Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/00 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 1, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /~7-b.,./ SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The Recreation and Parks Department's summer concert series at Yokuts Park finished up this week with Savoy Brown drawing an estimated crowd of 2,000. · 2. EDCD has prepared the enclosed report on the downtown streetscape expansion project that includes information on the number of existing trees, number of trees to be removed, number of trees the Tree Foundation will relocate, and the number of trees that will be located on each street. 3. At the August 9th Urban Development Committee meeting, there was a request made for a comparison of City landscape requirements for trees to suggestions contained in the 50 Year Strategic Plan for Kern Community Forests, prepared by the Tree Foundation of Kern County. Development Services has provided the attached information. 4. An employee from the Public Works-Street Maintenance Department was injured Thursday and severed a finger while working on a project at the Water Resources Department. He was taken to the doctor, then quickly flown to San Francisco, where a specialist reattached the finger. At this point, the procedure appears to be successful. He is expected to return to Bakersfield in about five days, if all goes well. 5. The City Clerk's office will undergo a remodeling project, to begin in approximately 2 weeks. Per the enclosed memo, the remodel will be done in phases, in order to ensure the least amount of disruption. 6. Congratulations to City Clerk Pam McCarthy on her election as Recording Secretary for the City Clerk's Association of California. She will be sworn in at the League of California Cities Annual Conference at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 7th. Honorable Mayor and City Council September 1, 2000 Page 2 7. We have good news that the Conference Committee on Local Government Fiscal Reform approved the allocation of $200 million to cities, counties, and special districts throughout California. It will be returned to local governments on a formula identical to last year's allocation formula - half of the money on a reverse ERAF formula, and half of the money on a per capita basis. Assembly Bill 1396, which provides for the allocation, was passed by the Legislature this week and will proceed to the Governor. 8. Continuing with more good news, the City has received a $60,000 recycling grant from the California Department of Conservation. The money will help offset the cost of our Community Drop Off Recycling program for the year 2000. 9. The attached report from the Planning Commission is in response to a Council requested that they examine the regulations concerning fence heights in the front yard area of residential zoned lots. 10. A response to a Councilmember request is enclosed: Councilmember Couch · Enclosed is a study cited recently in the Wall Street Journal on the economic impacts of professional sports on U.S. cities. The study does not include minor league baseball teams. AT:rs cc: Mayor-Elect Harvey Hall Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM August 31, 2000 TO: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager_.v FROM: Donna Barnes, Development Associate,l~.~ SUBJECT: Downtown Streetseape Expansion Pr6ject - Removal of Street Trees As part of the downtown streetscape expansion project, it will be necessary to remove some existing trees currently located within the project boundaries. These trees need to be removed for a variety of reasons including old age, disease, unhealthy conditions or their invasive nature. The trees removed will 'be replaced with tree types selected in accordance with the Central City Master Street Tree Plan. In instances where existing trees are in relatively good condition, but need to be removed, the Kern County Tree Foundation has requested to relocate these trees to locations to be determined by the foundation. The foundation will remove the trees, fill the holes resulting from tree removal and relocate the trees the weekend of September 23 and 24 one week prior to the contractor starting work on the streetscape expansion. The following table lists the number of existing trees, the number of trees to be removed, the number of trees the Tree Foundation will relocate, and the number of trees that will be located on each street as a result of the project: Streets Existing # Existing trees to Trees to be Foundation Total # of trees after Eye to "K" of Trees remain removed relocates streetscape project 17th 26 6 20 7 31 18th 10 0 10 5 20 19th 0 0 0 0 22 20th 6 0 6 0 20 21st 17 9 8 0 26 22nd 5 3 2 0 22 Total 64 18 46 12 187 As a result of the project, 169 new trees will be planted in the downtown. The foundation will relocate 13 existing trees and 33 trees which are dead, diseased, dying or inappropriate for their location will be disposed. PSstreetscape Expansion\Tree Replacement Removal.wpd MEMORANDUM August 29, 2000 ~ !C~TY MANAGER'S 0F~: ' :' TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: .~ STANLEY C. GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TREES At the Urban Development Committee meeting on August 9, 2000, the committee requested a comparison of City landscape requirements for trees to suggestions contained in the 50 Year Strategic Plan for Kern Community Forests prepared by the Tree Foundation of Kern County. A table has been prepared and is attached to this memorandum. The table presents existing requirements next to proposals contained in the Foundation's report. The Foundation proposes new regulations and regulations that would either add to or replace existing requirements. The report proposes new requirements such as trees for single family dwellings, minimum tree separation from intersections, creating a list of approved shade trees for general landscaping and parking lots, and developing rules and regulations for preserving, replacing and pruning trees. Some of the Foundation's recommendations propose regulations that differ from current requirements such as requiring trees for commercial and industrial development based on building square feet compared to current requirements based on building and street frontage, minimum spacing based on tree size, 50% shading instead of 30% and requiring fire safe trees for all of northeast Bakersfield, not just the area within the hillside overlay. I have attached a copy of a sample landscape plan that meets current ordinance requirements. It can be used for discussion purposes at the next meeting. SG:pah Attachment cc: John Stinson, Assistant City Manger Jack Hardisty,-Development Services Director COM3/[ERCIAL & MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS e~ 1 tree/6 spaces in parking areas ~ 1 tree/500 sfofresidential living space ~ 1 tree/35' along streets ~ 1 tree/1000 sfofcommercial bldg space Number ~ 1 tree/30' adjacent to residential projects ~ 1 tree/2000 sfof industrial bldg space e~ 1 tree/50' along main bldg entrance facing parking lot ~ 65' max in parking areas e~ establish min spacing based on tree size ~ no min or max spacing on streets, clustering allowed e~ establish min separation from Tree spacing ~ 35' in downtown area for uniformity intersections (35'), alleys (20'), , and hydrants (10') e~ min 30% evergreen in parking areas Species mix e~ min 50% evergreen along streets e~ 100% evergreen adjacent to residential projects e~ downtown subject to specific species per street e~ none specified except as noted below e~ create a list of approved trees based on ~ Kern River Plan area limits to native species per list climate zones ~ hillside overlay zone areas use firescape plant list ~ encourage use of the fire safe trees in Species type ~ Chapter 12.40 prohibits some species due to the all the northeast area (do not confine to amount of litter they produce just properties in the hillside overlay zone ~ create list of parking lot shade trees Tree size e~ 15 gallon minimum ~ Parking area - 30% e~ 50% all common areas which includes (based on 90% of tree's mature shade area) parking lots, public sidewalks, streets, parks and playgrounds (shade covers and Shading ~ Streets - no minimum requirement garages would count as shade) ~ may need to add language in ordinance concerning planter & tree well minimums and how shade is calculated (tree listing with crown area calculations) Landscape strip ~ I0' min along arterial streets (from back of ~ 8' min along collector and local streets sidewalk) ~ 7' min adjacent to residential project Irrigation ~ permanent installation with automated system ~ maintain in healthy condition though no regulation or ~ Add language in ordinance regarding penalties concerning excessive pruning preservation of existing trees, ~ no regulation to preserve existing trees when a new replacement, & pruning per ISA stds Maintenance, project is constructed ~ May need to include penalties for preservation, removal e} no regulation penalizing or fining when an existing violations including fines tree is removed though staff tries to get a replacement as large as possible SINGLE FAMII,Y RESH)ENTIAL PROJECTS ~ote: These standards are not adopted by ordinance but were established by Planning Commission Resolution #58-92. They only apply along the public space along streets between the sidewalk and a masonry wall used to restrict access to double fronted lots. None of these or any other standards apply to privately owned single family lots.) Number ~ 1 tree/35' along walled areas only ~ see commercial ~ no min o3 max spacing on streets, clustering allowed ~ see commercial Tree spacing though discretion allowed to avoid significant gaps Species mix ~ evergreen/deciduous mix but no minimums of either ~ none specified except as noted below ~ see commemial ~ Kern River Plan area limits to native species per list Species type ~ hillside overlay zone areas use firescape plant list ~ Chapter 12.40 prohibits some species due to the amount of litter they produce Tree size ~ 15 gallon minimum ~ no minimum requirement ~ 50% along streets and public sidewalks Shading ~ encourage homeowners to plant trees Landscape strip ~ 10' min along arterial streets (from back of ~ 8' min along collector streets sidewalk) ~ 4~A' min along local streets Irrigation ~ permanent installation with automated system ~ since in city right-of-way, trees fall under ~ see commercial Maintenance, program administered by Parks Dept ~ homeowners to be encouraged to hire responsible trimmers that follow ISA preservation, removal stds or arborist for advice BAKERSFIELD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM August 29, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Pamela A. McCarthy, City Cle~-/ SUBJECT: Clerk's Office Re-Model A re-model of the Council and the Clerk's office will begin in approximately two weeks. I have met with Brad Underwood, General Services Superintendent, and the re-model will be done in phases to ensure the least amount of disruption. Phase I will be the re-model of the Council Office. Once completed, I will be using that office space during the construction of the inner offices. The Mayor has graciously agreed to make available his Conference Room in the event Councilmembers need a place to meet during the re-model. Phase II will be construction of the work/equipment room. My current office will become the work room. This will again keep the disruption to a minimum and ensure Council accessability to the copier and fax machine. Phase III will be the construction of the Assistant City Clerk's office, relocation of my office, carpeting, painting etc. The final phase will be the installation of the modular units for the staff. Estimated time for completion of the re-model is four to six months. Be assured that we will maintain existing service levels to both the public and Council during this time. Please contact Rhonda or I at anytime if you have any questions regarding the re-modeh :pmc cc: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Brad Underwood, General Services Superintendent Department Heads S :~.IEMOS\TANDY~e.-Mo del.wpd BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: August 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Recycling Grant Award We are pleased to report that the City has received a $60,000 recycling grant from the California Department of Conservation. The grant is to help offset the cost of the City's Community Drop Off Recycling Program for the year 2000. With recent media reports focusing on recycling issues, this is a timely bit of good news. You may recall that the City no longer collects hauling revenue from the drop off sites, because the site hosts can no longer afford to pay because of depressed market values. For this reason, the grant is also good financial news. KB S:x/VlEMOS\MANAGER\recycling grant 2000.wpd August 28, 2000 Sent By: SENATOR POOCHTGTAN; 209 253 7128; Aug-29-O0 13:38; Page 1/3 REPUBLICAN ~ ~ CAUCUS ~,: CHAIRMAN Capitol Prate LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL RELIEF CAPITOL OFFICE FINAL UPDATE ROOM 5087 (916) 445-9600 The Conference Committee on Local Government Fiscal Reform met v~oo~F,c~ last evening and approved the allocation of $200 million to cities, (559) 2s3-7122 counties and special districts throughout California, which was BAI~.~RSFI~LD OFFICE proposed earlier this month. The allocation will be returned to local (661)324-6188 governments on a formula identical to last year's allocation formula - half of the 1honey on a reverse Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) formula and half of the money on a per capita basis. The committee allocated an additional $10 million to be disbursed to ' LOCAL counties on a per capita basis and an additional $2 million to GOVERNMENT independent recreation and park and library special districts. FISCAL RELIEF As the Senate Republican representative on the local government conference conrail(tee, I requested earlier this month that the conference committee allocate the $200 million reserved in the 2000 Budget Act ~'I am pleased thatfor local government relief based wholly or partially on a reverse ERAF the committee formula. adopted my local government proposal. It providesi Assembly Bill 13 96, which contains the $212 million appropriation, an equitable was approved by the conrail(tee unanimOusly and will proceed to both distribution of much- the Senate and Assembly Floors for votes of each house. Once the bill needed funds to ourreceives the requisite votes in the Legislature later this week, it will local communities." proceed to the Governor for his signature or veto. I am hopeful that the -Chuck Pooehigian Governor will recognize the critical needs of California's counties and maintain not just the $200 million for cities and counties but also the additional $12 million appropriation contained in the bill. 2000 Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have any questions. Sent By: SENATOR POOCHIG[AN; 209 253 7128; Aug-29-O0 13:39; Page 2/3 CITY/COUNTY PER CAPITA ERAF- TOTAL BASED CLOVIS $205,822 $33,779 $239,601 COALINGA $44,250 $3,534 $47,784 FIREBAUGH $17,831 $1,632 $19,464 FOWLER $11,266 $1,117 $I2,383 FRESNO $1,224,450 $284,614 $1,509,065 HURON $17,103 $1,290 $18,393 KERMAN $22,707 $1,809 $24,516 KINGSBURG $27,438 $2,988 $30,426 MENDOTA $22,853 $3,159 $26,012 ORANGE COVE $22,998 $698 $23,697 PARLIER $33,188 $1,632 $34,820 REEDLEY $60,990 $5,135 $66,124 SANGER $55,458 $10,756 $66,214 SAN JOAQUIN $9,491 $111 $9,601 SELMA $54,439 $5,846 $60,286 County of FRESNO $513,536 $1,435,568 $1,949,103 Special Districts in FRESNO - $135,726 $135,726 County ARVIN $34,498 $954 $35,452 BAKERSFIELD $690,536 $116,056 $806,593 CALIFORNIA CITY $25,546 $6,897 $32,442 DELANO $103,493 $8,290 $111,784 M,~R/COPA $3,639 $265 $3,904 MCFARLAND $27,511 $1,447 $28,958 RIDGECREST $79,476 $8,194 $87,670 SHAFTER $34}643 $2,216 $36,859 TAFT $26,637 $2,555 $29,192 TEHACHAPI $36,681 $4,301 $40,982 WASCO $58,515 $1,864 $60,379 County of KERN $797,086 $1,225,213 $2,022,300 Special Districts in KERN $207,330 $207,330 County DINUBA $45,706 $5,166 $50,871 EXETER $25,109 $4,181 $9,290 FARMERSVILLE $22,416 $1,725 $24,141 LINDSAY $26,346 $2.454 $28,801 PORTERVILLE $!09,461 $14,772 $124,233 TULARE $!21,688 $22,922 $144,611 \qSALIA $281,804 $41,185 $322,989 WOODLAKE $18,777 $1,371 $20,148 County of TULARE $420,086 $735,797 $1,155,883 Special Districts in TULARE - $72,157 $72,157 County Sent By: SENATOR POOCHIGIAN; 209 253 7128; Aug-29-O0 13;40; Page 3/3 ADDITIONAL COUNTY ALLOCATION $234,445 $191,896 iii I&l[llEllgLT il $107,175 MEMORANDUM REceiVED August 28, 2000 AUG 3 I 2000 fC',TY I~ANAGER'S O~::, TO: ~ T~Y, CITY ~AGER FROM: JACK H~ISTY, DEVELOP~NT SERVICE DIREr/. S~CT: PLA~G CO~SSION ~PORT TO THE CITY CO~CIL ~G~G FENCE HEIGHT ~ THE FRONT Y~ The City Council requested that the Planning Commission examine the regulations concerning fence heights in the front yard area of residential zoned lots. The Commission referred this matter to a Committee for further discussion. The attached report is their response to this issue which was accepted by the full Commission. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM /~ DATE: July 26, 2000 APPROVED SUBJECT: Ordinance Committee Report Concerning Fences in The Front Yard Setback. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and Refer to the City Council. BACKGROUND: The Committee met at 12:00 p.m. on July 26, 2000, in the Planning Department Conference Room (2nd floor) with Jeff Tkac presiding, and Commissioners Tom McGinnis and Ron Sprague present. Staff members Stanley Grady and Jim Eggert (Planning Department), Carl Hernandez (City Attorney's Office), and Marion Shaw (Public Works Department) were also in attendance. This matter was referred to Committee by the Planning Commission in response to a City Council request to review the regulations concerning fence heights in the front yard of residential properties. Fences, walls and hedges are currently restricted to a maximum height of four feet if they are within the front yard of a residentially zoned lot. In the side and rear yards, the maximum height is six feet. If a person wishes to build a taller fence, they must apply for a modification and go before the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). A public hearing is held giving neighborhood residents an opportunity to comment on the higher fence and to its compatibility with the neighborhood. The Board's decision is discretionary and can be appealed to the City Council. Staff noted that the city averages 1-2 fence height requests a year so they are not something that is very common. They stated to the Committee that these requests have been both approved and denied based mostly on the support or objection of neighborhood residents. Prepared by: "JE '~,ugust 7, 2000\ Page 1 The Committee felt that the present ordinance restriction of a four-foot fence height in the front yard is appropriate to retain the openness characteristic of the majority of neighborhoods in the city. The modification process in front of the BZA works well in that it allows the neighborhood residents to participate in whether the fence is appropriate for their area. Changing the regulation to allow taller fences would affect neighborhoods citywide. Since neighborhoods differ significantly from area to area, it was noted that the Westchester area, for example, may tolerate higher fences and walls since they would appear to blend with the style and types of homes in that area, but in the southwest taller fences appear to be incompatible with the newer neighborhood designs. Therefore, the existing process is preferred to ensure that residents have a say as to their support for taller fences in their neighborhood and to determine if the fence is in character with neighborhood design. The Committee also commented that as for the design of taller fences,' that those that are approved be at least 50% open and limited to use of wrought-iron or wrought-iron/masonry materials. Solid walls, wood fences and chain-link fences were discouraged in favor of wrought- iron and masonry combinations where there may be a three-foot high masonry block wall with a two or three-foot high wrought-iron on top, or the use of wrought-iron and masonry pillars. The idea behind this is to retain visibility into the property keeping it visually open with a fence design that is appealing. If the Council decides that some variation of the front yard fence height is put into the ordinance, sPecific materials should be identified :o preclude a totally solid fence or use of chain-link materials. Chairman lC  ""'~~M Member . ~ cGinnis .--~"~'-~/.~.-,~/L~,~-,~. Member . ~' Sp~gue .S:\sr,fences,July,2OOO.wpd Prepared by: "JE "~,ugust 7, 2000\ Page 2