Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2004 B A K E R S F I E L D David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING 'AND 'DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of BakerSfield Monday, December 6, 2004 - 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 11, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. -Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Sierra Club response to voluntary plan to mitigate development project non-attainment air quality emissions to zero -- Grady B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding appeals of extension of vesting rights -- Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding enforcement of parking lot shade tree ordinance -- Grady 6. COMMrl-rEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN~Council Com mittees\04Planning&Development~o&d04dec06agenda.doc DRAFT B A K E R'.S F I E L D . ,~ ~ ~' David Couch, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004,1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; and Sue Benham Councilmember Mike Maggard arrived at 1:06 p.m. 2. ADOPT AUGUST 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. (Councilmember Maggard absent this item.) 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed cell phone tower ordinance Development Services Director Jack Hardisty gave .an overview of the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance encourages the use of camouflage towers and details the review process. It provides for construction, which complies with the ordinance standards, using camouflage towers properly spaced will not require a conditional use permit and hearings before the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed the County's ordinance and other cities' ordinances when .preparing this ordinance. Committee Member Maggard requested staff look into retrofits of existing towers and report back. Dana Karcher, Tree Foundation, spoke in favor of camouflaging cell towers. Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club, spoke in support of camouflage towers, but questioned the use of camouflage palm trees as palms are not native to Bakersfield. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission. The Committee unanimously approved staff's recommendation. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 2 B. Discussion 'and Committee recommendation regarding tree manual Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave a short overview of the subjects covered in the first draft of the Tree Technical Manual, including policies and operating procedures for tree maintenance, removal, installation, utility clearance and selection of trees. City staff modeled the manual after the City of Palo Alto's tree manual. Dana Karcher, Executive DireCtor, Tree Foundation of Kern, stated the Tree Manual is an outstanding document and offered suggested changes. She explained the Tree Foundation is listed as a reference in the manual to obtain a list of certified arborists; however, they are not making recommendations for arborist at this time due to insurance coverage regarding recommending specific arborists. Committee Chair Couch requested the Tree Foundation be given time to review the manual and present their changes to staff. COmmittee Member Maggard referred the following items to staff: 1. He would like staff to draft a concept or policy regarding those who have a view and their neighbor's tree grows to the point it blocks their view. Does the.person whose view 'has become blocked have the right to have the neighbor's' tree pruned in a responsible way to preserve their view, and who is responsible to pay for the pruning? City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated this could be covered in a view shed ordinance. 2. At the last Air Pollution Control Board meeting there was discussion regarding trees and which varieties enhance air quality and which varieties degrade air-quality. He requested staff to check with the Air Pollution Control Board for a list of those trees that degrade air quality, so it could be checked against the City's list of recommended trees and share the information with the Committee. 3. A developer recently contacted Councilmember Maggard regarding the developer's northeast Bakersfield project to discuss the faces of the hillsides near the roads and the requirement for clusters of oak trees, boulders, and wild fl°wers. The developer felt there would be problems with watering the trees. Staff .was requested to check if there is going to be a problem with planting trees where the faces of the hillsides are near the road. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding developing a memorial grove (This item heard after 4.A.) Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen reported he, John Stinson and Kevin Barnes had met with Dana Karcher of the Tree Foundation primarily to look at different PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 3 locations. The location needs to be big enough for future expansion. There would be trees planted and there alSo should be some type of donated monument associated with each tree. Assistant City Manager John Stinson explained as this was referred by Councilmember Maggard, staff would like Committee direction on the way to proceed. Dana Karcher, Executive Director, Tree Foundation of Kern, showed a map and pictures of different memorial groves in California and-types of plaques, and gave an overview of how the Tree Foundation envisions a memorial grove might be developed in a natural setting that could be easily maintained. Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes explained the City has buffer property, about 100 acres, around the landfill being capped in the northeast. He suggested the capped landfill not be used, just the land serving as a buffer around the landfill. Committee Member Maggard expressed his idea was much like what has been suggested and even to offer the memorial grove as a project to non-profits to do some legwork and fund-raising. There is an organization 'called Kern County Student Leadership on 14 high school campuses and they are contemplating developing a project similar to the Leadership Bakersfield Class projects. Once the plans for the memorial grove are more detailed, Committee Member Maggard offered to Pitch the idea to .possible volunteer groups. Committee Member Benham expressed she wOuld be interested in having other locations for the Committee to consider. The Committee requested staff to bring additional photos showing the landfill buffer area, suggestions for other possible sites and a more defined plan back to the Committee. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding development of program EIR's Planning Director Stan Grady gave a report on the differences between a Program EIR, Project EIR and a Master EIR. The basic differences are: ·Level of detail required'for initial actions · Level of detail required for future subsequent projects · Level of review required - initial action - subsequent projects · Term of use for subsequent actions Pro.qram EIR: From broad general actions to later specific actions; more detailed examination may occur for later projects; subsequent project - mitigated negative PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 4 declaration-or project EIR; focus on issues ready for evaluation and exclude those issues "not yet ripe." An example would be the General Plan. Proiect EIR: This is the most common; focus on a specific development project; and focus on physical changes to the environment caused by the project. An example would be The Market Place. Master EIR: Alternative to a Project or Program EIR; evaluates-broader policy and sPecific project related impacts all in one document; evaluates impacts of any and all identified subsequent projects; and no subsequent environmental review necessary for future projects analyzed and mitigated in the Master EIR. Its limitation is a five-year. useful life. USes include: General Plan; Public or private projects in a redevelopment plan; phaSed projects; rule or regulation implemented by .a later project and others. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, made comments regarding Program EIR's and Master EIR's. Committee. Member Maggard emphasized one question we are posed with on occasion by the Sierra Club has to do with Whether the cumulative effects of all of our non-EIR projects.in their sum would exceed a sufficient level that it might be mitigated differently if it were part of a Program EIR. The General Plan document is a Program EIR. Planning Director Grady explained the General Plan analyzes the "bowl of soup," not the ingredients in the soup. When you look at the ingredients, a more precise evaluation is done. This is what happens at the project level and why an air-quality analysis is done with our Negative Declarations because you don't know exactly what the project description is going to be. There is a broad evaluation of air quality in the General Plan and then a more specific evaluation is done at the project level. The Air District evaluation program is applied in a review of the .project. If the.project falls below a threshold, there is no mitigation required to be applied. If the project is over the threshold, then developers are required to apply mitigation. If the Air District evaluation program is applied to a project and the project is mitigated below the threshold, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. If you come up with an impact on a tiered document that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant, then an EIR is required. However, any of the environmental documents can be challenged on the basis of whether or not the conclusions were correct. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated there were EIR's done for two recent commercial projects and both had air-impact analysis as part of the EIR and both projects were challenged, even with the EIR's that were performed. So, the EIR is still challengeable on the air quality issue, even if the challenge does not prevail. DRAFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 5 Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding concerns of cumulative impacts on air quality, mitigation measures and fees. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, commented on the process from an applicant's point of view. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated if Bakersfield comes up with some sort of plan to deal with cumulative impacts, and if you are working on a zero emissions program, probably if that were the only thing that ever happened in the San Joaquin Valley, it would not have a credibly large effect. But, if Bakersfield comes up with' something, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is going to be pretty much cOmpelled to come up with an equivalent plan. Committee Chair Couch commented that almost sounded like an endorsement of such a plan by the Sierra Club. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated it is something we should be working toward. Of course, the stronger the plan the City of Bakersfield comes up with--the stronger the plan the Air Pollution Control District will be pretty much forced into. The Air Pollution Control District is under regulation to apply the best available control measures. If there are some available control measures already in operation, as for example the $1,200 a house fee that the Sierra Club has come up with in dealing with some of the developers, that clearly becomes a best available control measure. The Air District is pretty much compelled to follow along with that. So, if the City of Bakersfield would come up with a good strong program, I think that would compel the Air District to come up with an equally strong program. Committee Member Maggard commented on the following: · An important issue is if we do an EIR in some different fashion, will it result in cleaning up the air? · If something is done like this and the cost is shared among developers, will it be assisting them and providing a benefit in that their projects will be able to proceed with less burden and hang-ups, while still giving attention to air quality issues so as not to let up on cleaning the air? · If the Sierra Club or others write letters, please e-mail to him so he can forward to Supervisor Patrick and the Air Pollution Control Director. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. DRAFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OOMMITTEE M£ETING Monclny, October 1 ~, ~004 Page 6 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty;; Planning Director Stan Grady; Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes; and Urban Forester Paul Graham Attendance-others: Dana Karcher, Executive Director, The Tree Foundation of Kern; Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; and Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers SSJOHN~Council Com mittees\04Planning&Development~o&d04octl 1summary.doc , ,RECEIVED · I z004 TREES PLANTED · ,- BYVOLUNTEERS . . . . 'NOV 1. g - SINCE i994 P, EE EOU'N DArieN''' :. ..' · " CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE· "- " O" F K 'E" R N 'm,.,d ~Di,~o,s .. N'0'vember 17, .2004. ":: · ' .John Moorhouse ·,- ' ' President ... ,~,ns~. :" ' Mb' Stan Gr.ady' , -, · Matt Pontes ' Vice President City of Bakersfield County of Kern ' ' ' ' ~'..~.se.~Re~.~o.~,,a,~e..,.. 1501 TrbxtunAvenue ' " StephanieLynch Bakersfield'. CA :93301 " -, , - Secretary ., - . ~, '* : ' · County of Kern . , . . · ~,~ o~su~,o, ~ear' Mr. Gradyi ' , ' . Linda Robinson ' - ~ . ~,_~o~.~o O'n the urging of one 'of our city',s many tree lovers. I took a drive Steve McCalley - ' · ' Past Presidentdown California AvenUe. I was thrilled with the reCent work that , Kem County ~ ' ' ~,~,,o,,,~,a,~,~ s~,~,, was done by cdntract Pruners on our medians and the fall'bolor was , ~<e.o~,o sPectacular. As I drove further'down ithe 'road towards. Stockdale Tec.hnical Committee ' ' ' ' c~,~,,~,,o, Highway, I began to see what the tree Ipver had'called about, F~estry 'Ret'. What. those 'of us. in the'arbc~ricultUre business refer to as the Lindsay One ' ' ' ,,u,~,onCo,,r,~ "annual fall massacre, of.-California ~ve~ue".. had .some'. new'. BakersfieldCo/lege ' .additions> speCifiCally'the Sheraton. Four-Points !iLi0te[ - BUt what' Linda Ma~inez .............. ' ' ' ~ ' Marketin§committee really struck me. was theRalph's parking Iot~ . - . Mertinez Media Marketing . ' - ' ', ' ' '- '- ' '~ '~ ' ' ,' ' ' . . < · , / ,'' , :.. · ' C,vo~,~,~.dU.~.o.. Once aga!n; this parking-lot's treeS have been' bUtchered.Last ' Sue Benham ' - · Councilmember year, they were .trimmed`· unnecessarily.' TheY have been,· ~.~,,,~ m,~o, ," ~needlessly pruned every year sinc~ they.were .planted.. This year o,.~,oh., . they have been topped, As a Certified Arborist. it is my oPi_nion that'. Cer,,e~^~,.;' those treeS will never reach the 40 ~ shade canopy required bY law: WE-7103A , . ' . ' . Tax ldentification,uml~er in Bakersfield by MuniciPal Code 17.61.030. It is time for the city to · ,,~'~, take ag{ion agairlst/the owner:.of'thi~..shopping center. :They need .~- to be held accountable for, the work thatwas done on thetrees both this year and in ,the~past.' Those'trees have'been pru, ned too ' often ' " and how' pose a risk 'to those who park under them as they grow.: ,, .Their structure has been altered in such a way that,theY Will neve. r~. grow in the manner in which they were intended and the topping'. 'will 9ertainly Cause disease and structural weaknes,s. :'" " ~ . !f :yOu will ',recall; .the r, ea~on.that the city ~Jeveloped the Parking lot , ..... ordinance was partly., because of the communitY',S outrage when it ' " "'ro live as a naNon, ' ........... to ptosper as a state, Came to the~removal o["trees fromlthis]ot before RallSh~s was built. a. nd to live as apeople we must all have bee~" -' ~ ' Theodore Roosevelt -. ' ' . , ' ' - ~ , ' \ ~, · ; · . · > ,, '. 16611.325. 5012300 TRUXTUN AVENUE I SUITE 207 I BA.,KER A 93301' ~ ,, ," ......,ur_an_orest.org. . ;- . :., . In the intedrfl, the develOper'added'Crape Myrtle'Trees (Lagerstroemia),.a small ~.;!ree that should never be',intended for shade mitigation., Those were, later . removed.and replaced at. the reqoest of the city planning department.~ Now,'the ; ~ ~-, ~ c,ur~rent trees are not any,better than the Crape Myrtles, that the. y replaced.~ · :ff is critical that we ,begin to ~enfome our. parking,'Jot Shade· tree ~/'dinance. ~ It is '.·'good for air'quality and goOd for the economy. I en, courage, you to use this .; oppOi'tunity to educate our COmmercial. property, oWnerS about.their duty to Obe~ ithe ordinance trhat Wa~ approved by the City'Council in 2001.. · " cc: -Planning and Develo,3ment Committee. - · Alan. Tandy ' '.- · Ginny Gennaro . Paul' Graham - ' ~' Shanette Madde -- The following documents pertain to the: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMM. meeting of Monday, December 6, 2004 at 1:00 PM. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM December 6, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: .~..--Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Enforcement At a previous meeting city staff reviewed possible enforcement solutions. That information is attached to this memorandum. Current ordinance requirements are for trees to be planted to achieve a 40% shade canopy in 15 years, pruned according to the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture and replaced within 120 days of voluntary removal with trees equal to the average size of the remaining trees up to a 48 inch box. Enforcement measures specifically related to a failure to comply with these provisions has not been written. The standard enforcement method for non-compliance with any ordinance is contained in Section 1.40.010 of the Municipal Code. That section is generally used for severe infractions but could be applied to the concerns regarding enforcement of the provisions of the city's landscape regulations. SCG:djl Attachment P:\Memos\Ordinance enforcement 12-6-04.doc February 11,2002 TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Dir SUBJECT: Landscape Enforcement Since our last discussion of enforcement of the landscape ordinance staff has contacted additional cities concerning their enforcement provisions, especially with respect to trees. Generally, what has been found is that, except for heritage trees, regulations are not .as focused on maintenance and care of privately owned trees. It was suggested at our December meeting that the city ought to focus its attention on caring for its own trees and requiring appropriate maintenance and care of those required by ordinance. As to the trees required of commercial, industrial and multi-family developments, current ordinance requires replacement of trees of similar size ( not to exceed 48" box) within 120 d~ys. The committee might consider shortening that time frame. Current ordinance provides for a $500.00 fine and / or six months of jail time if the conflict over compliance were to escalate to a criminal complaint. Qur practice has been to give notice to correct as a first step. It was also suggested that persons who pruned or cut trees for pay be required to obtain a permit to do that work and that they follow International Society of Arboriculture guidelines. LANDSCAPE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS · No immediate penalts;, give notice and opportunity to correct within asP. ecifi~period of time - eventually cite and fine (this is basically what the city follows and is the process used by a majority of cities) Require city permit to prone and/or remove a tree that exceeds a certain size subject to approval of an arborist or urban forester - also license all tree trimmers No opportunity to correct, give misdemeanor citation - can include fine, cost of replacement and staff administration cost examples: $2500/day (Bloomington, IN) $5000/day or per occurance/tree (Palo Alto, CA) $100/inch of trunk diameter (Lake Bluff, IL) $1000 and/or 6 mos jail (Corte Madera, CA) · Bond landscaping for several years (ie. 10-15 years) - bond forfeited if violation so that landscaping can be repaired/replaced fe .~ Temporary moratorium on any future development on the site including additions and tenant infills (18 mos being considered by Palo Alto, 2 years by Santa Rosa) Double replanting requirement and associated administration fees (Ojai, CA) .; ", Give citation authority to arborist, code personnel or other staff as necessary (Planning staff is being considered in Bloomington, IN) LANDSCAPE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS · Regulate who can prune trees - Add to Title 5 (Business Taxes, LiCenses and Regulations requirements for Tree Service companies or anyone who prunes trees for a fee to be licensed and follow regulations outlined by the International Society of Arboriculture. Can also require that before pruning is allowed, a permit must be issued by the Urban Forester. Private property owners doing their own trees could be exempt from these requirements. (This is being currently explored by the Landscape Committee under the Rec and Parks DepO · Add specific enforcement provision to Chapter 17 (Landscape Standards) that can include the following: · Give notice with a specified time to correct (ie. replanting of damaged or removed tree, fix irrigation, etc.). · Tree topping will result in immediate fine per occurance or tree. Fine can be $100 to $1000 (or more) per tree. · Current regulations require a removed tree to be replanted at similar siZe not to exceed 48" box within 120 days. Can shorten replacement time to 30-90 days and can required a 2-for-1 replacement as additional penalty. Can also add a fine to cover administrative cost for enforcement. · Lack of meeting shade requirement will result in additional trees being planted at a larger size such as 24", 36", or 48" box. Put moratorium on any permits being issued within project until planting takes place that brings the landscaping up to the approved landscape plan for the project. Can also assess fine to cover administrative costs for followup visits, etc. 17.61.030 Minimum landscape standards. A. ~stallation of landscape materials shall bc in accordance with commonly acccptcd methods of installation as approved by thc city. B. Trees shall bca minimum fificcn-gallon container si~.c or larger and shall bc vigorous and healthy when planted. Thc minimum diameter o£thc trcc trunk, as measured at a point four fcct up thc trunk from ground level, shah bc one inch for a fiflccn-ga]]on container tree, two inches for a twenty-four inch box container tree, and three inches for a thirty-six inch box container tree. These trunk diameters shall apply throughout this chapter where tree container sizes are specified. C. Shrubs shall be a minimum five-gallon container size or larger and shall be vigOrous and healthy when planted. Mass shrub planting for area coverage may be a one-gallon container size with a maximum spacing of eighteen inches on center. Flats may be used for ground covers with a maximum spacing of eight inches on center. D. Shrubs and/or ground cover, including turf, shall cover no less than seventy-five percent of the required landscaped area within four years of planting. E. A landscaped area ten feet in width on arterial streets and eight feet in width on collector and local streets as measured from the right-of-way line, shall be installed along said street. The width of the landscape strip may be reduced when, in the opinion of the planning director, the following conditions are met: 1. The total square footage of required landscaped area remains constant; 2. The reduction in the required width is consistent with the purposes of the landscape regulations of this chapter; 3. In the central district (C-B and C-C zone districts) this reduction may include the. planting of street trees only to allow adequate pedestrian access consistent with adjacent development. F. Along street frontages, a tree shall be planted at a ratio of one tree per thirty lineal feet, or portion thereof. Trees may be clustered or grouped to not conflict with required fire lanes, public entrances/exits, and signs provided the minimum tree to frontage ratio is satisfied. A species mix of thirty percent evergreen and seventy percent deciduous shall be maintained. G. Trees shall be required to be planted within parking lots at a minimum ratio of one tree for each six parking spaces, but shall be sufficient to achieve the minimum shading required in paragraph H of this section. The maximum spacing between trees shall not exceed sixty-five feet. H. Trees shall be installed and thereafter maintained throughout the parking area to ensure that it will be shaded based on calculating the canopy area of each tree at fifteen years from a master tree list approved by the planning director. The landscape plan required by Section 17.08.080 shall be drawn to show that the tree canopy will have the potential to attain shading over forty percent of the total area of all parking stalls, loading areas, drive aisles and maneuvering areas. Truck loading docks in front of overhead doors, truck maneuvering and parking areas unconnected to and exclusive Of any required vehicle parking areas, freight yards, and surfaced areas for automobile sales, lumber yards, and vehicle storage are not subject to this shading requirement. I. Buildings with main entrances facing parking lots shall be landscaped with a minimum of one tree for each fifty feet of linear building frontage or portion thereof. Such trees shall be adjacent to the building and may also be credited for parking lot trees if they comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs G and H of this section. Trees may be clustered or grouped to not conflict with required fire lanes, public entrances/exits, and signs provided the minimum tree to building ratio is satisfied. The use of vines and large shrubs is encouraged to enhance the tree planting areas next to the building. J. Of the total number of trees required in the parking area and for the entire project, thirty percent shall be evergreen species. K. In addition to the trees referenced in paragraphs G,-H, and I of this section, trees shall be installed along the property line perimeter, in the required landscape area required by Section 17.58.050N, of drive aisles, parking lots, loading areas and storage areas as a buffer between office, commercial and industrial uses and property zoned for residential uses. Such trees shall be one-hundred percent evergreen species spaced no further apart than twenty feet on center. The minimum tree size shall be a twenty-four inch box container size if the adjacent residential zoned area is all or partially developed, and a fifteen-gallon container size if the adjacent residential zoned area is undeveloped. L. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in compliance with any approved site plan or other project approval prior to final inspection or occupancy. M. Tree planters within the parking lot shall be a minimum of five feet by five feet, outside dimension. Vehicles may overhang into these planters no more than two and one-half feet provided the tree is protected from damage by a vehicle. N. If a drive-thru lane is located adjacent to a public street, an evergreen hedge, a minimum of three feet in height, shall be planted for screening purposes. This hedge shall be located between the drive-thru lane and public street along only that portion of the drive-thru lane that is adjacent to the public street. The planning director may, at his or her discretion, allow the use of a wall, berm, or other similar screen if physical constraints precludes the installation of a hedge. A taller screen may also be required at the discretion of the planning director if such additional height is necessary for adequate screening because of toPographic conditions, proximity to residential areas or other factors that would wan'ant special treatment. O. An eight foot landscape area shall be provided between each building and the drive aisle for multi-family projects using a common driVe aisle with shared access. This requirement shall not apply to any lot less than ten thousand square feet and, that is not part of, or adjacent to multi-family subdivisions or other multi-family projects that existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. (Ord. 4104 § 5, 2003; Ord. 4010 § 1, 2001) 1.40,010 Violation--Penalty. A. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this code, a violation of any provision of this code, or a failure to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code, or counseling, aiding or abetting a violation or failure to comply shall be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor. Any person or entity convicted of an infraction under this cod~where punishment is not otherwise provided in this code, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars for a first violation, one hundred dollars for a second violation within one year, and two hundred fifty dollars for each additional violation within one year. Any person or entity convicted of a misdemeanor under this code where punishment is not otherwise provided in this code, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person or entity shall be guilty ora separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this code is committed, continued, or permitted by any such person or entity and shall be punished accordingly. B. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be, by the city, summarily abated as such, and each day such condition continues shall be deemed a new and separate offense. This code may also be enforced by injunction issued out of the superior court upon the suit of the city or the owner or occupant of any real property affected by such violation or prospective violation. This method of enforcement shall be cumulative and in no way affect the penal provisions hereof. C. The City of Bakersfield shall be entitled to restitution for all expenses incurred enforcing the provisions of this code against any person or entity in violation thereof. (Ord. 3439 § 1, 1992; prior code § 10.07.010) B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM December 6, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ~:f- Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Update on Proposed Zero Emissions Program Since the Committee last met on this issue staff sought input from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) on our proposed zero emissions program. Our letter sent to David Crow has not received a response. Without district support technical aspects such as reduction estimates from various methods that may be used by the program cannot be accurately evaluated. Also, since the last meeting the Council developed voluntary conditions to address the position of the Sierra Club concerning air quality. Although the voluntary condition was agreed to by the developer, the Sierra Club found it unacceptable and indicated their intent to take legal action against the project. I propose the following action be taken to work towards a solution; establish a task force comprised of a representative from the Sierra Club, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Building Industry Association, Kern County Planning and City Staff. The purpose of the task force will be to develop recommendations concerning a zero emissions air quality mitigation program that could potentially be applied to the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Our efforts to resolve this issue on a project by project basis with the Sierra Club has not been successful. Further negotiations, at a minimum should include the SJVAPCD. SCG: Attachment P:\Memos~ero emissions 12-6-04.doc BAKERSFIELD Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director John T. Leonard Stanley C. Grady Building Direct.or Planning Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 September 21, 2004 David Crow San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2700 "M" Street, Suite 275 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Crow: A committee of Bakersfield's City Council has been considering establishment of a program whereby a developer could reduce project related emissions in their entirety. The concept that is being considered is the offsetting of project emissions by paying a pro rata share of the cost for the replacement of equipment with less polluting equipment. This would be mitigation that takes a projects emissions below the District's threshold of 10 tons per year. Not being experienced in air pollution, we feel the need for professional help and we request your assistance. Our initial thoughts are that we ought to inventory what we have and what effects conveding to cleaner equipment would be. We don't know how to go about that in a meaningful and correct way. Perhaps this has been done elsewhere and we could learn from that experience. If it hasn't, we would like to serve as a model for others to follow in working towards cleaner air. Any help you might give would be greatly appreciated. '~elopment Serv~Jrector JH:djl CC: Planning and Development Committee: Vice Mayor David Couch, Chairman Councilmember Sue Benham Councilmember Mike Maggard Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Stanley Grady, Planning Director P:\letters\crow 9-17-04..d0c City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301