing fUri~S to businesses within designated 9 enterprise and employment zones. However, any portion 10 of the annual maximum amount specified in paragraph 11 (1) that in any year is not Used for the purpose specified '12 in this paragraph may be used in the next succeeding year 13 for the purpose of any program administered by the 14 California Industrial Development Financing Advisory 15 Commission. ' " I 16 7079. Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, the 17 Office of Small¡ Business shall establish regulations for 18 loans and loan guarantees administered by the office that 19 give high priority to businesses in a designated enterprise 20 and employment zone. ',' 8 21 7080. Notwithstànding ~ections 32646 and 32647 of ' , 22 the Financial Çode,' a high priority in ranking loan 23 applications by the State Assistance Fund for Energy, 24 California Business and Development Corporation, shall . 25 be given to businesses in a designated enterprise and 26 employment zQne, that are purchasing or providing 27 alternative energy systems. 28 7081. Notwithstanding any other provision of state 29 law, and to the extent permitted by federal law, the 30 Employment Development Department and the State 31 Department of Education shall give high priority to the 32 training of unemployed individuals who reside in a 33 targeted employment area or a designated enterprise . ;34 and employment area. The agency may assist localities in 35 designating local business, labor, and education consortia 36 to bròker activities between the employmentcommunity 37 ,and educational and training institutions. Any available I 38 ' discretionary funds may be used to assist the creation of 39 thoseconsortia.: , ,8:, " 99 ~~I -- I I I I I I -11- SB 2023 -- 1 7082. Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, the 2 Office of Criminal Justice Planning shall give high 3 priority to designated enterprise and employment zones 4 in the allocation of its program resources. 5 7083. Any. designation òf an enterprise and ,'. 6 employment zone in accordance with the provisions of 7 this chapter shall be deemed appropriate state 8 designation of an enterprise and employment zon~ for 9 purposes of qualifying that zone as an enterpri~e zone' 10 under federal law. 11 7084. (a) Whenever the state prepares an invitation 12 for bid for a contract for goods in excess of one hundred. 13 thousand dollars ($100,000), except a contract in which : 14 the worksite is fixed by the provisions of the contract, the I I 15 state shall award a 5-percent preference' to - 16 California-based companies who certify uIÍder penalty of 17 perjury that no! less than 50 percènt of the labor required 18 to perform the contract shall be accomplished at a 19 worksite or worksites located in an enterprise and 8 20 employment zbne. . 21 . (b) In evaluating proposals for contracts for services in '22 excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), except 23 a contract in wþich the worksite is fixed by the provisions 8 24 of the contract, tJ;1e state shall award a 5-percent 25 preference on the price submitted by California-based 26 companies who certify under penalty of perjury that they 27 shall perform 'the contract at a worksite or worksites 28 located in an epterprise and employment zone. 29 (c) Where a bidder complies with subdivision (a)' or 30 (b), the state ¡shall award a I-percent preference for 31 bidders who shall agree to hire persons living within a , ,32 targeted employment area or are enterprise and 8 33. employment' .zone eligible employees equal to 5 to 9. 34 percent of its work force during the period of contract 35 performance; a 2-percent preference for bidders who 36 shall agree to hire persons living within a targeted i 37 employment irea or are enterprise and employment l- 38 zone eligible employees equal to 10 to 14 percent of its I: 8 39' work force dur1.ng the period of contract performance; a I 40 3-percent preference for bidders who shall agree to hire I, : 99 - ~ , SB 2023 ~ 12 - 1 persons living within a targeted employment area or are 8- 2 enterprise and employment zone eligible employees i 3 equal to 15 to 19 percent of its work force during the 4 period of contract performance; and a 4-percent 5 preference for bidders who shall agree to hire persons. 6 living within a targeted employment area or are -". 7 enterprise and employment zone eligible employees , 8 equal to 20 or more percent of its work force during the 9 ' period of contràct performance. I 10 (d) The maximum. preference a bidder ma~ .be : 11 awarded pursuant to thIS chapter and any other prOVlSlon . , i 12 of law shall be 15 percent. However, in no case shall the I 13 maximum preference cost under this section exceed fifty ! 14 thousand dollars ($50,000) for any bid, nor shall the I 15 combined cost :of preferences granted pursuant to this 16 section and any other provision of law exceed one 17 hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). In those cases 18 where the 15-percent cumulated preference cost would 19 exceed the one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) I - 20 maximum preference cost limit, the one. hundred 8 21 thousand dollar ($100,000) maximum preference cost 1 22 limit shall apply, I 23 (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this ': 24 section, small business bidders qualif. ied in accordance 8 I 25 with Section 14838 shall have precedence over nonsmall. . ! 26 ' business bidders in that the application of. any bidder I 27 preference for which nonsmall business bidders may be I 28 eligible, including the preference contained in this 29' section, shall not result in the denial of the award to a I 30 small business bidder. This subdivision shall apply to those . : 31 cases where the small business bidder is the lowest. : 32 responsible bidder, as well as to those cases where the 33 small business bidder is eligible for award as the result of 8', 34 application of the 5-percent small business bidder. 35 preference. 36 (f) All stat~ contracts issued to bidders who are I 37 awarded preferences under this section shall contain 38 conditions to ensure that the contractor performs the ! 39 contract at the location specified and meets any. 1 99 ,.'" ~ .--- -- ~--- ~I - - - --- -- - , '- ~ . -13- SB 2023 1 commitment to employ persons with high risk of 2 unemployment. I 3 " (g) (1)' A business that requests and is given the l 4 preference provided for in subdivision (a) or (b) by l 5 reason of having furnished a false certification, and that I". 6' by reason of this certification has been awarded.a contract 7 to which it would not otherwise have been entitled, shall .'8 be subject, to all of the following: 9 (A) Pay to the state any difference between the 10 contract amount and what the state's cost would have I. 11 been if the contract had been properly awarded. I 12 (B) In addition to the amount specified in " I 13 subparagraph (A), be assessed a penalty in an amount of I 14 . not more than 10 p~rcent of the amount of the contract I 15 involved. 16 . (C) Be ineligible to transact any business with' the 17 state for a period of not less than three months and not 18 more than 24 months. I ~ '19 (2) Prior to the imposition of any sanction under this 8 20 subdivision, the business shall be entitled to a public 21 hearing and to five days' notice of the time and place 22 thereof. The notice shall state the reasons for the hearing. 8 23 (h) In each instance in this section an en~erprise and 24 employment zone shall also mean any enterprise zone or 25 ,program area previously authorized under any other 26 provision of state law. .27 (i) As used in this sèction, " enterprise and 28 employment ZGne eligible employees" means employees l 29 who meet any of the requirements ofsubpar~graph (C) 30 of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 17053.8 of, 31 or subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) 8 ,32 - of Section 24331 of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, as 33 these sections read on January 1, 1988. ' . . 34 , 7085. The agency shall submit a report to the '35 Legislature every five years, that evaluates the effect of f: 36' the program on employment, investment, and incomes, 37, and on state and local tax revenues in designated 38 e~terprise and employment zones. The Franchise Tax ,8 39 Board shall make available to the agency and the 40 Legislature aggregate information on the dollar value of I I 99 I I -- SB ,2023 -,14- 8 1 enterprise zone tax credits that are 'claimed each year by 2 businesses. 3 7086. (a) The agency shall design, develop, and make 4 available the applications and the criteria for selection of. 5 enterprise and 'employment zones pursuant to Section" 6 7073, and shall adopt all regulations necessary to carry out 8 7 this chapter. . 8 (b) The agency shall adopt regulations concerning the 9 designation ptocedures and application process as 10 emergency regulations in accordance with Chapter 3.5 11 '( com~encing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 12 of Title 2. The adoption of the regulations shall be deemed, 13 to be an emergency and necessary for the immediate - 14 preservation Of the public peace, health and safety, or 15 gener'al welfare, notwithstanding subdivision (e) of 16-Section 11346.1. Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of 17 Section 11346.1, the regulations shall not remain in effect 18 more than 180 days unless the agency complies with all 19' provisions of Chapter 3.5' as required by subdivision (e) 8 20 of Section 11346.1. ' , ' '21 (c) The Department of General Services, with the 22 cooperation of, the Employment Developmen t 23 Department, the Department ofIndustrial Relations, and 8 24 the Office of Planning and Research, and under the 25 direction of the State and Consumer Services Agency, 26 shall adopt appropriate rules, regulations, and guidelines 27 to ïmplement Section 7084. ,28 SEe, 3. Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 29 7080) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code is 30 repealed. 31 SEe. 4. Section 17079 is added to the Revenue and 32 , Taxation Code,! to read: , . 33 17079. Notwithstanding any other provision of state 34 ,law, and to the extent not in conflict with federal law, a,ny 35 reference in this part to an enterprise zone, designated' ,36 pursuant to Section 7073 of the Government Code, as it 37 read on December 31, 1996, or to a program area, 38 designated pursuant to Section 7082 of the Government 39 Code, as it read,on December 31, 1996, or a specified area 8! 40 within an enterprise zone or program area, shall be , 99 I - ~,-, , I 8 .- 15 --- .SB 2023 -, 1 deemed to refer Instead to an enterprise and 2 employment zone, designated pursuant to Section 7073 of 3 the Governm~nt Code, or an area within an enterprise - 4 and employment zone. Any person, or entity deemed 5 eligible for a deduction, credit, or other benefit under this 8 6 part by application of Chapter 12.8 (commencing with ',- 7 Section 7070) or Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section ,8 7080) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, as 9 they read on December 31, 1996, shall be deemed eligible 10 by application of Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 11 7070) of DivisÜm 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. 12 SEC. 5. Section 23005 is added to the Revenue and 13 Taxation Code~ to read: , 14 23005. Notwithstandingany other provision of state 15 law, and to thelextent not in conflict with federal law, any 16 reference in this part to an enterprise zone, designated 17 pursuant to Section 7073 of the Government Code as it 18 read on December 31, 1996, or to a program area, -' 19 designated pursuant to Section 7082 of the Government 20 Code as it read on December 31,1996, or a specified area , 21 within an enterprise zone or program area, shall be , 22 deemed to refer instead to an enterprise and : 8 23 employment zo, ne, designated pursuant to Section 7073 of 24 the Governme,nt C9de, or an area within an enterprise " , 25 and einploymEmt zone. Any person or entity deemed 26 eligible for a deduction, credit, or other benefit under this 27 part by application of Chapter 12.8 (commencing with 28 Section 7070) or Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 29 7080) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, as . 30 . they read on December 31,1996, shall be deemed eligible 31 by application òf Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 32 7070) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. - ' . . '8 l ' 0 99 'r ----- II :....,. C a 1 i for n i a Ass 0 cia t ion 0 f-i n t e r p r i s e Z 0 n e s , For more information: David l yman City of Bakersfield 805 326 3765 March 12, 1996 Unification Bill Introduced 582023 (Costa) to merge El, PA programs After much work with enterprise zones and program areas throughout the state, a unification bill - SB2023 (Costa) -- has been introduced in the Legislature. To make this news even better, CALED's Legislative Review committee has voted to support SB2023! The concept of unification is CAEZ's top 1996 legislative goal. This is in keeping with CAEZ's long range strategy of resolving the division between the Nolan and Waters programs. Background Since 1986, California has had two programs aimed at spurring economic activity in distressed areas in the state. Each program has differing goals and guidelines. The goal of the Nolan program is business attraction. The goal of the Waters program is job creation. Having two programs with similar benefits but different ways to qualify for these benefits has created confusion among businesses as well as the economic development community. For at least the past five years, bills have been introduced to allow designated communities the option of "conversion" from one program to the other. For a variety of political reasons, these bills were usually dead on arrival and never became law. In November 1995, the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee held an interim hearing on all enterprise zone bills pending in the Assembly. Concurrently, the Bureau of State Audits issued a report on the programs' performance to date. Based upon testimony from the Bureau, Trade and Commerce Agency, Franchise Tax Board, and CAEZ, the committee voiced their support for the merger, or unification, of both programs. Is unification important? Having two programs is confusing. Having two programs dilutes the limited resources of the ~ -. Legislative Update - Unification Bill Introduced March 12, 1996 I "r Page 2 I Trade and Commerce Agency to actively market one, strong program to businesses. It also demands increased staff resources at the state level to administer tWo programs. Having one unified program would make California more competitive with other states that offer only one similar program. The top 1996 legislative priority of the California Association of Enterprise Zones is unification of the Nolan (enterprise zone) and Waters (program area) programs. This is in keeping with CAEZ's multi-stepped legislative action plan. With the medium range strategy of "building a coalition for legislative reform. in place and successfully used with the drafting and passing of SB1770 in 1994, the association is embarking on its long range strategy of "resolving the division betWeen Nolan and Waters zones." What will 56 2023 do? SB2023 would repeal the Enterprise Zone Act (Nolan) and the Employment and Economic Incentive Act (Waters) and replace both with the Enterprise and Employment Zone Act. SB2023 would. . . 8 automatically assure all existing Eb and PAs would be designated as Enterprise and Employment Zones. 8not require an application process for existing designations. 8maintain your zone's designation date as its original designation date. 8eliminate HDUAs in existing PAs. HDUAs are based on 1980 census data. 8allow all EEZs to designate a Targeted Employment Area. This area would consist of entire census tracts where at least 51 % of residents are low- and moderate-income as deemed by 1990 census data. 8ask each EEZ to designate a TEA. The TEA may include all or part of the EEZ. 8expand hiring to include "eligible. employees as defmed under current EZ law as well as TEA residents. TEA residents would not have to meet any unemployment criteria. Zone businesses will fmd the available labor pool to be increased. This needs to be included in revised sections of the Revenue & Taxation Code; the exact provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code. where details of how benefits are obtained and qualified for, still need to be reviewed in depth. That is underway now. What will 56 2023 not do? Remember. . . SB2023 is a very "clean" bill: the sole purpose is unification. It does not increase the expansion percentages, or extend the number of years of designation, or anything else. Strictly unification. What happens now? SB2023 was introduced February 23. There is 30 day waiting period before any action can be taken on a new bill. A spring break is scheduled for early April, so we probably will not I - . Legislative Update -- Unification Bill Introduced ;;"""'~ March 12. 1996 I I r., Page 3 I ',;, . be going anywhere until early to mid April. This bill will begin at Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. then go to Senate Appropriations. If approved by the full Senate. it will move over to the Assembly for those same tWo committees before a fmal vote and. hopefully, signature by the governor. - . --, ---===-=--. , Rrcr~->- .' ~~:,~ ~~-~~'~ , L~ ' :1 MAR I 3 1995 M E M 0 RAN D U M}cnYiì\~=-'~~'~- "-- '~A::'e-"" . '" --- \:] Ie: Ii'¡ S . '; - ," R .., ~~""--,,,,-..;:-.,- ',CO March 13, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC . SUBJECT: TRAIN DEPOT RELOCATION I have inquired about the status of the proposal to build a new train depot near the convention center rather than "F" Street. About two weeks ago Kern COG was notified that its application for grant funds to conduct a formal feasibility study was approved. The $236,012 will fund Phase I of the work. The study will begin this July and should be concluded in April of next year. The Phase I study will focus on site access, physical characteristics and cost estimates. Phase II would address right-of-way, design and engineering, environmental clearance, signal improvements, track improvements, bridge widening, street crossings and grade separations. This work would begin in July 1997 and be concluded in June 1999. Phase III is construction of the terminal and parking lot. It is proposed to begin in October 1998 and also be finished by July of 1999. Ron Brummett, Kern COG Director, has told me that characterization of this project as - development of an intercity rail and terminal project qualifies it for 100% funding without a local match. , ", JH:pjt m\mat3.13 " ¡'-~ fRlË~-";r~--' / / f '-, -I~::L '/ ~': I , I L~~-~I . M E M 0 RAN D U M~c~nr MANAGF\'S .-'~~:~: I ~'-bü \'-'-lC' - ",",l., -="",-",-,---:=,~. ::'" March 12, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER 4 FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SE C S DIRECT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES I met with Steve McCalley last week to discuss our feasibility study of Environmental Health Services programs. He asked that I submit a written request for any information. Although he said he would provide available information, he would not go out of his way to hand over EHS to Bakersfield. The attached request has been sent. JH:pjt Attachment m\mat3.11 r -- I /1i . -~.~. - B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department jack Hardisty, Director Dennis C. Fidler March 12, 1996 Stanley C. Grady Building Director Planning Director (805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266 (805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327-0646 Mr. Steven McCalley, Director (C~~Y Environmental Health 2700 "M" Street, #300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Steve: \ Thank you for taking the time to discuss Environmental Health Services programs and the issues that may emerge in our evaluation of whether or not it would be advantageous for the city to assume responsibility for some of them. Where possible we are trying to focus on what it takes to service Bakersfield. I understand that due to your filing system some of the information would be estimated. In order for us to do a fair evaluation of how to proceed, we need the following information: 1. List of services EHS provides. 2. The fee schedule. 3. Schedule of inspections and reports done on a regular basis in and about Bakersfield. 4. How many cases and what types are handled from Bakersfield? 5. How many staff, by classification, are required to serve Bakersfield? 6. Amount, and sources of funding. You mentioned an interest in receiving a copy of the old contract between the city and the county. I have requested a copy from the City Attorney and will forward it to you as soon as possible. Thank you for working with me in trying to keep our discussions on a factual basis. ~/~ '- /&h¿- ~/~ 1~/5~ck Hardisty . . ¡/ Y Development ServIces DIrector JH:pjt I/. 1\lsm City of Bakersfield. 1715 Chester Avenue. Bakersfield, California. 93301 II .) ., . MEMORANDUM March 13, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC OR SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR OFF-SITE DIRECTION , FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS On February 1, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider changes to the Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding adoption of an off-site residential directional sign program for new subdivisions that would replace the existing off-site residential directional signs allowed I I by the city. This program would allow placement of signs with panels identifying new developing I , areas for potential purchasers of new homes. The Commission approved the amendments and has recommended that the City Council adopt the new ordinance. During the Commission's hearing, there were concerns raised from the public and some of the Commission members regarding costs associated with the installation of signs, maintenance, ~dmjnistration (the Building Industry Association is interested in the administration of the program), design, and locations. These are issues that the Sign Committee of the Planning Çommission is still working on with the development community. Therefore, staff is recommending that the proposed ordinance not be formally brought before the City Council for adoption until these issues are resolved. Once the Commissioners complete their work, these remaining items will be brought before the Council for final action as a package. A copy of the Planning Commission's resolution, proposed ordinance amendments, and the Sign Committee's report are attached for your information. JH:pjt Attachments -- "- --,,_.',~~~ m\mat3a.13 ~ECE~\f~D ~ r 'MAR-14199S' :".-:;¡ ,. ~I \ '" , ' '- - -- ------- --- ----_u--- - -----______n '0' . r, O' T. i XC: Stan Jim Movius Marc Gauthier Pam Isabel ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ANDREW DELGADO BOYLE BRADY HERSH ORTIZ TAVORN DHANENS THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS HEARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 1, 1996: 5. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5656 This item was withdrawn; to be readvertised and placed on agenda for next regularly scheduled meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5425 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Propos~d Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5425 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A',' and the January 31, 1996 memorandum from the Planning Director. Motion carried. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Brady to forward this ordinance to the City Council along with a recommendation for" adoption, subject to the following changes: Section 2. - Permits. first sentence after the word "any". add the following wording: "builder or" Section 3 - Program Administration. Item f. - first sèntence after the words "A specific project", add the following wording: "or builder". third line of that paragraph after the word "project" add "or builder." Under Item G of this section. third to the last line change the word "with" to "within" ------ " , ì, 'I Section 4 - Violations and abatement - Item b.. 7th line replace the words "permit holder's" with "builder/developer". 8th line add the word "be" after "development to". 10th line change the word "developer" to "builder/developer". 12th line after the word "kiosk" add the wording as follows "for that specific development". 13th line replace the word ~oper" with "builder/developer" Addition of language such that an administrator of the program would be required. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew NOES:. Commissioner Brady - --------- .' ï 'I SIGN ORDINANCE COMMrrrEE REPORT CITY OF BAKERSFffiLD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to the Bakersfield Municipal Code concerning offsite residential directional signs (Section 17.60.070 A.). The proposed ordinance amendment would replace the existing offsite directional signs with an offsite directional kiosk program that would have a uniform design and style. The city would also be given the authority to contract with an outside party to administer the kiosk program. . , RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Sign Ordinance Committee of the Planning Commission recommends that the Commission approve the ordinance amendments adopting an offsite directional kiosk program and recommend that the program be adopted by the City Council. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Sign Ordinance Committee has been meeting since May, 1994 in developing a kiosk program along with representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA), Association of Realtors, local sign companies and interested developers. In December, 1994, the entire Planning Commission was briefed on the work that the Committee was doing and the Committee was directed to draft an ordinance amendment that would create a kiosk program that would replace the existing offsite residential directional signs that are currently allowed by the city. In September, 1995, the Planning Commission held a workshop on a draft ordinance prepared by the Sign Ordinance Committee to 'provide an opportunity for members of the development community to comment or ask questions about the Committee's proposal. This workshop also enabled the entire Commission to learn more about the changes and provide comment as well. The Commission referred the matter back to the Committee for further refinement and preparation of a final draft ordinance for consideration. Major features of the kiosk program are as follows: . The program would replace -- all existing offsite residential directional signs with a kiosks that are of a uniform design and style. The " Î Sign Ordinance Committee Report Page 2 !anuaIY 12. 1996 Committee has begun work on developing a design that would eventually be approved by both the Commission and City Council. Existing signs would be required to be removed within 6 months of the effective date of the ordinance adoption. IT there are kiosks that were developed by a private entity where there are more than 5 such signs, this phase out period would be extended to 1 year. This was added to assist in lessening the cost to those larger developments that had been allowed special kiosk programs for their projects. . The kiosk would allow a developer to advertise direction to their project as much as 5 miles away (currently limited to 1 mile). . A developer can place their project name on an unlimited number of kiosks (currently limited to 4 signs). . Kiosks would be permitted within the public road right-of-way (currently prohibited). _.- . Because of the uniform design and style, potential buyers will be able to located and read the sign thereby fhiding a particular project more easily. . The kiosks will.improve both the area and image of new neighborhoods as well as the entire community. . The program may be turned over to a private party for administration with oversight by the City. At present, the administrator is proposed to be the BIA. The ordinance has been developed to ensure that both members and non-members of the BIA are treated equally with respect to kiosk locations and panel space. Planning staff and the City Attorney's office have drafted an agreement that would outline the administrator's function. This contract would be approved by th~ City Council and the BIA. . There is a built in deterrent to those developers who use illegal bandit signs. They would be prohibited from having any kiosk panels for a 6 month period. . The program would be available to all developers within the entire metropolitan area. The Committee developed the kiosk program in order to improve the image of the city by proposing a sign that is readily identified and easy to read for potential buyers seeking homes in the new housing areas of the city. These kiosks would replacè the existing signs that have proliferated near major intersections. The Committee has noted that the existing signs present a cluttered appearance cause " l' Sign Ordinance Committee Report Page 3 Janumy 12. 1996 confusion due to varying copy content, and generate complaints from nearby homeowners because of their unattractiveness in some areas. The Committee members feel that the proposed kiosk program will also significantly reduce the use of "bandit signs" that appear during weekends along major streets which negatively affect an area's appearance. The program was developed based on similar programs that have been adopted by other jurisdictions (Lancaster/Palmdale, San Bernardino, Irvine, Orange County). These communities noted a marked decreased in the amount of "bandit signs" and they have found that the kiosks present a consistent, uniform sign that has improved the image of their community and has been supported by the local development community. ' ' , ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures pursuant to Section 15305 (d) (Local CEQA Implementation Resolution). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared. ------ , ! , ! " I 1 ¡ Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 14 7. ' PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS "'\ CONCERNING SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. Staff report was given. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She felt the I committee has come up with something that is the consensus among the group. I, She said the BIA is capable and willing to take on and administer the program. I, She said the loss of individual off-site signage is a concern of some of the builders. She felt the proposal is something that could work for this community. They would like the flexibility of allowing the builder name as well as the subdivision or project name to the panels. She asked for support so that this issue could go forward. 'Marian 'Keesling represented Castle and Cooke Development Corporation, she said they support this type of kiosk sign. However felt it would be difficult on developers not to have any other type of signage other than these kiosk signs. She was concerned about the cost. David Gay said he sat on the committee. He felt the goal of consolidation of signs has been reached with the proposed ordinance and with the Commission's support they will be lable to move forward with this issue. Keith Pfeffer, Vital Signs of Bakersfield stated he represented other sign makers in the community. He felt business would be restricted for those in the sign industry with this ordinance. He felt the city had done a great job at administering the signage program and was concerned about the BIA taking over this with respect to impartiality. Commissioner Hersh stated his agreement with this proposal. He said everyone has had ample time to voice their opposition to this. He felt this was a step' forward. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Ms. Don Carlos said she felt if panels are available there should be an option to allow buildings to put their names on the kiosk. He questioned whether there would be motivation for developers to contribute to signage in which they do not get advertisement on until the premises is reached. Commissioner Boyle felt there should be some way to write the ordinance to avoid the problem of a group ofbuilders from one development taking over the' entire kiosk. Regarding the length of existing signs being able to stay he felt they should have at least through the end of 1996. Commissioner Brady asked if billboard signage is addressed in tþe proposal. Chairman Andrew said he did not recall this issue being brought UD before the ~ ~" committee, however his personal opinion is that they would not be precluded. - --- ---- " , Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 15 Commissioner Brady asked if there had been any coordination with the county on this proposal. Ms. Don Carlos said she had spoken to several department heads at the county expressing her desire that this be a metro kiosk sign program. They. were not anxious to issue encroachment permits allowing sign age in the public right-of-way. She said she continues to work with the County for uniform adoption. Commissioner Brady said he liked the kiosk signs erected by Castle and Cooke. He felt this proposal was a step in the right direction. Commissioner Dhanens felt this was a good program which would go a long way in cleaning up some of the intersections. Responding to question by him, Mr. Eggert said a suggestion was that 3 or 4 different designs would be brought back to ultimately be approved by the City Council. This design would be used city- wide. Responding to questions Mr. Fidler explained the process of the Building Board of Appeals. He felt the allowance of 2 kiosk sign panels per residential project needed to be clarified because there could potentially be quite a number of developers per tract. Commissioner Hersh felt a purpose of this proposal was to eliminate large signs. Mr. Eggert responded to questions saying the existing signs would have to be removed 6 months from the date of approval of the proposed ordinance. Keith Pfeffer responded to comments by Chairman Andrew saying most of the bandit signs are done out of the Los Angeles area. Mr. Fidler said there are methods of penalizing those erecting bandit signs, however they are not effective. This ordinance would allow the city to directly penalize by removing developers from kiosk signs if they violate the rules. Responding to question by, Mr. Pfeffer, . Chairman Andrew said the issue of funding of the erection of kiosks needs to be addressed. Discussion continued regarding the location and number of kiosks allowed. Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Eggert said the placement of signs is on a first come, first serve bais of approved applications. The ordinance is written such that two years from date of recordation signs must be removed. ._"~----,~ 8. COMMUNICATIONS ------------- . A)---~Written , --,- None '---'-----._-,,- ' --- -"----- ----------- B) Verbal ------------- -----'-----.. None -------------~ ------- -------, --"- "-------- ---- ---------, ----...~-~ ~-,- -- ------- " c . Minutes, PC, 12/15/94 Page 12 6.- COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. HardistY said an article from "Zoning News'! was included in the packets of the Commission regarding planning for open space and developments. B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said at the Council meeting the previous evening Mr. Grady's reclassification to Planning Director was approved. He also stated the ,Council had approved the classifications for Code Enforcement Officers saying it related to maintenance of abandoned buildings in'the city. . -- --,-----".,--- 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees Sign Committee -- Off-site residential directional kiosk signs - update and Commission direction. ) Chairman Andrew summarized committee report. He said the committee' is looking toward a kiosk program which would replace the existing off-site sign age with existing signs to be phased out within 90-180 days. He asked for direction from the commission on this issue. Commissioner Boyle clarified by changing to the kiosk sign program builders would be allowed to have signage much further away from subdivisions. ,It is contemplated that the plan would be administered by the BIA in conjunction with staff with respect to design and location. He said the committee was in favor of alternative #1. Responding to questions by Commissioner Delgado, Chairman Andrew said those jurisdictions that have been contacted regarding their kiosk programs, have done well. Commissioner Hersh felt the building community seemed divided on this issue. Chairman Andrew felt most attending the committee meetings have been more in favor of the kiosk program in addition to what currently exists. Commissioner Hersh suggested that this item be continued to a future meeting in order to give the commission time to further study it. I I I , " J . Minutes, PC, 12/15/94 Page 13 Commissioner Brady was concerned that a sign program be made uniform so that those developing within the city were not at a disadvantage to those in the county. He was in favor of the committee contacting the county regarding joint development of this kiosk program. Commissioner Boyle said this was discus,sed early on and the committee was advised by staff that a comprehensive program would probably not work. He felt once a proposal was available the county could be approached. He did not feel builders within the city would be at a disadvantage, but would be placed at an advantage because the program would allow advertising closer to the major arterials. Commissioner Brady said unless the county had such a program in the ,metro area he would be against this sign program. Mr., Hardisty felt the county would not be inclined to allow a kiosk in their righ t-of -way. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary . I , I ----- ',.' I I 1 " Minutes, PC, 115/95 Page 6 10.' COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None -- - B) Verbal .., None - ---------- 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees Sign Committee -- Off-site residential directional kiosk signs - update and Commission direction. (Continued from the regular meeting of December 15, 1994) Mr. Grady gave background concerning the efforts of this committee, giving the options available. He said it was felt it was best to bring this issue to the full commission for direction. Responding to concerns by Commissioner Powers, Ms. Marino said there would be no reason he could not participate in giving direction on this item in light of the fact he was not present at the December 15, 1994 meeting. Commissioner Boyle said the committee favored the option of replacing the existing ordinance with the kiosk ordinance because of the advantage that signs could be set up more than one mile away from projects, there would not necessarily be a limitation on the number of signs on the kiosk and preference could be given to developers within specific areas of their development. He said the disadvantage would be that the county has no similar plan and it is not likely the county will participate in coordinating a kiosk program at this time. He did not feel the construction industry was in total agreement with the plan, however for the most part most of them saw the advantages. He stated concerns of developers concerning information to be placed on the signs regarding builder name, subdivision name and pricing. He said pricing is not allowed under current ordinance and no final decision has,been made on this issue. Commissioner Brady felt a problem does not necessarily exist with the present ordinance but a problem with enforcement of it. He felt it may be appropriate to hIst add the kiosk program to the existing ordinance. ;; , Minutes, PC, 1/5/95 Page 7 Commissioner Hersh felt the kiosk program is attractive and would allow for advertisement of developments at a further distance. Commissioner Marino felt all details needed to be worked out before passing it onto the council. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Commissioner Hersh said it was discussed that perhaps the BIA would control the kiosks and builders would arrange with them for placement of signs on the kiosk. He said this arrangement has been successfully followed in other areas. Commissioner Marino gave suggestion concerning the transition period after adoption of ordinance saying perhaps those developers who have already pulled permits before adoption could operate under the previous ordinance. . Commissioner Powers felt this kiosk ordinance will upgrade the signage image of the community. He asked if a bidding war would come about with those bigger developers getting the top panels. Barbara Don Carlos, BIA representative, said builders on both sides of the issue have given their opinions. She said it was recognized that a reasonable phase-in period would have to be developed for this ordinance. Regarding positioning on the sign board it was discussed that it would be on a first come first serve basis or random drawing. She said in order to construct the kiosks she will first have to get support of builders who want to put placards on this kiosk because it represents a significant initial financial investment. She said this is something the builders must feel is advantageous and will work. Her board of directors has asked that she request the opportunity to have the kiosk program in addition to some off- site individual signage. She has contacted other BIA's in other cities and has sample ordinances. Commissioner Powers asked about standardized off-site signage so that every sign would be the same size and dimension separate from the kiosk. She said he would take this proposal to her board members. Commissioner Boyle said in reviewing other ordinances their transition period was from 6 months to 1 year from the date the ordinance would go into effect. This would mean the old signs would not have to be removed for a considerable period of time. Regarding priority based upon section lines, it was discussed that where projects are near a border they would ! have priority in both sections. On signage priority he said when signs are I first erected it would be first come first serve, from there on they would move up as someone is removed. It would not be on a bidding basis. .. " ,' ( Minutes, PC, 1/5/95 Page 8 Commissioner Brady asked if the BIA had a position about whether the kiosk program would be supported, if it were only applicable to the city and not the county and metro area. Ms. Don Carlos said she has had discussions with county staff in which they have indicated they would be favorably looking at implementing the program in the county areas also. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Don Carlos said they would need assurances that spaces would be leased before kiosks were , built. She said they have the staffing to maintain the operation of the program, however the program would have to-financially support itself. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Boyle said in enforcing the existing ordinance there is not sufficient time and manpower to delete illegal signs and assess fines. The existing ordinance is not working. Mr. Fidle¡ responded to question saying at this time if staff observes signs in the public right-of-way they are picked up. If they are on private property a notice is served. They are held for 30 days and then thrown away. Commissioner Brady suggested a large fine for enforcement. Mr. Fidler, said the problem with this is that when regulating fines the court system comes into play and is not always supportive of this type of case. Mr. Fidler said staff goes out about every 2-3 months and collects between 300 and 500 signs. Commissioner Brady was concerned that any ordinance would not be effective because it cannot be effectively enforced. Ms. Marino said a suggestion is that any builder on a kiosk sign that places illegal signs in other areas loses privileges on the kiosk sign. She explained this process and the appeal process for the 'developer, saying it would probably be handled by the Building Appeals Board. Ms. Don Carlos said builders are concerned about having some individual identification. - Commissioner Hersh felt this would be an upgrade for the community and felt the county's cooperation is necessary. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner \ Brady to refer this item back to committee to work with the BIA. Commissioner Brady asked if he were intentionally not making a recommendation on choices available. Commissioner Powers felt the intent was to have input from the Commission and return it to committee. Commissioner Marino said he would like to see the kiosk program placed into effect, however not necessarily in addition to the existing ordinance. Motion carried. - -- -- ---- ------ __m____- -- , -, . n 11 ~ . i BAKERSFIELD NEW HOME GUIDE' ! POLO GLEN -+ i I I I ! ... EMERALD COVE I I FOX CREEK t i 1 MI. I I SEVEN OAKS t ¡ 3 MI. ! i i ! i i i ! i i ! i I I I 1 , i i I . , I I I ! i ~ '--- NOTE: TrllS KIOSK IS NOT AN APPROVED DESIGN (CONCEPTUAL ONLY) 89506 I , 'r---/.... ... ... . . . .' .::,:' .J!\Y.r . " . . ¡J,VIÇ ¡¡\ME:> ' . ~:,.~.,...','-',.'~" ',' ... ,',:,:', r . "".' .',::,.::::::',,::,,".' , -,-' :;" ",.,~";:,,,:'o(¿"..; ',' ...:,..,.'" '," "", DEs.I.G:!1 !REATME~ :so. 3, '", ."..,',' . ",::~y;,;~:,:'~{):~;i~W'C':.:.',';:". ':\":';';":4)~'~I\>'\:' , . .".' . ~. /'::/)¡:':~f5~;:' ...,.,....:...-..",~..,f",:."....,. ",";':. ,.~\I'o"tI".,.&J.:;, ~,.,(,., "'I,õ:o,,.. :"':';«:;':./;',':,;;~;"',' ',",':'0>- -~~.ç-" W~-~Zi!:, 'f{~~S: , . . '. ¡'. - ' ' , . .;¡ .', '. ._~';I'tþ("4../ ,~._~ ' i. . J; , I I~~' .. :'..' i--.'- ,..--.---.",-,,-,'-'........,--- '-1' ~,.::..:. "-:'.',:,"O':,o,:.;~:: l..6.. BROCK HOMES :~.f~I:~" -~::(:,~..::~.:;:~ ¡ .... .-~tk: - ,,' '~,\\.~~~;~:>.;,:,.:~:"<~,: --... - -- ---,.. , - '.. ."~ 0, :.'¡. ..~L;êi.~}~; '../:::;C;'~:,'::,¡ .. GORDON RANCH ,",r:' ..'::/~'..' ','/:: ['~~' .-- RID G E V 1-[i/-'"7\ :....,..".,.t:~.. ! ;', - 1 . " . :'" .. '. . . . : ~'.- ',:, - 1--'" -. .', :,:::.:,..: -, ,:,'. ..,';,'. - ..,'.': , }:< ,~~.:.:.~:: '::"-,',{~": ':~:,.t';;',.,~y':.' . '",":<-,:~t}t' . , .. . .. ' ' . ~ ~ ¿.,:;::.; , o. 0 : ,,: 0' -0. .' : 'f'~'f:::Aw.þ.~~~- 0' -~, ;:.." . .' ," .' ° :0: : ' " '" ," 0 :,.': . " I , : 0 0 :-":;0, " , ' I , ' , , .. . 00 I ,0,.'" ~ 0 - ' . 0 - .... ' . . . ' . .. , 0 .. 0 0 o' ' , " , ':' o' : ,,-.. --- __n__- .' , '0 I --~--- ---,---,-- '-- I; vital signs~) . .. " I , RESOLUTION NO. 9-96 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING OFFSITERESIDENTIAL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. WHEREAS, the Sign Committee of the Planning Commission has recommended a proposed ordinance amendment that would replace the existing offsite directional signs with an offsite directional kiosk program that would have a uniform design and style, and the city would also have the authority to contract with an outside party to administer the kiosk program; and WHEREAS, the Sign Committee of the Planning Commission has been meeting on a monthly basis with representatives from the Building Industry Association of Kern County, Association of Realtors, local developers, and local sign company representatives since May, 1994 in order to solicit recommendations and comments on the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held two public workshops regarding said proposal on December 15, 1994 and September 7, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Sign Committee of the Planning Commission forwarded a final ordinance and report to the Planning Commission for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1996, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing' before said Planning Commission on said proposal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, for the above-described project, it was determined that the proposal was exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption was prepared; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission found as follows: 1. All required notices have been given. 2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. 3. Subdivisions by their very nature are most frequently located in areas where streets and highways are newly constructed. Such thoroughfares are not immediately shown on maps available to the general public searching for new homes and consequently, these subdivisions are difficult to locate. Therefore, builders and developers use signs to aid such persons in locating their subdivisions. .The result under the current code has been a . 2 proliferation of signs which are unsightly and damaging to the appearance of these new areas and the city in general, confusing to persons seeking to inspect and possibly purchase homes in these new areas, and unsafe in that drivers of motor vehicles searching for subdivisions by using signs for direction are distracted from properly operating their vehicles due to the different styles, colors and number of signs to read. 4. Directional signs are needed by builders and developers to a greater degree than other businesses because subdivision sales are ordinarily conducted for a relatively limited period of time for a particular location, that is, only until all homes in the subdivision are sold. Thus, listingS in such conventional media such as telephone yellow pages may be impractical. While other types of media such as television, radio, and newspaper are available, and maps could be disseminated in some media, the most efficient method of directing prospective purchases to new subdivisions is the use of directional signs posted at or near major intersections and other critical locations. Businesses with more permanent sales locations do no share these problems and therefore, have less need for directional signs. 5. The proposed kiosk program will provide a uniform, coordinated method of offering builders and developers a means of providing directional signs to their projects while minimizing confusion among prospective purchasers using such signs to locate a project, promote improved traffic safety, and reduce visual blight of the present proliferation of signs. The program will improve the image of new neighborhoods and the city by having directional signs that are uniform in style and design, and are easily identified by potential buyer seeking homes in the new housing areas of the city. I I I -- I i . ,¡ 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the amendments proposed to Section 17.60.070 (A) of the. Bakersfield Municipal Code be approved and recommend that the City Council accept the Commission's' findings as their own and adopt said amendments as contained in Exhibit A. On a motion by Commissioner Hersh and seconded by Commissioner Boyle, the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavom, Andrew NOES: Commissioner Brady ABSENT: None I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of February, 1996. DATED: February 1, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD -' \ ~Y. Secretary Planning Direct~r JOE p:\kioskres.pc I --------- " Bdkersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk I , EXHIBIT A 17.60.070 SPECIALIZED SIGNS. A. Off-site residential subdivision/project directional kiosk sign program. The following is intended to provide for the administration of a 'uniform, coordinated sign program of kiosks that offer developers of new residential subdivisions a means of providing directiOll to their projects. The kiosk signs will minimize confusion among prospective purchasers of new homes to find those developments, promote traffic safety by removing competing signs from busy streets, and reduce visual blight of 'incompatible sign types in residential neighborhoods. No such off-site directional sign other than those in conformance with this chapter shall be erected or maintained within the city. 1. Requirements for directional kiosks. a. Kiosks shall be permitted in all zone districts except on a lot developed with a single family residence. They may be permitted on private land or public right-of-way that is maintained by the property owner provided the property owner's permission has been granted in writing. Signs may also be permitted within the public right-of-way or parkway I' that is maintained by the City of Bakersfield or as contracted by the City subject to approval and issuance of an . ' encroachment permit by the city.. All other location restrictions pursuant to Section 17.60.050 shall remain in full . force and effect. b. Kiosks shall be constructed of wood or similar product with individual panels provided for placement of subdivision or project names and direction. 1J'egrool}' 1. 199~ Page 1 I . Btzkersfield Municipal Code - Title 17. Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk I L c. Kiosk locations shall be approved by the Building Director or appointed designee. A kiosk shall not. be placed closer than 1.000 feet from an existing kiosk or approved site where a kiosk is to be constructed. The Building Director or appointed designee may reduce the distance- between ~iosks where: 1. Kiosks are located at different comers of an intersection and face different directions. it The street intersection where the kiosk is proposed is less than 1,000 feet away from a street intersection that contains a kiosk and it is necessary to provide direction to subdivisions or projects to which that street provides the most direct or only access. Hi. Kiosks (2 maximum) are necessary to be placed adjacent to one another because the number of subdivisions or projects that are being identified exceeds the number of panels allowed on one kiosk. d. ,Architectural design, color, letter style, and any other design elements of the kiosk shall be approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by resolution by the City Council. All kiosks and other off-site residential directional signs allowed pursuant to Section 17.60.060 (B.1.d.iL) that are installed within the city limits shall be in accordance with adopted design criteria. e. Kiosks shall not exceed a height of 12 feet and a width of 6 feet. An individual panel shall be limited to a maximum width of 6 feet and a height of 10 inches. No more than 8 individual name panels shall be permitted on a kiosk. f. Kiosks may have more than 1 face. Multiple faces are .' encouraged where the kiosk can be sited to serve traffic travelling in opposite directions, or where it would reduce the amount of kiosks needed to provide adequate direction to J!'e~roazy 1. 1996 Page 2 . Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17. Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk 1 residential subdivisions. Multiple faced kiosks shall be approved by the Building Director or appointed designee. g. A name panel shall be limited to a single line of text .that may contain only the subdivision, project, builder or developer's name, or combination thereof. All panels shall include a direction arrow pointing in the direction of the identified project. Mileage to the specific subdivision or project may be also be provided under the direction arrow.. Name panels shall conform to all design elements as approved pursuant to subsection A.1.d. h. Tag signs, streamers, banners, balloons, devices, display boards, or other appurtenances shall not be added, placed upon or erected adjacent to or within a 100 foot radius of any ( existing kiosk. i. Kiosks shall not be illuminated. j. Kiosks shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bicycle or hiking trails, and shall not obstruct the free and clear vision of motor vehicle operators, cyclists, pedestrians, .or the visibility of traffic control signs and lights as determined by the Public Works Director or appointed designee. ! ! k. Kiosks shall be setback a minimum. of 25 feet from side, and rear property lines. No setback shall be required from street frontages or those kiosks located within ,public rights-of~way. ~ebruazy 1. 1996 Page 3 ---- , Bakersfield Municipal Code - Title 17. Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk 2. Permits. a. Any builder or developer of a new residential subdivision which contains approved lots or homes which have never been sold, may apply for a permit to install a kiosk or to place a name panel on an existing kiosk to provide direction to their subdivision. b. Applications for a kiosk or name panel (including name changes to an existing name panel) shall be made on forms provided by the Building Director or appointed designee, be signed under penalty or perjury by the applicant, and shall require at minimum, the following information: i. The name, mailing address, title, and telephone number of the property owner, subdivider and developerlbuilder of the specific development; ii. The name and location of the specific development; iii. A statement that the development contains approved lots or new homes which have not yet been sold; . iv. 0 If the permit is for a new name panel or a name change to an existing name panel. the copy proposed for the panel; c. The Building Director or appointed designee may issue a ' permit if: i. The application is complete and truthful; ii. The applicant is the person or entity selling new lots or new homes; Hi. The development is located entirely within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area; I" J!"ebroQry 1. 1996 Page 4 ,I I ; Båkersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk - J iv. The kiosk or panel meets all of the design criteria within I I this section; v. The permit is for a name panel and available space exists on the kiosk(s); or if there is no space available, the applicant has agreed to be placed on a waiting list for future placement on a kiosk( s); vi. The permit is for a kiosk, the location criteria of this I I section has been satisfied; vii. Appropriate fees have been paid. 3. Program administration. a. The City may delegate portions of-or the entire administration of the directional kiosk program to another entity by contract. that includes but is not limited to installation and maintenance of kiosks. and issuance of permits for kiosks and name panels. b. Kiosks shall be sited based on demand and where they will provide the best direction to residential subdivisions where homes/lots are being sold. c. Sign panels shall be available to all developments selling new homes on a first-come-first-serve basis. beginning with the highest panel on the kiosk and progressing downward on the kiosk with each subsequent name. Waiting lists shall be established for each kiosk (existing or proposed) for new name panels on a first-come-first-serve basis of applications that have met the requirements of subsection A.2.c. d. When a panel name is changed or a panel is removed from a kiosk. all lower panels shall be moved upwards so that any new p"anel is placed on the bottom of the kiosk. Fe~lUary 1, 1996 Page 5 , ; Bdkersfield Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk j .d e. All panel changes shall be approved by the Building Director. or appointed designee through the permit process. f. A specific project or builder is limited to 1 panel for each kiosk. Multiple panels shall not be combined to identify or provide information regarding the same specific project or builder.' There shall be no limit on the number of kiosks a specific project may be identified provided the kiosk is within a 5 mile radius of the project. g. Within 10 days after selling the last lot or home or within 2 years after recordation of the final map for the subdivision of which the project is located. whichever occurs first. panel signs that identify said project shall be removed from all kiosks. Two (2) extensions of time may be granted by the administrator of the kiosk program not to exceed 1 year for each request if the extension is needed to complete any sales in that project. If administration of the program is delegated to an entity. other than the City and that entity denies the extension. the permit holder may appeal the denial within 5 days of the decision in writing to the Building Director. The Building Director shall render a decision on the appeal within 10 days of receiving the appeal which shall be final and conclusive. \ j!Je~lUa'Y 1, 1996 Page 6 1 ---- ----- ----------- ------- -- - --- ---- ------ . Bâkersfield MuniCÍpal Code - Title 17. Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk - -'" 1 1 I 4. Violations and abatement. a. Off-site residential subdivision/project directional signs that were legally permitted as of ~o coincide with when ordinance becomes effective, shall continue to remain for a period of 6 months from said date. Existing kiosk sign programs that were legally established and that are maintained by a private entity where that program contains 5 or more kiosks, may continue for a period of 1 year from said date. After that time, all signs not in conformance with this section shall be removed by the owner at the owner's cost. Any signs not removed withiIÌ the required period shall be subject to summary abatement by the city pursuant to Section 17.60.110. b. Any permit issued pursuant to this section shall be immediately revoked by the Building Director if it has been found that the permit holder has erected and maintained any sign in violation of this section. The Building Director shall order any panel current! y in place on a kiosk or other off-site residential directional sign allowed pursuant to Section 17.60.060 (B.1.d.ii.) identifying the builder's/developer's specific development to be removed immediately after the appeal period has expired if no appeal has been filed, and t4at builder/developer shall be prohibited from having any off-site directional signs or name panels on any kiosk for that specific development for a period of 180 days. Mer the 180 day period, the builder/developer may be allowed kiosk panels but they shall be placed at the bottom of any waiting list and/or kiosk hierarchy as described in subsection A.3.c and d. c. Any order of the Building Director shall be made in writing, addressed to the permit holder, and shall set forth the findings för revoking any permits and the method to appeal the decision. If no appeal is filed, the decision of the Building Director shall be final and conclusive. Pegruazy 1. 1996 Page 7 ~. '. BåkersjìeJd Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk lù L ,1- d. If the city is not the administrator of the kiosk program, the administrator shall immediately notify the Building Director regarding any violations pursuant to subsection A.4.b. and the Building Director shall notify ¡the party in violation pursuant to subsection AA.c. 5. Appeal. a. Should any permit holder be dissatisfied with the decision of the Building Director to revoke a permit, then said permit holder may, no later than 10 days after notice of such decision was deposited in the United States mail, make written objection, subject to the required appeal fee, to the Board of Building Appeals in care of the Building Director, setting forth the grounds for dissatisfaction. The Board of Building Appeals shall heàr the objections at a regular meeting no later than 30 days following the filing of the objection. The permit holder shill be given written notice of the hearing no later less than three days prior to the hearing. The Building Board of Appeals may sustain, suspend, or overrule the decision of the Building Director, which decision shall be final and conclusive. b. 'Pending hearing before the Building Board of Appeals. all signs, kiosks and/or name panels in dispute may remain in place until a final decision is rendered. i!'e~nJa'Y 1, 1996 Page 8 --- . . Bdkersfteld Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk 1 . . . . . The {-Ollowing shall regulate and establish a standMdized program for off site residential subdivision/projoot' directional signs vlÎthin the city. These signs shall be permitted {-or any residential housing project where fiy/e (ã) or more housing units are undergoing or Y,Nill be UIldergoing construction, and/or are being individually sold or rented {-or the first time. 1. Four (i) offsite residential directional signs {-Of each ney.. subdivision or new residential project a:re pefmitted. 2. Signs Me limited to projects of new home sales/rental. ' 3. Signs shall not exceed an area of thirty two (32) sq. ft. or a height of tVlcly,,'e (-H-) fiJct. i. Signs shaR bo setback a miRimum of ton (*) teat from adjacent property lines, except thoso fronting on public streets YNhere no setbacks Me required. ã. Signs shall not be located less than twenty five (~ feet from any other such directional sign. 6. Signs shall not be located more than one (1) mile from the mflerior boundary of the subdivision or project being advertised. 7. Sign3 shall not be permitted that ady,,'ertise tracts Of projects located outside the city limits. . 8. There shall be no additions, tag signs, streamers, banners, balloons, devices, display boards, or appurtenances added to the sign, and no other non permittod diroctional signs such as posters, or trailer signs shall be utilized. D. Signs shall not be illuminated. I 10. Signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days after the initial sale of I I I te~rua'Y 1. 1996 Page 9 I I ¡ Bòkersfield Municipal Code - Title 17. Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk I I J. I the-iast unit of the project, or two f1!-) years after recordation of tho final map, v¡hiche"¡er occurs first. Tho Building Director may grant up to t..//o (2) time extensions not to exceed a period of one (-1-) year each if it has boon found that the _extension is necessary to complete sales in the project/subdivision tract. 11. In the e",,'ent the city adopts an offsite residential kiosk directional sign program., said program. shaH supersede the rcgulationB of thiB subsection fOF residential subdivision/project directional signs. ~ÐblUalY 1. 1996 Page 10 -- H--_- , .- .', BdkersfieJd Municipal Code - Title 17, Zoning Sign Standards - Proposed Kiosk PROPOSED DEFINITION CHANGE , "Residential subdivision/project directional sigR ~1IJi" means aq::::91~il@ sign ~..i: ¡:: :.lpI:: mm 1Iï 1:1: ¡ i ~I: ~,:': P .;:¡:i I a tïIlp. g:::: ~ ~ 19î. \ Ifl ¡: ¡ :1111:: i:Î II::::I! 1,1 .1!::::.:::_â':::ì!í\çm~J §I.::'ïg~l::::v¡hioh informs the viewer as to the 1112mB R._::::.~:::mi route or change of direction of travel (q¡::¡:p,~iiil:¡:ìi¥il:::li::¡:BI llii¡iJ!lii.~ to a nev¡lûlld development project, containing the nAme of the ~eot, any characteristic trademark or insit;nia of the de9:oloper, neoessary tra9:el directions and any identifying materials o.s required by the city SECTION(S) TO RESCIND: * Rescind subsection D.4. of Section 17.60.020 regarding larger signs allowed by the Building Director (this subsection would no longer be necessary). ~ebroa'Y 1. 1996 Page 11 ------~ I " Í/ ~ Õ =u '1:1 u 00 01.. 5 ; 8; g g 'õ,g 'õ~ ::a u ~ .c . '" = .::: u 5 u " c. e>. ,- '0.01<.1 g¡ '" >0 " ë 01 = _0" U U '1:1 ,.. U u':' E- c., u 00 t,) u ... <n .. 5 - Q. Ue a. - E C <õ s .!!.~ to';:, -"=' " ,: Q. ~ . -= <.I u =ucQ.~.c- <.ICOC~ "~8 -~ u - .,kO -- U - - C c, 'o~ <= .c "".. .~ = 0 Ü 'õ' u .... - u " U ..'- '" .c ... u'- u .. 5 u ~ OI.c C .cu Q. ~ c~=~;~F Q.OI~'O ~-u - .c 0 - 00 ...- = 0 C.- 01 . <= - >.- - - .¡¡¡ c u '" '" <II '" - ~- ~'-.: -... 0 uC_=" '§,&:¡., . '1:1" § 0 '0 ;b C = =:: ",~ = 1! . '1:1 = 1:; 0 U e '" u - ""u.c"", U. £ ..!/!"'",'" ~~ ¡~~ ~ë~;u~~o ¡~"u1~~1 '- -6 :: '" ~, . ~ S ... .2:ã "'.c E; :: 0 &, 55 .:: ' OI.!! = c '" ~._~o_~"'" .,&:¡o ,&:¡~..c ~~ 8~~¡i~~*~"'¡¡~ 8~~~8~~~~ ~i ~~::="g~~~~~ g~5~ue8 ðš~ ...è <J ~ .. .è ~ - >. u 0 g - <.I .. ~ .. .. .- ,; 0 ,,- cO &,:Eqo 5- ,,', 0 .,' - 0 = u :s .c I on 0 ~ .. Co" " 1!! .:: -æ 'I 9 - ~ Co ~.~ oS " ~ " ~ . '0 ë e .- ... - - 1:3 5 r-. :¡ .8 0 e ë ~ " .~ " g. , ,'" .~ t,) -= .... 0 ,&:¡ '0 " ¡: - "'des" b-=;:; £~£~ ",",iO ~-¡.c ..."", 1'101.=" , '~,tn Co - ... s 0 15" '0 ".', c .8:§. ~ oS c - t ~ .8 ".' ,.,.1, 0 - ,.." ~ u " .c " - , -"8 --.. ,&:¡~.. ", J u ~ - ;:; Co" - õi 0 . ~"'~~ :~i ]:¡..] U) """",'-' ~~"c ,&:¡u'" ",gB", - .c.- ; 0 - . ü '" 01 ~ ;:; (J ~~Co-= ~:¡u ~.:=u E ...è ðš~~ ~~8~ U) 15 'a ' Q) <I "I"'" ... S:::\,',' ,'".' '", '" 0 0 "',', " " X N "'I >- >- z 0 ", 0 a1 ~~> C CIS w a. . c en:. - .:= - . .~ ~ c( C "':.:,111 ~ g l -c :. ~ ;: >..8 =5 ~ ~ 8..- ~ . J: 0) : ,01 ,g ê .. ] 0 § .¡¡¡ ~ Ë'; ~ 0 '" ~.. .:= ,'" a.. :, ~ 8 0 01 e - ::._" .æ ~ e " c ~ -c V" 0 - ow - -.. 8 00 = ..'C'- c Z :S" b ~.. ü õ ~ ÞC 'ü ,&:¡ 0 0 >. " - 0' ~~05 Z~.,_...__...- (ij ,,"'... "'-_._,'."""'" J: ... ~ .a .c .c :> '3 I. ~ ~ ~ 0 11.:=" " 8'¡: .! I c:r ¿ ¿ ~ ~< '" c:r c:r c( :s"';; ;; ~ " '" '" C s::: -I CIS .:-:.. - 0 (ijU) ~ ,.,. .- 0) S ..... - s::: <= N Z ¡jio 8 e 09;; "N ~ ':: ..õ'" Z Ii) Q. :2 ~ .2, c O~ '" :> 0)1 :¡.: Ole 8"'8 ~ a:Q. .. '" c'Oc 0 U. .... """" J: 0) - &, &, &,~~~ en -= :: ...... N " " " ,'" s:::- V" .- J: ~,,~ ..8 - c - v 0)"::: ..c 0 C Z := -. '1:1 °š :¡¡¡5š c( 1~ en 5 ~ = ,~ = == J:...O = ~§ ];§ () 0)- ~ 5 a! 5 C a..c( ~o w U)- en 6> 4-!. 0 .- a:: :5 en- OJ';;;' ìs~ a:: £ - .:: - c a. .'., <= c - 0 Q...I. ë: " = 5 '¡¡¡'" ,rn~ e. ,&:¡~~ .....- ,. u ~ .. .- = 5.", ~]~ ,,:. "=C Z <~ z~-.;:.. ...è <J I - " ,. :'~I,.,.,.,,~!,.~t,",.','.,.,..,."."~.',.~...,..~i,.,"~,~,..,~.....,....Î...........~....~...î,..,..,'..,...,11 H { ~ J ~ -g.. g !, t ! :g .,~b"~1:s2 .~ u"t>,,",c.uc.u 0 1 1 1:'s u .:¡.. ~I - u ~ ~ o-ð u :!! "..,",8", .'- to'..",',"::!, '.",-""'",,""",~u,,,...e .,."'.,,ed, , ""1:,,,. , =, '8 '°"" ".,,1 I u... ~ .- 0 ~ I ....0 ~ '" "'.:. = e .~ ..","~=;¡"J,.~.".."","',t""","o.,,1 I.t;¡°'" iJuc.1 u"f iib'" "'.. ,6 t", ð-~'ia;Q"".1 I d=¡; "::!~eI6...-5d~.c~ ~.:s ",u,.1I, '0 u 1I,.s e .! Q ('ole: it ... g 1""".,,',1 I o].ÿ ~ ~ 8 I .= g ~ a .:¡ u ~ "' "::! .¡;¡ 'õ':å c., II v -.c .. Iõ: :I "'... ,I I ... d.. 0 I d - 1>0 '-.!ioI . !:i! c:: ',,' ~..'.o .9 ...:5"'".9., 0 10: ;"'0,....:.1 , .: u u e .!i ~ I ;;:¡!:!..;¡;] þ" .!I:; 0 ..,go¡, U ."...,........g...,:o;:...a,....",'C:., '."'.....,1 Id e Udul~.c'" ~= =.c. ',.ôt.",..i¡i >i.,I" .;8',',.'"l!."..,',""",.',",.,g.,<,.-""."""l,'".,.,~"".,"ai, """,.,.".".".,1 ,11: lQ e .. "'.&0' ..~ ~'!: c.!. :!l!.-:: !2 ,', ú,'ß -8 1: t: -' -,'_.. "~'M.'" c' .,1 , u J! 8 . u u Ie", - 0 U ~ = ~ ëib ,'e:"ì!í CIo, ¡;..c:: "..0.. 0.$1 ",',1 I,c... "'.&o.clQ\ ==~d...cu u>- .- , ' ...- ' .! ~ .. .d U = C "'" ~' 'I 1 - 0.... "' - "'.c = 1>0....':: c.... = c. '" c "' g>. g ... t!l° "' ~... ã .g .. ~ g.d; I I ¡; ... 0 .~ ¡; ~ u' ,:.;¡; :; .( ~ .: '3 .;; e .g ,~ .""".~,o"".""l.a"l":¡:".'"..1,_"',,¡,t,',.,.,.-,=,,.,'.,..i,-',."Q.,,'" ~ß 5~,'.,,~1 1 -;¡ ~ U~:g-;¡.:; ~I ~ ~ ~õ ~~,s =8 ¡: g::g """', -, tf.'Iõ'-~"'u,' ,~.d' ""::II ,~".&o.....1 l!= 'ë~de' ~=o - , .= ~ oS~ .~ ~I "¡¡i 1 Co.!i d Ii !:!. '51 u... 8 ~ .. \1 :¡ = 'ë' Õ ;1~1~i.~~~..~.~;~\~1.11 ~ u .."õ ~ <! ~! :"õ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ J! 8 . I . I U I ~ 1 .&0 u .."'" 1 Õ I õ.d \I'..~ I Ï j ! L I H ""'.., ',Jt I . ø.. u u I Ii .- .¡..¡~. I hi ~n I ji ""~',"".'"".,',',,I,', 'o-U:':=.IOI 'u '~',. I ~:~~~ 1 ~~.¡ '.'.' """,", i, ' ] ~.&o .. =.&0 ':a e "' ,..,! I:¡~:¡¡¡&.'~~ I,u~] ......... l.c=.ceoo I'~~ I (/) ~ (/) Co':: c I..:. g ~ I I.... c. I".ci I 0 - 0 I.:') !!! II ~ I I~ !~ I I I ¡II, ~ i I~ I~ I I I a.., ~ ¡! . ¡ . .....,* U I I ... I .:: II~ ! ¡ ¡! j! ..., I I . I' I I 1 I U ,I I I .;¡ I I : 8 ~ I I I c 0 I 18 :~~= 1 ... I,ñ~~ to( !. :~';¡;.g I I" ,"CU 1° I&. Ig.Of I ¡; I I - .- I 0 1 ... I >o......'tI >0 I ....: 1 I 1>0 I - 1 1>0 I 1>0 .s : g I .: 1 ,: ] I-¡:¡ I] I] ... I u 1 ... . '" -;;; I "' 1 -;;; I -;;; u I u I u I u ~ . ~I ~ ' ~ ¡,¡. ., ¡,¡. , ¡,¡. I I I . I I ,., u.¡;- (/) ¡;Q ¡;-¡:¡- ~~ -~ .= - -- .= u :! -- '" c !! 0 ~ c... u C 'õ' 0 ~ - ~ -- .c .. U U.-:: u ...=.- ¡!¡.. ¡!¡ = 'tIu.. 'tICou"'._- .¡;; 'õ' c .;¡; :a u ~ ¡; ~ ~ ... &. E 2~" 0 u =.: 0 u ¡J! ~ 2 0 u --...... IX...'tI...... IX""" ""...... ~ ' .- > ~ '-.-'- ~ " ~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~] ¡ ] ~ ~ ~! ~] ~ ¡..~...........~..)..5. ~~~. ....t4....~.................~JP."... f..............:......................,........1........':........ ~~.i ¡ 1!] ~] ~ ~ : ,~~,s'~1 E'~ ,';; ~1~ë..r;.........,.......iu1j.:ct.u..~.1!..........."*=...}..'.~.........".................-a.i...E.'..¡=-: I ~~ ,-<J . 00' "'c.cc.I:::S. 0..11:.111" -U"",c=,8 <4o11.'tI :=11 11 I 0'" 0" ;; ïii I c,.,':: 1'- cO o..:;;!, O.......<=.,..c.........................1! ~'õ'.~e.¡.. ...."~.=.....'..........'............'................$...."'....".....o.JI.' , =N CU uc I,-O~~'õl"¡:"'-:::S'-I ",...,.S..,.:>--""'- =:u.ft.ø.,. 0311.....,.J I I ~ C 0 Õ ':'. ~ ,0 oo-=~ I ,. ~,e-~.ËI tS........¡: ;......8...................o.~..g...>'.....~...; l'to.."".....l......'......-!....OJ....... ..-...........!=I.. '!I.I I u~ '=c <II""'¡;; I ucgusl ë,..cu I.g.:-o' e:=J!N5i:ëih-:>"" ..jE!.!IIJ";1 I .c.c ~- 'vi~C I c.'C'.=-O,.1 U-;¡;¡::=-OI.O......u....~"'..........................ua_..."'Q.I::.I::.~....-o...-""."'....ol.......-ð............c........-m.t......................1 I --':::I-~-:::I° I>"">. -1~'.uO "".- .......\000_. U .... -"'1. ~.....-.I I 'ë;u:;.",~,"c .c ,I -Hce~1 '-~ce~1 g.ë ....u....5..:.ce~c.c§ . .18E. .~J1~1 I' -5 0 1t. e "'.", g.8 ,': i!!: g õ !. 1:! 5'1 g ~ ~ 1:! '¡;;: ~;:: ø ~ -s ,,:,~'::::s .~!! IS ..s öi 1õIi=: I e,":::I"""!=>'~'!iÞ,.", -... I""'. ...'-, =. _...-",c::o ~,g".. .1.."...- =.J! 1 I e- '" .g e .~.! 8. ~ C '" I .2 g 8.c 8 I .2 ~ ~ .c 0, 01 :¡." ~ ~:::I C C ~ tS ¡g~. g=¡a.l.. ~ III I 8..9 != ,. '" E vi = ,g ,~: 'ã 'B '- :¡; ~ I 'š ë -=:¡; ~I ... .. e""'¡; ;j;s .g ~ ~ ~ -at- .. ....~.... t "'.aml I 0 .....: ~e 1;¡ " = ~ u ~.I ;:: = 0 .c .:: I :::.2 U.c ;; I .~........i...~...~...,......¡§;, "'.-...,J!I. Il'$ .> .Q-. .. .."'.. !!...-!....J.......... ..........1...1. "';!. ...................11. ....' I '"COB ..."'8"'='-1 ... """I ""C"'c.I~. .;t.o:::.~;>,u~"".! uu-¡z"'-.1 ,CI'C O-, I c.~ u..cB-cc'2.,o ~'o;j"'e="'1 is::'¡;;;'C:::II...~-.!.....uEi. .g.c:-o)::u!>i).",.....,....a .. .-t""..!1.1 1 0 '" - 0- C -I coo>., = 00 I .. > - - ~.. <'<1.<.> IS G I I z'~ 8.~ 'õ.., a! ~ 8 æ I -3 8 ~ ¡¡¡ ~ I 8 8 e ¡¡¡ ~ I'~.g~< ¡;;'õâ~1 ~..§~~I...~1m 10111 I I 1 I I. ... . ...'... .... .. . . ... I I . ~ » ~ ô :. ~:. ~: .".~J.~ ~ 'J;!;: . . . ; I ::: I I r .. ...........' .'5 "'..£] .8l1,...".,.,.>. I 1 ."."" ~õ'= , I = I.-..Ji;'¡.., "'... -\i.,.~.'..'.'............ .1 I .:.........:....'...,.,.:i.-.'. 8 c :::I I I '" I. '1..',....1....... JC. ......ã 8-[. 'S." .~t..i...'..'.I..'.",.."....",..."...< . ' I II.~: .!3:¡; ~t.i : e I e I .....1. .f!..co..::o~I:-!. ..J~> .1 : ".,.....:.,...,.!';t.." Q...c"'- 'e I. e 1'..............111.................1...'.' "'.....iJls..u..~>.Jí4..t.~'..,..........'........... ...1 I <;.. ..<~... u '" 0 U I rñ '- I rñ '- I 1 0-... .c '" c. ,2.: e C :; '8 I i.... ' I I .<.....'¡;"..c~"'- 1...- 1...- I. O.<....=dII~rQ,III~. ..,". ,.,.1 I .'......"'-C'" 1",0 1",0 1..,... ..=.111. .'. ..11 .:.....'..'.................... o"""~ "š- I'Š- '..8,..'..)..........4...JJ!!5...c..8.'...~'o.~1:t....:......., I =!: ~ ~ ~ ~ : 1:! ~. I 1:! ~, lit ... . ....,:. -;:~ sÉ i '! 'i t :1<,,1 I .,.....-.............. ~~e- Ic..c'" Ic..c'" '.0.,'........ u..".....oiJQ,o'i.8J..I...,...<. I I .:."]...... ..c..!. Sb 1 C - ~ I C - ~ I.. "'-g ~ ... 0 ",:-0 .~.. .. ....... . I I ....:........................'. "'0>"- '0"". 10"". IJI..A..'=. ..."'.!:! UU~ 't8........111.."....... I I .......,.:. .c'" ,"'- 1"'- 11 ¡¡ .~;::e-- ,&.111..01.., ,I I ..............!.... 'Wi:~ : .8.8~ I ].8F' I *0..:;,. >,,~-~'~:Sîii;'I'......1 : ,."...",.,,:¡... '¡:,.... 1== 1== I~. ø.. YO-. Ail 1 I "'.'.'.'..:".. ~ .", ¡¡; I ~'~ 8. I '" '" 8. l.i...... e.. .1::.' -'-J '.:3.. ' 1 ';;;.5...- l..c..ce l.c..ce ",,;. ..uoo.=:;09 11;,. .1 I ..:. .c tS ... I en en Q.. 1 en en Q.. 'II I !§¡,g. c c = =.:ë ;! . I I '-,,::1::- I,. I" I Jf 0- ..!3e'-.gõ1:!,::p .... I I 0 ~ ~ g, , ",.c I ~.c I m J... ¡¡. c..8...c ~ '" ¡ i -I.:. I I !.I........!.:,.i.<,.o !o!o \0 ! i .'.~Z IZ IZ 'Z I I I~: ¡ I I ¡ I , I :ÎÎ1' ¿ I ¿ 1 ~ 14, 31 ~'c!,\() I\() 1- '..:i- ~:~~ ¡!! ~,:,,::s 1 ¡ I Ii ¿ !¿!~ ¡.~~ ¡ ...!>I go : t : ~ : 0- c! I :.'.<'.'F'" I",. I~ lilt I :::: ..,::, : I : ¡¡., ': , I I rn M.. I . I ,....., I I , 1 ~ I I 1 ".... I ';;; , I .", I. ..~.B I ..:. ' '" , 8. ,. 0- I 8'- 10 10 1.111. I I: 0 1 - I;:¡ I .,.°_.. I ...- '<.I I> '..-i... I ~ü :'5-"':~: ,,~.. : ... ,':: 1 '" <J I = , . :I I. I '"~ ,c.:3 ,:::1- ly""C::IU ~g I~:= I~e I_.&..&'. 010 c. I Q..", I Q..~ l.! Ioo4." r-Ir- N ~ I - 1: I - Q. : .fII .:..:. C! II C! 00 "! I "! I 1 , , ~I ~ ~ :~:~ :¡~~. 1=:= ,- 1 ,. I ,- I ....:...................'.......... ".. I 0 I 0 ~ .",.", ~ . ~ = 'e Ic I,.§¡... l<:il<:i ~ :~ I~ I ¡" I~I~ ... 1 ... I ... I.. ¡¡; I ... I ... 1:! I 1:! I 1:! 1 I ... I " ¡¡. I ;,¡" I ¡¡. , .1 en, en , ' I , , I , 1 , ' , ~ C ë ~ ë au ,g'" ~ =~ ~ ~¡; u e;:¡ .£- ¡;'¡' ~'o;j 2 ~ u =~ - cag ., ~ <.I - ... 0... u - ~ '" <.I ,- a .", ~ ~ 5 a..: "8 ~ 8 '~ ;§ ~ ", s ~ i:;¡ ... e ,= .., ~ 0 c. 0- '-'..", u...-.... ",r V) Q.,W ;.: '> ,- ,. tŠ ,.¡ > '> . ." , i6 8 0 =-.!I< '8eal u 6..6 ¡;. ~ :a .Q e ,,:,s . = Iio"g ~ -g :a '8 aI aI ~ = 'c 6. 5 é ~ 'ë .ii 9 ~.g 0 i ~ -g 8.~ ~ ~ S .':: e E ale e N ec.aI o(/) :.:: u -g ~ .~ c:i: ~~ ;; .a Q¡"O .C/ e - U.- e I.J 0 ~ .5 (/) 01 .¡ .è ,;,;,;.;.;. u u .. '" u eo.c 0 ~ 1iJ . ...=_~-g "'. c.u.. .~ S 8 I:!'S e....~~g' ~ ~ "¡.!:! .. c. oS g :ë .~ § ~:.:: 6.~ ,g ,g ~ ~-Š ==8.'~~ ~~eoo . ,,;".;.;.; (/) (/) c...= = ;;;c:::::: .¡ .è ÿ ¡-: 'i) ¡ II~ 0 0 ![~ z ¡ ~jì ~ 1 .. "0 ;rl : ¡ 0 N -5 .. = ~ - ~ ü u - -= 9 <:i u E ~ ¡¡; .- u "0 .. = 01 ~ ~ U '" ~ ;::¡ ¡,¡. "0 ~~u gl i 81 I .- '8 = .c ~~ ~~ I u . I' -- ~ '. ! MEMORANDUM TO: CARROLL HAYDEN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER DATE: 2/9/96 FROM: ANTHONY GONZALES, HUMAN RESOURCES SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: REPORT ON MERIT STEP INCREASES: OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1995 Per the City Council's request, attached is a listing by department of the number of eligible employees who received Step 4 or 5 "merit" increases for the quarter October-December 1995. Thirty-eight (38) of forty-one (41) eligible employees received Step 4 or 5 merit increases during the period. : I I ~. ~ . STEP INCREASE REPORT OcrOBER - DECEMBER 1995 09-Feb-96 ..ItclliêiVéd. . . .... ...Itêø~i~iiä EXECUTIVE 0 3 3 ~~œ 0 0 0 ATTORNEY 0 2 2 POLICE 3 8 8 FIRE 3 8 8 PUBLIC WORKS 1 9 8 WATER RESOURCES 1 0 0 COMMUNITY SVCS 1 1 0 DEVELOPMENT SVCS 0 1 1 ffi~ 0 0 0 TOTAL: I I --- - ----- -----4 .. , " I STEP INCREASE REPORT 1995-1996 Steps 4 and 5 . )UL Y"",SEPT 1995..... ØCTHPEÇ1995 . ..J AN+M1\RCHl~?~~ ...~~ÞHJØ}jß~~~?ø Erible ... Receivcif .... E1igìble: ... . ....kd:tivcd ........ EligiNe:. . .....Re:çêßilä~..Elìibî~~n;~~~N~4 tg EXECUTIVE 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 FINANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATTORNEY 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 POLICE 7 6 11 11 0 0 0 0 FIRE 7 7 11 11 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC WORKS 9 9 10 9 0 0 0 0 WATER RESOURCES 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 COMMUNITY SVCS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 DEVELOPMENT SVCS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ED/CD 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: ,-' . - Kern Council March 12, 1996 of Governments Alan Tandy, Manager ---. City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 RE: OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2084 (RICHTER) Dear Mr. Tandy: ~-=--~~~ ~ - -- =--~ -- .-_.~~ - The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), acting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Kern County, voted to oppose Assembly Bill 2084 (Richter) at its regular meeting on February 1, 1996. This bill would permit a county board of supervisors, upon adoption of an authorizing resolution, to unilaterally transfer to the county general fund an unspecified percentage of sales tax revenues that would otherwise be deposited in the region's local transportation fund. The Kern COG opposition is based on the following: 8 Such a transfer violates the legislative intent in passing Government Code Sections 29530, et. seq. and Public Utilities Code Sections 99200, et. seq, The Transportation Development Act (TDA) is intended to provide local jurisdictions the means for financing critical local transportation services. 8 Such a transfer would devastate local public transit services because the primary source of funding is the local transportation fund. In fact, in many areas the loss of this funding would result in the elimination of local transit systems. 8 Such a transfer would necessitate a significant reduction in local investment in streets and roads infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. 8 Such a transfer would be contrary to the commitment by the general public of providing funds for the support of pubic transportation services. 8 Such a transfer would represent the loss of over 12.8 million dollars per year to 16 transportation service.providers within Kern County, including 11 cities, 2 speciaLdistricts and 1 nonprofit. , --' ---- -, - corporation. Kern COG believes that the resolution of local governmental finance problems lies in devising systemic solutions. The piecemeal actions represented in AB 2084 only results in transferring the problem from one service, or jurisdiction, to another. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call. Sin~ . ,~==~= -- """'~CF ~-,. 1,-= . -H~ "- i [MAR~~6 ~Brumm xecutive Director \ CITY MANAGER'SO::£!£~ REB:dc .... . Kern Council of Governments '- 1401 19th Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 9330 J (805) 861-2191 Facsimile (805) 324-82 J 5 TIY (805) 832-7433 I