HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2004 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, October 11, 2004- 1:00 'p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROIL CALL'
2. ADOPT AUGUST 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. .Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed cell phone tower
ordinance -- Hardisty
B. · Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree manual -- Christensen
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. 'Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding developing a memorial
grove -- Christensen
B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding development of program
El R's -- Grady
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
S:~JOHN\Council Committees\04Planning&Development~p&d04octl 1agenda.doc
" . DRAFT
~ ~ ~x~... Dnvid Oouch, Ohnir
Stnff: John W. $finson Sue Benhnm
For: Alnn Tnndy, OiB/Mnnnger Mike Mnggnrd
AGENDA SUMMAFIY FIEPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OOMMI'FI'EI~ MEETING
Mondny, August '1~, 2004-]:00 p.m.
Oib/Mnnnger's Oonference
]. FIOLL OALL
The meeting wn$ cnlled to order n~ ] :00 p.m.
Present: Ooun¢ilmembers Dnvid Oouch, Ohnir: Sue Benhnm: nnd Mike Mnggnrd
2. ADOPT APFIIL 25, 2004 AGENDA SUMMAFIY REPOFIT
Adopted ns submi~ed.
3. PUBLIO STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. DisCussion nnd Oommi~ee re¢ommendnfions regnrding proposed cell
phone tower ordinnnce
Prin¢ipnl Plnnner ~Jim EEgger~ provided nn overview of the proposed ordinnnce
nnd pertaining process to provide for cnmouflnge of ~owers with mnn m~de trees,
¢10¢k ~owers, bell $~eeples, or other similnr designs ~hnt screen or Conceal the
presence :of the towers.
Committee Chair Couch made a motion to forward the ordinance to the Planning
Commission for hearing. The Committee unanimously approved the motion:
B. Discussion-and Committee recommendation regarding Sierra Club
response to voluntary plan to mitigate development project non-attainment
air quality emissions to zero
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained a Report had been sent
to the 'City Council outlining a voluntary air pollution mitigation program.
Developers could choose to work with the City to include mitigation measures,
such as fleet and other equipment conversions to clean-burning engines, to
balance their project's air pollution impacts to zero. The Council was interested
-in how the Sierra Club would react to this type of program.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D AFT
PLANNING 'AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, August 16, 2004
Page 2
The Sierra Club sent a letter of response, which was included in the Committee
packet.
City Manager Alan Tandy pointed out the letter referred to $1,200 per house and
committing developers to mitigation projects of equivalent value or more.
However, when the idea arose, staff had in mind a ~program to reduce project
emissions to zero in order to reduce pollution. If a developer mitigates the
project's non-attainment emissions to zero, then emissions are zero.
Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding the reference in the letter to $1,200.
He explained the Sierra Club is not suggesting developers pay the fee and also
mitigate emissions to zero; however, the amount of projects chosen to mitigate
the emissions should have at least a value of $1,200 per house.
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained the proposed plan was to
run the model .to get a baseline of emissions from the project and then the
developer would choose from a list of mitigation measures, which would provide
credits to offset the emissions from the project to balance out to Zero.
Committee Chair Couch explained the plan was put forth in order to provide an
opportunity to mitigate a project's emissions to zero, and in exchange get
agreement from the Sierra Club not to bring a lawsuit against the project for air
pollution. The goal is to get cleaner air and it is going to be costly. The City does
not want to spend funds and not get the result of stopping lawsuits on every
project.
Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated if you have a good honest program that does
reduce emissions to zero, it is extremely unlikely that the Sierra Club would bring
lawsuits at least not on air quality.' However, the National Sierra Club will not give
up its option for litigation.
Committee Member Maggard would like to know if the local chapter could ask the
National Sierra Club if there is a set of parameters they could defined whereby
the Sierra Club would make an exception and agree not to bring lawsuits:
City Manager Alan Tandy asked if a residential development of 250 or 500
.houses were used for a sample and an expert were hired to do a calculation to
develop a conversion table (for example one garbage truck conversion equals "x"
amount of houses), could the City develop a template/model in order to reach an
understanding.
Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, expressed he had no doubt that something like that
would work. The proposal to reduce to zero emissions is a wonderful step.
However, he felt the City should be focusing more on how we are going to clean
the air and less on whether the Sierra Club will be filing lawsuits.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT' D AFT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, August 16, 2004
'Page 3
Harry Love, Sierra Club,. expressed they would-be interested in.,Iooking at a
measurable template as discussed :by the City Manager.
The Committee asked staff to get detail on a model and develop a conversion
table for a template/model by the end of the year.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding appeals of
extension of vesting rights - (This 'item .heard first.)
Planning Director Stan Grady gave an overview-of the memorandum in the
Committee packet regarding tentative and final map-processes.
Tentative Vestin.q Map Life. The vesting rights for a map start on the'date 'the
tentative map application is deemed complete' by the Planning Department.
Since the developer controls when each phase is recorded, the vesting rights for
a map can easily last for 8 or 9 years. It is not a fixed time period because it
depends on when each phase is recorded during the life of the tentative tract.
Final Map Recorded. The City's ordinance provides that once the map is final
and.recorded, it starts a clock and the vesting rights to develop last for a period of
one year. The developer may seek an extension of vested rights for another one
year period. This one year extension is discretionary and requires no special
findings.
Public Works Director Raul Rojas explained the Public Works Department is
appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to allow extensions of vesting
rights for two tracts. The ex-tensions of time allow the deVelopers (Castle and
CoOke and Centex Homes) to avoid the 'newly adopted Transportation and Park
Development 'Fees. The difference between the old and new fees is $170,565 in
lost revenue to the City. Also, Mclntosh and Associates is appealing the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny extensions of vesting rights on two other
tracts (Developer - Castle and Cooke). If the Planning Commission's decision is
overturned and the-extensions of time for vesting rights are approved, the loss in
revenue to the City between the old fees and the new Traffic' and Park
Development Fees would be $390,258.
The Public Works Director further explained, Castle and Cooke went through the
Assessment DistriCt Program to fund the public improvements for their new
development. They built all of the improvements in advance. This is good for the
City because everything is in place before the subdivision is built, and it works
equally Well for the developer because they use the financing program. When
Castle and Cooke put in all the improvements, they recorded several maps, but
were not ready to start construction to develop all the maps at one time. When
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D~AFT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 'MEETING
Monday, August 16, 2004
Page 4
the ~maps were recorded, it started the one'Year clock. They are now requesting
the one-year extensions.
Staff -felt these monies are needed and the extensions should not be granted.
Citywide there are several other develo, pments that will be requesting one-year
extensions to be able to develop under the old fee. If the level of activity for
extensions of vesting rights in 2004 is similar to last year's and if extensions of
vesting rights continue to be granted, it is estimated ~the City would give up. '~'
approximately $3.2 million in Transportation and .Park Development fees. As
there is a long .delay due to the complexity of establishing the fees, when new
fees are adopted the City is always in a catch-up position.
Russell Johnson, Centex Homes, sPoke regarding the fees and stated that they
would not have recorded 'the maps had they been aware one-year extensions
would not'be granted.
Committee Chair Couch explained a year or two ago, direction was given to staff
not to give anymore discretionary extensions and asked staff to review the
meeting summaries.
The Public Works Director explained it was commonplace .before the work started
on the new Traffic Impact Fees to .grant vesting extensions. Timelines were
discussed and staff thought they had clear direction not to continue with
discretionary extensions.
Stephan DeBranch, Castle and Cooke, spoke about the fees and he was not
aware the City was changing its policy regarding the discretionary one-year
vesting extension approval, although they attended the Committee meetings
regarding adopting the new Transportation Development Fees.
'Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, spoke about the extension of vesting rights
and they were not aware of the policy change not to grant the bne-year
extensions. Since they have already put 'in the infrastructure including the
arterials, which is of benefit to the City, it seems the City would grant the one-
year extension of vesting rights. If extensions are not granted, developers will
probably not put the infrastructure in place prior to building.
Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh Associates, spoke regarding park development fees
and extensions of vesting rights.
City Manager Alan Tandy explained when the Council was considering the fees,
there was clear direction the fee schedules be developed in such a way that it
would pay for the needed infrastructure. Not granting discretionary vesting
extensions seemed a logical step to ensure the needed money would be
collected.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, August 16, 2004
Page 5
Committee 'Member Maggard wanted on the record for 'discussion if it is
conceivable if we .make exceptions, that we eStablish a date certain by which' the
development community will know after that date, there will be no more
-' ~discretionary extensions.
Public Works Director Raul Rojas expressed if the City makes~exceptions to allow
granting extensions .in some instances for public benefit and not in others, it
becomes subjective and staff would have to evaluate each project and those not
granted extensions would always appeal. Although staff would-rather-not make
exceptions, having a date certain would be easier to administer.
Committee Chair Couch suggested several ideas to ascertain the number of.
recorded maps this would affect in order to forecast the amount of money
involved. With the 'Committee's agreement, he will get together with staff and see
if there is a way to project-the dollars involved without-pulling every permit, or if
there is a tremendous amount of staff time involved, an estimate will be .used.
The Committee asked staff to review the meeting summaries where fee
schedules were discussed .to see if there was clear direction regarding granting
discretionary extensions 'and who was in attendance at the meetings. Aisc,
report back tothe Committee on how other vesting extension requests have been
handled at the Planning Commission 'level.
6. COMMITTEE .COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant
City Manager John Stinson; Development Services. Director Jack Hardisty; Public
Works Director Raul 'Rojas; 'Planning Director Stan Grady; Assistant Public Works
Director Jack LaRochelle; Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Principal
Planner Jim Eggert
Attendance-others: Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh and Associates; Stephan DeBranch
and Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke; Russell Johnson, Centex Homes; James
Burger, The Bakersfield Californian; Gordon Nipp and Harry Love, Sierra Club
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
P:\draftp&d04aug16summar~,doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
Department of Recreation and Parks
Date: 10/8/2004
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: Alan Christensen,.Interim Director of Recreation and Parks
Subject: Introduction of Tree Technical Manual
The Tree Technical Manual 'is the product of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree
Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee. The purpose of this committee as prescribed by the
Urban .Development Committee on September 29, 2000 was to;
"Develop and recommend to local public agencies proposed uniform
standards, polices and regulations for the selection, installation,
maintenance and removal of trees within Metropolitan Bakersfield".
Appointees to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee
were selected to represent the Tree Foundation of Kern; a local non-profit, the
City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks,
and the Kern County Superintendent of Schools.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Tree Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee began meeting
monthly in June 2001 and continued meeting through September 2003. During
this time the committee was presented with and adopted a model document
published by the City of Palo Alto to' fulfill its purpose. Presented to you today is a
modified representation of the original document, personalized for the community
of Bakersfield.
The Tree Technical Manual represents the current standard of professional
practice within the tree care industry. City of Bakersfield Urban Forestry staff has
applied this .standard to it operations since late 2001. The application of this
standard has improved the health and safety of public trees throughout our
community.
Attached is an outline of the contents of the Tree Technical Manual (Exhibit A)
C:\DOCUME~1~JWSTIN~1%OCALS~1\Temp\GWViewer~Tree Manual memo.doc
Paul Graham Page 1 10/8/2004
Exhibit A - Document contents
Sec 1.0 - Definitions
Sec 2.0 - Removals, Replacement & Planting of Trees · Outlines administrative and staff procedures for removal documentation
and public notification
· Discusses applicable removal scenarios, recommended alternatives to
removal and non-hazardous removal requests
· Offers a tree replacement standard for non-hazardous removals
· Specifies ANSI Z60.1 standard for planting stock
· Specifies miscellaneous planting materials, in accordance with PW design
specs.
· Discusses planting site preparation and proper planting technique
Sec 3.0 - Hazardous Trees · Hazardous tree recognition
· Standardized criteria for hazard determination
· Emergency removal conditions
· Hazard reduction and prevention
'Sec 4.0 - Tree Maintenance Standards
· Pruning Standards required for Public Trees, ANSI A300-2001, ANSI
Z133.1-2000, and ISA Best Maintenance Practices
· Pruning Standards recommended for Private Trees, ANSI A300-2001,
ANSI Z133.1-2000, and ISA Best Maintenance Practices
· Pruning Standards required for Utility clearance of Public Trees, ANSI
A300-2001, Sec 5.3 pruning cuts & 5.9 Utility Pruning
· Also discussed; Prohibited practices, Pruning distressed trees, Pruning
young trees, Irrigation of young trees, Insect, disease and fruit control, Fire
protection and Selecting an arborist
Appendices
Street Tree Ordinance BMC 12.40 (Appendix A)
Copy of ISA Hazard Evaluation Form (Appendix B)
ANSI Specifications Reference (Appendix E & F)
Proposed Tree list with horticultural information (Appendix H)
Proposed Tree list with recommended Design uses, incomplete (Appendix I)
C:\DOCUME~l~JWSTIN-l\LOCALS~l\Temp\GWViewer~Tree Manual memo.doc
Paul Graham Page 2 10/8/2004
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 17.59 TO THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to promote the siting of wireless
telecommunication facilities, including towers and antennas, as best. appropriate to
prevent visual and urban blight; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Bakersfield to protect and promote the
public health, safety and welfare by regulating the siting of wireless telecommunication
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
as follows:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 17.59 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as
follows:
~ CHAPTER 17.59
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Section:
17.59.010 Purpose.
17.59.020 Review process.
17.59.030 Development and design standards.
17.59.040 Abandonment and removal.
17.59.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish general guidelines for the siting of wireless
telecommunication facilities, including towers and antennas, in accordance with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended. The goals of this ordinance are to
protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and
antennas, encourage their location in industrial and commercial areas, encourage the
joint use of new and existing facilities, encourage users to configure said facilities in a
way that minimizes the adverse visual, impacts, and consider the public health and
safety in the siting and use of said facilities. In furtherance of these goals, the City of
Bakersfield shall give due consideration to the general plan, zoning of existing land
uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of wireless
telecommunication facilities.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication-Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 1 of 8 Pages --
17.59.020 Review process.
A. All wireless telecommunication facilities, including antennas, towers,
mounted poles, and satellite dishes shall be subject to review as follows:
1. Exemptions. The following installations are exempt from the
provisions of this chapter:
(a) The installation of one (1) ground mounted satellite dish
antenna for the private, personal use of the occupants of a
dwelling, which is less than 10 feet in diameter and less than
15 feet in height and complies with all applicable accessory
structure setbacks.
(b) One satellite dish antenna for the private, personal use of
the occupants of a dwelling, which is less than 24 inches in
diameter installed on a building providing that such antenna
does not extend.above the roofline of said building.
(c) One single-pole, tower roof, or ground mounted television, or
amateur radio antenna for the private, personal use of the
occupants of a dwelling provided said antenna is no more
than 65 feet in height from grade and complies with all
applicable accessory structure setbacks.
B. Planning Director Review. The following shall be reviewed by the
Planning Director or designee, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall include with their plans all drawings, renderings,
photographs and other necessary documents that clearly shows how the
proposed facilities will meet the required development standards.
1. Antennas mounted on a building or rooftop and that are screened
from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent
residentially zoned or designated properties.
2. Antennas architecturally integrated within a building or structure or
concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as clock
towers, carillon towers, flagpoles, and steeples. These antennas
may be permitted in any zone district.
3. Antennas mounted on other existing structures including, but not
limited to, water tanks, pump stations, utility poles, ball field lighting
where the antenna height does not exceed the structure height nor
project more than 18 inches from the structure. The antennas shall
also be painted to match the color of the building or structure,
and/or be covered or architecturally screened with materials using
the latest stealth design features. These antennas may be
permitted in any zone district.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication. Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 2 of 8 Pages --
DRAFT
4. Antennas mounted on existing electrical transmission towers in any
zone district where the antenna height is no more than 10 feet
above the height of the tower, the antenna blends with the.
architectural design of the tower, and the utility company has given
written permission for such co-location.
5. Co-location of new equipment on an existing legally approved
antenna or tower that blends with the architectural design of the
existing facility and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
6. Modification of existing telecommunications facilities that existed
prior to the effective date of this ordinance where the physical area
of the reconfigured or altered antenna does not exceed 25 percent
of the original approval, blends with the architectural design of the
existing facility, and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
7. Stand-alone monopole camouflaged as a palm tree, pine tree or
other natural object.
8. Stand-alone slim-line monopole with flush-mounted vertical
antennas employing the latest stealth design features. A slim-line
monopole shall measure no more than 24 inches in diameter at the
base that tapers smaller toward the top. The maximum distance of
antenna arrays projecting from the pole shall not exceed 18 inches.
C. Board of Zoning Adjustment Review. The following shall be reviewed by
the Board of Zoning Adjustment, subject to a Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with Chapter 17.64. The applicant shall include with their
plans all drawings, renderings, photographs and other necessary
documents that clearly shows how the proposed facilities will meet the
required development standards.
1. Facilities that do not meet the requirements of Section 17.59.020 B.
or the development standards in Section 17.59.040.
2. New uncamouflaged monopoles.
3. All other wireless communication facilities, including lattice towers.
4. Placement of a commercial antenna or satellite dish antenna on
any building not screened from view from all adjacent public rights-
of-way and adjacent residentially zoned or designated properties.
5. On property zoned or designated residential, residential suburban,
agricultural, or open space unless otherwise provided by this
chapter.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication-Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 3 of 8 Pages -,-
DRAFT
17.59.020 Development and Design Standards.
A. Minimum setbacks of any antenna or tower, including equipment and
equipment buildings, shall be as follows:
1. 50 feet from the property line abutting any public or private street.
2. Where the property line separates the lot from an adjacent lot
zoned or designated residential, 50 feet for camouflaged and slim-
lined monopoles, 300 feet for uncamouflaged monopoles and
lattice towers, and 20 feet for equipment buildings.
3. All other setbacks of the z~)ne district in which the facilities are
located shall apply, except that no rear yard setback shall apply to
commercial or industrial zone districts adjacent to same.
B. The maximum height of an antenna or tower, including equipment and
equipment buildings, shall be as follows:
1. 65 feet or no more than 20% above the existing height of adjacent
natural objects, whichever is less, for stand-alone monopoles on
property zoned or designated residential, residential suburban,
agricultural, or open space.
2. 120 feet or no more than 20% of the existing height of adjacent
natural objects, whichever is less, for stand-alone monopoles on
property zoned or designated commercial or industrial.
3.If the antenna or tower is mounted on a roof, no taller than 15 feet
or 20% of the building height, whichever is less.
4. Equipment buildings shall not exceed a height of 12 feet and an
area of 750 square feet.
C. Associated equipment shall be within a completely enclosed building. Use
of underground vaults, landscaping, or other camouflaging completely
screening equipment is encouraged and may be considered by the
approving authority in lieu of a building. Buildings shall be painted similar
non-reflective colors as the antenna or tower structure, and blend with the
surrounding area. If security fencing is used, it shall be wrought iron or
similar decorative material. Chain-link fencing may only be used if
screened with landscaping that is installed and maintained in accordance
with Chapter 17.61. Trees may be required by the approving authority
when deemed necessary to ensure compatibility with the surrounding
area. Use of barbed or razor wire is prohibited.
D. If security lighting is provided, it shall be directed downward and shielded
to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication-Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 4 of 8 Pages --
DRAFT
E. Signs and advertisement are prohibited, except required informational
signs for public safety Jn accordance with the area limitations of SeotJon
17.60.080 F.
F. The antenna shall be located to assure visual compatibility with
surrounding development and not adversely impact area land uses. Guy
wires are prohibited.
G. If an antenna is attached or integrated into a building, it shall be painted to
match the color of the building and/or covered with similar materials and
use the latest stealth design features.
H. Non-reflective colors shall be used for all equipment shelters, poles,
towers, antennas and supporting structures. If not camouflaged, antenna
and monopoles shall be a single color such as off-white, cream, beige,
light green, or gray.
I. Antenna structures shall conform to Federal Aviation Administration
regulation AC70/7460 latest edition. This may include beacons, sidelights
and/or strobes.
J. The operation of the antenna shall not cause interference with .any
electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods such as television,
radio, telephone, computer, inclusive of any public safety radio system,
911 emergency system, etc., unless exempted by Federal regulation.
K. Uncamouflaged and slim-lined monopoles, and lattice structures shall be
located no closer than 500 feet apart. Co-location is encouraged to
minimize the number of antennas and towers in an area.
L. Facilities shall be maintained in good condition and a proper state of
preservation at all times. They shall be operational and present a
satisfactory appearance in regard to their original approval such as
painting, material screening, camouflage, landscaping, or anything
deemed to the appearance of the overall facility.
17.59.030 Abandonment and removal.
Any wireless telecommunication facility, including antennas, towers and satellite dish
antennas, that are not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, shall be
considered abandoned and the owner of such facility, or the property owner of the
facility site shall remove the same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the
City notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned facility
within said ninety (90) days shall be grounds to declare it a public nuisance and to
cause such to be removed at said owner's or property owner's expense. This section
shall not limit the City's remedies and City shall have all remedies available at law or
equity.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication-Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 5 of 8 Pages --
SEOTION 2.
Section 17.04.045 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as
follows:
"Antenna" means any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on the
ground, tower, building or structure and used in communications that radiate or capture
electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies (excluding
radar signals), wireless telecommunication signals or other communication signals.
SECTION 3.
Section 17.04.128 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as
follows:
"Camouflage" means man made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles
and other similar alternative design of mounting structures that completely screen or
conceal the presence of antennas or towers in an effective manner.
SECTION 4.
Section 17.04.322 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as
follows:
"Height" means the vertical, distance measured from the finished grade of the
parcel to the highest point of a building, tower or other structure, including the base pad.
SECTION 5.
Chapter 17.04.618 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as
follows:
"Tower" means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the
purpose of supporting one or more antennas for telephone, radio, television and similar
communications purposes. The term includes radio and television transmission towers,
microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, alternative tower
structures, and the like. The term includes the structure and any support thereto.
SECTION 6.
Subsection H of Section 17.08.070 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
H. Wireless telecommunication facilities.
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication. Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 6 of 8 Pages --
DRAFT
SECTION 7.
Subsection B of Section 17.08.110 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Flagpoles, public utility poles and lines, chimneys and smokestacks may extend
not more than 30 feet above the height limit provided in this title; provided, that the
same may be safely erected and maintained at such height in view of the surrounding
conditions and circumstances. Wireless telecommunication facilities, including
antennas, satellite dish antennas, and towers shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 17.59.
SECTION 8.
Subsection B of Section 17.25.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby
repealed.
This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal
Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
......... o0o .........
P:\ORD_CEQA\WirelesSTelecommunication. Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 7 of 8 Pages --
DRAFT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By:
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
ALAN D. DANIEL
Deputy City Attorney
ADD:dll
P:\OR D_CEQA\WirelessTelecommunication-Revised.doc
October 1, 2004
-- Page 8 of 8 Pages --
TREES PLANTED
BY VOLUNTEERS -. ' ~.
' i ON ~
SINCE 1994 TREE FOUNDA
' , -' O 'F K '[ R N. - " -
( . \ '.,,
Board of Directors'To!John Stinson '
John Moorhouse ' ~..
President 'From: Dana~Kar.cher-. .... .'
K,Aths.~.~ -. September @, 2004- ~ ~
Matt Pontes . ' .
Vice President Re: Commemorative/Memorial Groves -.
s~,h~n~,~,;=~The act.of planting trees brings communities together. PUtting -
Secretary - _
cou,~,o,<~ those trees into one space,' a commemorative grove~.for example,
would allow an. area for cel0bration, mourning and' healing: ^ .-.
Linda Robin,~on .
.rrea~re~. - , memorial grovb honors the life.of loved'ones whether they be living
.' ChevronTexaco - . '
· or deCOased.'Nurturing other living things is'soothing and healing.
"~"~'re'~"'nt'~e~,'~. That is the general principle behind memorial, groves.
~oun.. - , ·
Health Se~ices~ . . . . · . ' '
Ka, r~.,~n0 -There are a..number of con~iderati6ns whi~n planning a
Technica'lCommittee CommemoratiVe grove. What is the viSion of those' involved? What
F-ore~ Ret.
; Js the. long term plan? How does our community identity {it into the
· Jeann~i Fey
· E~ucationCornmittea. grove? It is,more that. planting trees and shrubs. The following ..
· ~,o~co,~o ~ briefly addresSes some'of-the processes and challenges that~ariSe
Linda Martinez 'r , . · ,
MarketingCornmittee ',when developing a .project suCh as' this. · Planning includes the ·
·~ '~'~'~*°~'~ following consideratiOns:, . -'Formation of WorkJ. ng Groups, Design,
Cky of Bakersrmld Liaison. - , , ·
. ~ . Implementation; Budgetary Considerations, Long term maintenance
' Sue Benham ' ' ' ' *, ' ' ' '*
/ ,Councilmember
'Executi~e'Director- W.,orking.Groups · ,·
Dana Karcher.. .
' Taxldentificati°n'Numb~r· MuniCipalities may make the choice t° facilitate the implementation
77-0359397.
of' commemorative grOves.~ .However, 'those.that'are most
~uccesS~ul in the long term are .those that have citizen-based"
participation in Design and' Planning,.',lmplementat'ibn arid ".
~ Maintenance., '.: ,
.. -:.-With planning, and' desig0ingl citizens maY feel.strongly about.
inCluding (or not) certain elements. LandscaPe Architects and
· - ~'~, Certified Arbdrists ,are most qualified to bring,the design to paper.
'H~wever, buy in to the. project and tr~.ly making'it a community "
~ro,~,asa/~,o.,' ~ effort.must involve the input of.citizens: That input Comes with.the
· . to prosper as a state, / ' ..: ~ ..
0r~,~ea, a~t~e ·understanding· that not all elements m~[y be poSsible. But long term'
w.,,,,sta,~avo~,~" support far outweighs the short term consequences of Possible
· .'Th~o,. ~oo~.w,design disagreementsl ~The suPport serves asthe base for ~possible
.. fund i'aiSing, efforts.and long .term maintenance,bY vOlunteers .
~ '. / '.: ~., ...
- f[6611325'665~ 2300'~rRUXTUN' " " 'www. ur-on'orest.6rgAVENOE I SUITEb t 207 I BAKERSFIELD,, , CA 953011 ,-,
DeSign Elements. '" . . .
' When working with a project such as this,'.budgetary ConsideraiionS'may'dictate'.
the look and feel of the grove. However, projecting what is really desired' by the
-. community is 'important... Hdw'iS the plan is~ reflective of what ,the.community
WantS,. needs or fits into the 'overall develOpment process for Bakersfield? Other'
qUestions to ask: ,. " - · .. '"
Will the setting be peaceful? 'How will that be achieve~l by plant selection? What
~- are the'sensory elements? How de the'visual ~lements. fit in? 'Whal~ are the'
- environmental, considerations for. the site? What hardscape is necessary.or
'desired? What_. about'the maintenance facilities and how do they fit in? How can
-: . the site fit al'l human needs inCluding those wh° have phYsical limitations? Can .
· the.site be used for educational pUrposes?' * '..
- When deSigningl keepir~g, long term ease of maintenance in mired is imPOrtant.
Young trees can. be managed .by'trained'v01unteers for usuallY-up to seven years '
after planting. But larger trees, require ama. intenance plan. Whose resPo~nsibility
, does that become in a community partnership? Who is responsible for planting
the-trees in f~uture? Who is responsib, le for the continuity of tl'le ,gro. ve?.
implementation -
'- After planningl implementation of the program is very important.. With the help of '-
vo.!unteers, .implementation (planting. and landscapihg)., helps, with costs and '
creates o. wnership. That leads t° on going financial and volunteer Support.'.." "
Implementation will_also allow for group support. For example, if annuals and
- perennials .will be Part of the landscape,, then.the Green. Thumb Garden 'club
'.' Should be invOlved from the, beginning. The ongoing''managem,ent'' 'of a
,...-memorial/commemorative program 'is also part of the implementation..
Determinations-of who.,will .collect 'th~ funds for-plantings, who will 'manage the
' events, are an important componeht of this project-phase. '-
,, ~Budgetary Considerations' ' '
.._ Money comes into play at the beginning.of any project such as this. Planning for
lo, rig and. short rang, e icost efficiency beCOmes a priority. Public/Private.
~ part.ne~rShips allow for more access to funds and allows literal'community buy in.
_., 'Funding Ssurces Vary but the'follo..w, ing are Some immediate considerationS:·
· Prop 1-2 Urban Forestry Grants'(2, maybe 3 more CycleS)'-
/.
· Prop 40 Urban Forestry Maintenance and Infrastructure.. funding
· National Tree Trust Grants
· .Community Garden Grants. '"
· Community Fundraising (on,going) ' , "
: ,. o '.Dedicated'Gal:den Sites -, ~' .,. "--
o D~dicated Trees . ., ~. '..
'- o Dedicated Benches .....
.. o Dedicated PublicArt
Long Term Maintenance
Lohg term maintenance~ should be ~addressed in.."the deSign' phase.-
Remembering that this is nature, .and natur$ takes its own course, should be_the
over arching.theme of a Project such as this.' Many partners could be brought in
'at'the beginning and over time, thoy may change:.~ Keep .the partners involved
and interested is always ~he difficult aspect of lo, ny term maintenance.' .There are'
Memorial Groves at Hart Pa~'k.: N° ~one knoWS who planted them and'they have
not b.een.maintained for years, plans need Continuity .~, .- ,...
Attached you will find so~rhe.:examples' from' other. Communities Wh0'haCe-had
~. '.', sUccess ~n,varying.ways With M~morial/Commemorative groves. ~ The good news
iS.that we do not have to reinvent the wheel to get a project such as thiS0ff the
ground.' It takes a great deal of Work and planning, or it will end.up like one of ti~'e
" groves ~n Hart Pai~k! ', ~- .-'
\.
-'. 'Memorial and/or CommemorativeGroveProjectsfrom OtherCities ' ,
~. City. -~ Ownership.' ..Park '# of Funding SoUrces '.People In~olvedl Notes
'Size'. Trees, %Voluhteers : ..
San LuiS '" City. 375 .1500,, Parks Department _ ' City' Staff,~ 4, Volunteers.. Majority o.f planting done
Obi.Spo, CA · .. ~cres" Trees'am $300 and include. 90% Vdlunteer'on Arbor Day on Arbor. Day, natural
': setting, paths and small
. , , .- ~ .. ., , . piaque (cost,.. v,c°vers planting " .. ,., : seating area
.... ' and,main~-nan~e~ ' ' ' ' '
Freehold , City ,~. 45 ~101.-~00 , . Partner_ship between citY and Staff and .Volunteers,. 10 -20 Part of ari existing
· To,wnship, NJ acres non profit.' . ' 25% -50% Arboret0m with an.
· ' .' " '" ' education component
!Portland/OR . City- 1.5 501-1.000, Partnership between city.and . Staff and Volunteers, over 100 This project gave .
· acres non profit 75% - 99% . · "Friends of Trees" a '
.~ - ', ' ' · location fo'r their ~lready.
~ " ' · '" existing memorial tree
f .. ' ' ' .. " " program
Manalapan,. City - ~ 2 acres 18 - 20 · Private ~ '. Volunteers Part of an unfinished .
NJ .'. , f, : ' '." More that i00 ." Arboretu. m,' more trees
' -. · '~' .and size will gi'ow as
r '" " " "' ~in.-ea-,,~...,..., ·
,
shreveportl ' City 1:acres .1'1 -20 , Private.. ., Volunteers - .' .Liberty Garden Project
Nacogdoches, City... - - 25 acres Over 30'0 Public and Private. Staff and,Volunteer (KeeP -' Liberty Garden-P,roject ,
TX-.. , . ' - Nacogd0clies Beautiful).. and dedicated to the-
' ". Space Shuttle accident
San - ' City 7.5,acres ?-.' Private (Non Profit"National ' 2~Staff of the non profit ,, The Non Profit has a 99
F~rancisco, CA " . AIDS Memorial Grove ~ Volunteer Board 'year.maintenance'.
' .- ~' .Fou..ndati0n") ~ Volun{eer Maintenance (parti~al) agreement with the City
':" .". " . · ('[.hey fbnd raise for large pi'ejects) 'of San Francisco '
'Austi..n, TX .. City ~·.Varies .'Varies- :. pay for service fees ($125) -. StaffNolunteer$ Works with a non-profit
..... "· ' City Maintenance ."For the Lov~ of Christi"_.,
· ~ ' ° that supports.Putting in- a
I' ~ . . . . 'new grove'~every year" '
.... ~. · - ' ' , .. ' '.- throu,.gh the City Tree '
· ·- " .- '. Division
t