Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Meeting Date l Z-//Z.,/0 5' Committee You are invited to address the Committee under Public .Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majodty vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: .Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~)~4. ~C~~ Company/ Organization: ~'"r~,~, .~0-/,~.,~ ~,~'/O"~'L .~ ~~, Phone: ~' ~ ~ F~e-mail: ~ I'n~ ~ Company/ ', Organization: ~/~'~'~5~/~,'~ ~,~ ~ T' Company/ "~t'h~ ~-~ l/~ r, ,.',, ('-,~ t',, ¢ L.~I'~__ ~"~ Organization: ~/-'~. ~ ( _ ~ Phone: ~- ~ 209 F~e-mail:, PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date !~/t ~/~' You are invited to address the Committee under Public .Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda, Public statements are ,limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: Phone: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD , Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: "',,~/~]d'/'~'/~'- Company/ Organization: '~,~/~/~'7~..5/5://~-"7_/~ ~D'J~,~-/'J~./~;i'~-z~-- Address: .~,0, ~;~O.Y.' (/Z~. ~]',~f,//'~J . / / PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Plannin,q and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: From: John W. Stinson To: Maggard, Michael Date: 12/8/2005 11:13:58 AM Subject: RE: Planning & Development meeting next Monday Mike, I spoke with Mr. Hollis after'he spoke at the Council meeting and I let him know that there was a December P&D meeting but that it was likely his item might not be on the agenda since there were other items already before the Committee. I told him that the January meeting was more likely. He seemed ok with that, he said it would probably work out better for him since he works out of town during the week, so he would have more time to plan around his work schedule to attend the meeting. It was my idea to try and move this along and possibly add this item to Monday's agenda... (neither Mr. Hollis or anyone else has called asking about when the item will be discussed.) I have made a call to his cell phone and left a message and have e-mailed him to confirm my previous discussion with him. If I don't hear back from him today that he wants to attend Monday's meeting I recommend we defer the item to the January meeting since we need to publish the agenda. >>> "Michael Maggard" <mike@mikemaggard.com> 12/8/2005 9:46 AM >>> I am ok, as long as the constituent is ok. Have you already told Mr. Hollis is issue will be heard on Monday? If not, then I don't think it will be a big deal to change it, but he may have already met with many of his neighbors. This is a VERY active neighborhood. I believe you have contact information from the meeting. Can you please call him and let him know the date we will be able to hear it (I hope in January)? Can you let me know what he says? Thanks. ps - Sue - sorry I missed your call yesterday. Please let me know if I should still call. ..... Original Message ..... From: John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity, us] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:14 PM To: mike @ m ikemaggard.com Subject: Planning & Development meeting next Monday Mike, I know we have been playing phone tag so I thought I would try this. Next Monday is a Planning and Development Committee meeting. There is a fairly full agenda planned, (including a closed session item re. legal/planning issues, the memorial grove project, and the General Plan update item)however, I mentioned the potential to have on the item re. changing Paladino from an arterial to a collector street (it was referred at last week's Council .meeting based on comments made by Mr. Steve Hollis) in next monday's agenda. Sue asked that I check with you to see if there was any reason this had to go on' Mondays meeting versus waiting until our January meeting due to the crowded agenda. What is your preference? Thanks CC: Benham, Sue From: Ginny Gennaro To: Amber Lawrence; Jean Parks Date: 10/14/2005 2:26:13 PM Subject: Planning & Develop FYl...Whenever the issue of streamlining GPA/ZC issues (recent referrral from Councilmember CoOuch) is scheduled for Planning & Development, pis let me know because the Committee needs to go into closed session-- which needs to be on the agenda--before the item is discussed in open session. Thanks WARNING/CONFIDENTIAL: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return the message to us via return e-mail immediately and delete the message and reply message from your system. Thank you. CC: Alan Tandy; Delores Oldham; John W. Stinson From: Ginny Gennaro To: Amber Lawrence; Jean Parks Date: 10/14/2005 2:26:13 PM Subject: Planning & Develop FYl...Whenever the issue of streamlining GPA/ZC issues (recent referrral from Councilmember CoOuch) is scheduled for Planning & Development, pis let me know because the Committee needs to go into closed session-- which needs to be on the agenda--before the item is discussed in open session. Thanks WARNING/CONFIDENTIAL: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return the message to us via return e-mail immediately and delete the message and reply message from your system. Thank you. CC: Alan Tandy;. Delores Oldham; John W. Stinson Page 1 of 1 ~' Refe spl Y rral Di a ,o: ~ ............. ·, Ref001294 . Requester: IDavid Couch ' ..... ':"'~ Ward: ICity Wide ~ Referral Created: Re,. Completion Date: ~10,20,2.005 D Meeting: ~'!0,12(2005 D · Short Description: ~.~ ~--------~ iG~A.S~REAM~[~.iN~ Long Description: ***REFERRAL TO P~NNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE*** COUNClLMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED THE COMMITTEE ADDRESS THE INTERNAL GENE~L PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE AND WAYS OF Attachment ~TREAMLINING THE PROCESS. Attachment Attachment  koad: ~ Assigned 1o: Response? ~ m/ (~) lur~a~ D°v°l°~m~nt Comm' Reassigned 1o: Response? Optional Citizen Con.ct Information Name: Name: I I Address: Address: ~ t I I Phone: Phone: i I http://ew~rk/escripts/eweb.d~~/ef~~derf~rmc~ntents?F~~der~D=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... 10/14/2005 B A K E R S F I E L D F,'_iT ,~'!?_00~ ~ i October 31, 2005 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: James D. Movius, Planning Director ~ SUBJECT: General Plan Update This memorandum is in response to questions you raised regarding the type of general plan update we completed in 2002, the need for a new update, and the forms it could take. 2002 Update · What we did: - Updated plan to reflect development environment since 1990, incorporated 2020 visioning, recognized fees/programs put into place and updated chapters · Why we did it: - Over 10 years since 2010 plan had been adopted - Things changed, many goals had been accomplished · Who was involved/resources used: - City and County staffs along with consulting firm · How long/cost: 3 years - substantial staff cost, much of work done in-house $130,000 consulting fees · What we didn't do: Mapping changes were not part of the process Significant policy changes did not occur Implementation measures were not changed · Advantages of doing it that way: Used 2020 as public outreach component and basis for relevant policy updates No mapping changes made it faster, less controversial No fundamental changes to policies equals less controversy · Disadvantages of doing it that way: Mapping/development policies did not go far enough into future for current growth rate Alan Tandy, City Manager October 17, 2005 Page 2 Why update our plan four years later? · Unprecedented growth rate: We have outgrown our urban land use designations and base assumptions Major issues are addressed on project by project level (air quality, agricultural land conversion, water supply, sewer capacity, transportation impacts, densification, mixed use). ' - Change in County policy regarding sewer service CEQA document out of date - Increased public interest in how we are growing Approach A (Excludes assigning land use designations) · Technical: - Review and "refresh" all elements as necessary - Identify specific elements (land use, circulation, conservation) for more intensive update of goals, policies and implementation measures · Goals: - Clearly communicate the extent of urbanization projected under the general plan (to GP boundary) Address hot button issues such as agricultural land conversion, air quality and "smart growth" Update base data assumptions Provide new EIR to address cumulative impacts Complete a public "visioning" process · Advantages: Communicates long range goals/vision to public and development community Provide up to date environmental document Allows public input into Bakersfield's future Ability to use 2020 visioning again · Disadvantages: Time consuming (3-4 years) Lack of staff (would require one principal planner position full time in Planning, affects · other departments as well) Consultant needs (RFP process) Costly ($500,000 - 700,000) Would not reduce number of GPA applications Approach B (Comprehensive includes assigning land use designations) Same as above except add mapping component. Assign land use designations to all property · Advantages: Lets community know specific expectations regarding land use. - Would reduce number of GPA applications Alan Tandy, City Manager · - October 17, 2005 Page 3 · Disadvantages: Very time consuming (4-6 years) Very costly (1 million) More controversial More staff needed Note: Costs/timelines do not include development of related programs such as impact fees, ag preservation, form based zoning. CC: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director Ted James, Kern County Planning Director S:~005 GP Update~T memo 10-20,doc B A K E R S F I E L D i ~['"~? ?!~005 MEMORANDUM ..... ' ......... " ...... October 31, 2005 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: James D. Movius, Planning Director ~ SUBJECT: General Plan Update This memorandum is in response to questions you raised regarding the type of general plan update we completed in 2002, the need for a new update, and the forms it could take. 2002 Update · What we did: - Updated plan to reflect development environment since 1990, incorporated 2020 visioning, recognized fees/programs put into place and updated chapters · Why we did it: Over 10 years since 2010 plan had been adopted Things changed, many goals had been accomplished · Who was involved/resources used: - City and County staffs along with consulting firm · How long/cost: - 3 years - substantial staff cost, much of work done in-house - $130,000 consulting fees · What we didn't do: - Mapping changes were not part of the process Significant policy changes did not occur Implementation measures were not changed · Advantages of doing it that way: Used 2020 as public outreach component and basis for relevant policy updates No mapping changes made it faster, less controversial No fundamental changes to policies equals less controversy Disadvantages of doing it that way: Mapping/development policies did not go far enough into future for current growth rate Alan Tandy, City Manager October 17, 2005 Page 2 Why update our plan four years later? · Unprecedented growth rate: - We have outgrown our urban land use designations and base assumptions - Major issues are addressed on project by project level (air quality, agricultural land conversion, water supply, sewer capacity, transportation impacts, densification, mixed use). - Change in County policy regarding sewer service - CEQA document out of date - Increased public interest in how we are growing Approach A (Excludes assigning land use designations) · Technical: Review and "refresh" all elements as necessary Identify specific elements (land use, circulation, conservation) for more intensive update of goals, policies and implementation measures · Goals: Clearly communicate the extent of urbanization projected under the general plan (to GP boundary) Address hot button issues such as agricultural land conversion, air quality and "smart growth" Update base data assumptions - Provide new EIR to address cumulative impacts - Complete a public "visioning" process · Advantages: - Communicates long range goals/vision to public and development community - Provide up to date environmental document - Allows public input into Bakersfield's future - Ability to use 2020 visioning again · Disadvantages: Time consuming (3-4 years) Lack of staff (would require one principal planner position full time in Planning, affects . other departments as well) - Consultant needs (RFP process) - Costly ($500,000 - 700,000) - Would not reduce number of GPA applications Approach B (Comprehensive includes assigning land use designations) Same as above except add mapping component. Assign land use designations to all property · Advantages: - Lets community know specific expectations regarding land use. Would reduce number of GPA applications Alan Tandy, City Manager October 17, 2005 Page 3 · Disadvantages: Very time consuming (4-6 years) Very costly (1 million) More controversial More staff needed Note: Costs/timelines do not include development of related programs such as impact fees, ag preservation, form based zoning. CC: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director Ted James, Kern County Planning Director S:~2005 GP Update~AT memo 10-20.doc PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Partia~ Transcript October 10, 2005 Committee Member Couch requested Assistant City Manager John Stinson to flag this part of the tape because he wanted some of this part on record and he wanted a transcript of the following: Committee Member Couch: Was the BIA noticed of this meeting as they usually are of our regular meetings? Assistant City Manager Stinson: To my understanding, yes. Committee Member Couch: Okay. We have been the subject of some anonymous e-mails that have accused us of takings of property without just compensation, simply by referring to the Planning Commission the issue of setbacks up in the northeast. So, I would like an opinion from the City Attorney. It would probably be about a sentence long that would answer this question. Is what we are considering here a taking without compensation by the City, would it constitute that? And, have we received, there's been Planning Commission hearings on this--that's what we have, a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Have we received any opposition on the record either verbally Or written to what's proposed? You do not have to respond right now, you can respond later. Planning Director Movius: I can resPond right now. The answer is no. Committee Member Couch: If you could respond in writing, too, that would be great. Planning Director Movius: Yes, I think we put some of that in here. We even held a last committee meeting and just inVited the BIA, and they did not show. Committee Chair Benham: You might want to include that in there. Committee Member Couch: Who did you invite there? Planning Director Movius: Through Brian Todd. Committee Member Couch: Okay. So, you invited just the executive director or did you invite their board? Planning Director Movius: Well, we extended the invitation to those folks. I don't know who the makeup is on the specific board. They have a legislative and finance, but we invited through the BIA, so they invited the proper people. Committee Chair Couch: Okay. If you could provide me with the dates you did that, it would be helpful. Thank you. -- .. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Partia~ Transcript October 10, 2005 Committee Member Couch requested Assistant City Manager John Stinson to flag this part of the tape because he wanted some of this part on record and he wanted a transcript of the following: Committee Member Couch: Was the BIA noticed of this meeting as they usually are of our regular meetings? Assistant City Manager Stinson: To my understanding, yes. Committee Member Couch: Okay. We have been the subject of some anonymous e-mails that have accused us 'of takings of property without just compensation, simply by referring to the Planning Commission the issue of setbacks up in the northeast. So, I would like an opinion from the City Attorney. It would probably be about a sentence long that would answer this question. Is what we are considering here a taking without compensation by the City, would it constitute that? And, have we received, there's been Planning Commission hearings on thismthat's what we have, a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Have we received any opposition on the record either verbally or ,written to what's proposed? You do not have to respond right now, you 'can respond later. 'Planning Director Movius: I can respond right now. The answer is no. Committee Member Couch: If you could respond in writing, too, that would-be great. Planning Director Movius: Yes, I think we put some of that in here. We even held a last committee meeting and just invited the BIA, and they did not show. Committee Chair Benham: You might want to include that in there. Committee Member Couch: Who did you invite there? Planning Director Movius: Through Brian Todd. Committee Member Couch: Okay. So, you invited just the executive director or did you invite their board? Planning Director Movius: Well, we extended the invitation to those folks. I don't know who the makeup is on the specific board. They have a legislative and finance, but we invited through the BIA, so they invited the proper people. Committee Chair Couch: Okay. If you could provide me with the dates you did that, it would be helpful. Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: September 28, 2005 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar Hearings ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVE~,D-h FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: September 23, 2005 CITY A'R'ORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Hearing.. to consider Resolution ordering the vacation of "O" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17"' Street. (Ward 2) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2004 the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) issued a Solicitation for Offers for office space in Bakersfield, to locate the U.S. District Courts (including Magistrate, Probation, and Pretrial) and U.S. Marshals Service. The GSA would like to lease approximately 30,000 square feet of space with secured parking spaces to facilitate a Federal Courthouse. TACT Development LLC has submitted one project proposal to GSA to construct the facility, which would require vacation of a street and alley. However, the vacation of this street and alley will be contingent upon the General Services Administration (GSA) awarding the contract to TACT Development for the development of the Federal Courthouse project. The-vacation request has been protested by neighboring property owners. It is our policy not to approve vacations when there is a protest. Because notice of this public hearing has been duly advertised and posted as required by law, staff recommends the hearing go forward as planned. .However, due to new GSA project requirements and impacted Property owners protests staff is recommending referral to the Planning and Development Committee. September 23, 2005, 11:35AM S:~dmin Rpts~2005~O st vacation Admin(2) 092805.doc Page 1 of 1 Referral Display .................. Requester: ]David Couch ~ Ward: ! ................. '~':. Referral Created: Req. Completion Date: ~ii~ Mo~ting: ~i.~ Initial Referral Information Short Description: 7th Standard Design Standards Long Description: ***SPECIAL REFERRAL TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE*** AT THE JOINT CITy/SHAFTER MEETING COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REFERRED !!?'! il 'TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THE ESTABLISHMENT ',:~ ;;~ Attachment A OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR 7TH STANDARD ROAD. HE ADDITIONALLY SUGGESTED THAT BOTH CITY'S STAFFS DISCUSS WITH THE GOAL OF DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF THE SAME STANDARDS BY BOTH CITIES. i: Attachment B ~':;' :;; Attachment C ^ttachmont Lead: -'t Assigned To: Response? ~ R1 ~l..r,~.a,~.~,e..v_e~l.[,.o...p.~,~_m.,._m.~: ............... i ~Reassigned To:Response? Optional Citizen Contact Information Name: Name: ^ddross: ^ddr~ss: ~hoao: ~hon~: htt`P://~w~rE/~scripts/~w~b~d~~/~f~ld~r£~rmc~nt~nts?F~~d~rID=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... 9/16/2005 I¢ I PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Return to September 10th meeting with report on the solar conference From: Jean Parks To: David Couch Date: 8/19/2005 1:18:50 PM Subject: Requested memo attached David' Attached is the memo you requested regarding a joint planning commission. I put a copy of the item from the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting on top of the memo because it shows Committee action an why. Let us know if this is not the memo you had in mind. Jean AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 3 Committee Chair Couch wanted to add the issue of allowing smaller two or three acre parks and requested staff to explore the issue of maintenance of the smaller parks becoming the responsibility of homeowner associations. City Manager Alan Tandy suggested staff meet with the different interested parties to define the scope of consideration and direction before this issue goes before the Planning Commission for their review. The Committee unanimously referred the issue to staff. Staff will meet with the interested parties, including NOR Parks and Recreation, developers and the BIA and report back to the Committee by the end of the year if possible. B, Discussion and COmmittee recommendation regarding Zoning Process - Big Box Centers Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained the City can regulate commercial use based on size or impact on land use planning, but cannot have regulations that relate to certain businesses by name, such as 'q'arget." Committee Chair Couch stated he referred this issue to the Committee to get started with a review, because if this is the new 'reality of c(~mmercial development, City ordinances may not cover several applications. The City might need to adopt standards to site these developments appropriately. For example, should they be required to locate at intersections on arterials, or at least require three or four streets around the development for proper traffic circulation? Committee Member Benham requested a review of design standards. For example, loading docks should not face a street, or provide a design or wall to screen the docks from public view. Committee Chair Couch requested staff to provide information on the size, location and number of empty big box centers in Bakersfield over 75,000 sq. ft. Committee' Member Maggard requested staff to review the authority the City has to require certain standards of maintenance for parking lots, landscaping, and buildings for those big box centers that are left empty, as well as those that are coming back into use that have deteriorated. Staff will review and bring the requested information back to the Committee. ' ~ C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Joint City/County Planning Commission Committee Chair Couch explained he referred this item to the Committee because a letter was received from the Smart Growth Coalition regarding formation of a joint city/county planning commission and he wanted to provide an answer. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 4 Development Services Director Jack Hardisty expressed there has been some concern regarding planning in the metropolitan area. While it is true improvement can always be made, having two planning commissions meet together may not result in improvement. The secret of success in making the community better is agreement between the City Council and Board of Supervisors and the adoption and application of policies to improve planning guidelines. The City Council cannot delegate their authority over land use decisions. The same is true of the Board of Supervisors. The City Council and the Board of Supervisors are the responsible entities for how their jurisdictions are governed. It is permissible to have the Planning Commissions meet together, but the City Planning Commission must make their decisions/recommendations to the City Council and the County Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. Due to jurisdictional issues, each Planning Commission must vote separately. The City and the County are not the entities that would form a joint city/county planning commission, even if the current Planning Commissions were dissolved. If requested, 'the State Legislature has the authority to form a joint planning commission and delegate the Council and Board's authority over land use decisions to another commission, because it takes a State Legislative Act. Once a planning commission is formed by the State, that commission would have authority over all land use decisions for the jurisdictions it serves, and it may not be possible to change the' legislation once it is enacted. Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, asked if there is some type of committee mechanism that could be formed from each Planning Commission for the metro area. Committee Member Maggard expressed neither the members of the City Council nor the members of the Board of Supervisors have met and agreed there should be uniform standards of development throughout the Greater Bakersfield area. If both the City Council and Board of Supervisors want to make joint uniform development policies, then both Planning Commissions could simply implement the policies. City Manager Alan'Tandy explained this has been discussed in the past and although the Board members have changed, the County indicated their development standards are very close to those of the City with a limited number of variances and exceptions. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty stated the City and County have been working together on some standards, such as billboards, sewer service for new development and refuse collection and progress has been made. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 5 The Committee Members agreed establishing uniform development standards in the Greater Bakersfield area is a worthy goal; however, the Committee Members did not recommend forming a joint city/county planning commission as they would not consider delegating the Council's authority over land use decisions to another joint entity. Committee Chair Couch requested Staff to respond to the letter from the Smart Growth Coalition explaining the reasons for not recommending a joint city/county planning commission. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Maggard commented on the growing issue of overnight parking by semi-trucks in shopping center parking lots, examples, were at the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and University and the lower deck of East Hills Mall. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Planning Director Stan Grady; and Parks Supervisor Ken Trone Attendance-others: pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; ' Stephan DeBranch, Castle & Cooke; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Cai Rossi; John Cicerone, Mountain View Bravo; Colon Bywater and Dave McArthur, NOR Recreation and Parks District; and John, video camera, Channel 17 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~OHN\Council Corn m ittees~p&d03oct06summary.doc K E R S_ F I E L D MEMORANDUM October 3, 2003 TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: ,p"/~nley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT:' Joint City/County Planning Commission (Agenda Item 5C). The attached paper is being provided for consideration with discussion of the subject agenda item. The information was proposed in October of last year and provides background material on Metropolitan Planning Agencies. The closing comments in the paper summarize possible outcomes of collaborative planning for Metropolitan Bakersfield. "Regardless of the course taken there is always room for improvement in planning for the entire Metropolitan area. The city and county could be more collaborative and coordinated at the legislative, commission and staff levels. Joint-meetings such as the city/count joint meetings contribute to that improvement. Frank discussions by the city and county representatives and planners directed towards improvements in coordination and outcomes of planning may reSult in a Metropolitan Planning Agency or some other arrangements by the city and county. Rather than a JPA they might result in a series of agreements to ensure the quality of our future community". SCG.'djl Attachment P:\Memos\joint city-county plan.doc Metropolitan Planning Agency For Bakersfield During a recent joint city/county meeting of the Board of SuperVisors and City Council a speaker proposed that the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Agency Commission to coordinate planning, and growth issues be explored. Those issues might be as narrowly focused as the differences in development standards and land use regulations to the broader pro-development philosophy shared by the city and county. Some of those could be between the city and the county while others might be between the public's expectations and the -- government planning process outcomes. Certainly, identification of the issues to be addressed would be an important part of such a feasibility study. In addition, there are organizational issues which would need to be addressed by city and county representatives such as: · Is the establishment of a Metropolitan Planning Agency permissible? · What would be the purposes of the agency? · What would be its scope of authority and powers? · Who would sit as its board? · How would they be put in or removed from office? · Who would hear appeals Of their actions? · What would be its source of funds? · Should the Kern Council of Governmentsl City Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Planning Division, etc. be disbanded? · How would a transition from city and county planning to a Metropolitan Planning Agency be accomplished? A few thoughts are offered for discussion: Establishment: Setting aside political issues, the answer is that it could be done. The most likely way of setting up such an agency would be through a joint powers agreement between the city and the county. The city and county are permitted to establish governmental entities to exercise administrative and legislative powers which they have in common. BOth have the authority to plan and adopt ordinances for the Metro-Bakersfield area within their jurisdictions. Purposes: To borrow a line from State Law, regional planning agencies are established to provide for the orderly and .harmonious development of urban areas, regardless of- jurisdictional boundaries, to provide for the needs of future generations. There must be more of a purpose to a Metropolitan Planning Agency. Otherwise, the same purpose could be achieved by the existing governments. Scope of authority: The Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA) could be an advisory body to the city and county or it could have planning and implementation authority. A final model could be something in between. As an advisory group it could conduct special studies of planning issues and comment on city and county plans. On the other hand, it could adopt a general plan, zoning ordinances, development standards, hear proposals for subdivisions, conditional use permits and variances. It could replace the city and county planning commissions for the metropolitan area of Bakersfield. It could even have some final regulatory authority. Metropolitan Planning Agency for Bakersfield October 3, 2002 Page 2 The Board: The board of the MPA could be comprised of supervisors and council members or its membership coUld be appointed by members of those elected bodies. If they are appointed, the number appointed, qualifications and terms of office ~v'0uld need to be determined. This could involve such factors as populations, districts and assessed value. APpeals: At what level would appeals be considered? Would the only recourse be to Superior Court? Would a jointly conStituted appeals board, consisting of council and board members hear appeals? Would the legislative bodY of the jurisdiction where the case originated hear appeals? Money: Would this agency raise its own funds, set its own budget, bill the city and county for its support? Would it be expected to function on what might be offered by the city and county from year to year budget allocations? Different local examples can be found in the Local Agency Formation Commission, Kern County Water Agency, Kern Council of Governments, and Golden Empire Transit. Replacement of existing planners: Depending on the scope of authority granted tO the new agency, existing planning entities might be dissolved. These could include the City Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Planning Division and Kern Council of Governments. Transition: . A part of the negotiations should address the process of transition. This would not just apply to the effective date but also to staffing, funding, and facilities. The difference a new agency makes: Whether or not a new agency.would make a difference would depend on its founding principles and authority adopted for it by the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Fundamentally, the board and council should decide if the policies for development of Metropolitan Bakersfield are to be changed. Change is a given, how the city and county deal with it is the issue. How much should the city and county or MPA guide it and contribute to it? Is the creation of a third overarching planning entity necessary? What are the expectations of the community? Are the existing governmental institutions, specifically the Board of Supervisors and City Council, ready to give up control over planning? Regardless of the course taken there is always room for improvement in planning for the entire metropolitan area. The city and county could be more collaborative and coordinated at the legislative, commission and staff levels. Joint meetings such as the city/county joint meetings contribute to that improvement. Frank discussions by the city and county representatives and planners directed towards improvements in coordination, and outcomes of planning may result in a Metropolitan Planning Agency or some other arrangements by the city and county. Rather than a JPA they might result in a series of agreements to ensure the quality of our future community. P:~Metro Planning Agency.doc B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM:~/ STANLEY C. GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: August 1, 2005 SUBJECT: PRESCOTT, ARIZONA'S TOWN SQUARE Council Referral No.001204 VICE MAYOR MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS REPLICATING THE CONCEPT OF PRESCOTT, ARIZONA'S TOWN SQUARE IN AND ABOUT THE CITY AND CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT. The issue of replicating the concept of Prescott has ramifications not only on how we plan for parks but also how communities around this type of town square are planned. This type of park (town square) would not normally happen under current general plan policies, zoning and design standards. Because this issue affects several departments and is related to the form-based zoning issue, I recommend that this topic be considered by the Planning and Development Committee as an add-on item at the same time form-based zoning is discussed. Jim Movius of my staff has discussed this approach with Councilman Maggard and he is agreeable. SG:djl CC: Jim Movius, Planning Director P:\CCReferral\Ref1204.doc B A K E R S F.I E L D Alan Tandy · City Maria,,er July 22, 2005 Don Webber Big League Dreams 16339 Fairfield Ranch Road Chino Hills, CA 91709 · Dear Mr. Webber, As a courtesy to you, we want to inform you of our plans for the Mesa Marin ball fields. A few years back, your company approached the City of Bakersfield in hopes of developing the Mesa Marin facility using the Big League Dreams model. At that time, you estimated the cost to bring the facility up to your standards to be between $5 million and $6 million. The 'City of Bakersfield is planning to renovate Mesa Marin ball fields using grants, development fees and one-time revenues. The amount budgeted for the first phase of the project is $2.5 million. More improvements will be phased in at a later time. Our goal is to build the facility using existing resources and without any additional commitment of general tax dollars. We are open to discussing your proposal again if this condition is met. Of course, if your proposal continues to require the City to make contributions in excess of the $2.5 million budgeted for the project, for either an up-front capital contribution or annual debt service, we would not be interested in your proposal. In that case, we would move forward with.our plans to begin the first phase of the Mesa Marin rehabilitation. We would appreciate a response from you by August 31, 2005. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (661) 326-3751. Sincerely, Alan Christensen Assistant City Manager cc: ~an Tandy, City Manager Dianne Hoover, Director of Recreation and Parks ~/ice Mayor Mike Maggard, City Councilmember - Ward 3 · City of Bakersfield · City Mana~Jer's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 324-1850 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: July20, 2005 IAGENDA SECTION: cOnsent CalendarITEM NO: I~, C.C. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Development Services - Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ CITY ATTORNEY DATE: July 12, 2005 CITY MANAGER ~,~'~ SUBJECT: Report from the Planning Commission regarding subdivision tree requirements for new single family homes and sidewalk design standards. (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Planning Commission's report and forward to the Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND: On June 2, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a report from their AD HOC Committee regarding subdivision tree requirements for new single-family homes and sidewalk design standards to promote more walkable neighborhoods. The report and recommendations from the Planning Commission concemed three items. First, to encourage walkable neighborhoods, require that developers install sidewalks with parkway skips along the street (referred to as a standard sidewalk design). This would move pedestrians further off the street and allow placement of trees and other greenery between the skeet and sidewalk. This would become the required design for all local streets in residential areas. The recommendation also includes Planning Commission approval of deviations to that design. Secondly, the Commission recommends that developers of new homes install a minimum of two trees in the front yard. Tree species and location would be at the discretion of the builder and homeowner, and enforced only at the time of initial building occupancy. However, there would be no requirement to keep these trees if the present or future homeowners wish to change their landscape design. Lastly, the Commission recommended that the Parks Division make available a list of appropriate trees that can be planted in parkway strips to avoid undesirable species (ie. those that are too large, aggressive root systems, etc.). The list would be made available on the city's web site and through handouts. The Commission's report and recommendations are attached. Planning staff also presented these recommendations to the Development Standards Committee of the Building Industry Association before the Planning Commission took final action on the report. July 12, 2005, 11:37AM P:~C Ad HOC sidewalk Zrees - Adrnin Report. doc B A K ~E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM June 2, 2005 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James D. Movius, Planning Director ,~¥:.--~ ~-× SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Planning and Development Committee Recommendations Regarding Subdivision Tree Requirements and Sidewalk Design Standards. Early last year the Planning Commission appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to consider design issues for subdivisions pertaining to the streetscape. The Committee was comprised of Members Tragish (Chair), Lomas, and Blockley. On November 30, 2004, the Committee concluded their discussion and drafted their recommendations for Planning Commission consideration. On April 28, 2004, the Committee held an additional meeting to give opportunity to the Building Industry Association and residential developers to review and comment on the recommendations in this report. Although the time and date of the meeting, including specific notice and follow-up calls were made to accommodate these representatives, none attended the meeting. Therefore, the Committee finalized their recommendations and are forwarding this report to the full Planning Commission for review and action. DISCUSSION The Committee was interested in improving walkability in new residential neighborhoods by enhancing the visual streetscape with more trees and green space. They first focused on sidewalks. Sidewalks are required for all new housing developments along public streets. Public Works' normal design for sidewalks (referred to as "combination type sidewalk") is that they are placed next to the curb and street. As an option, a developer can request special consideration by the City Engineer to create a parkway next to the curb and then the sidewalk. This is called a "standard type sidewalk" design. The "standard type sidewalk" is found in the many older neighborhoods such as Westchester, Oleander, and Alta Vista, and has more recently been used in someof the new private gated communities. The "combination type sidewalk" is the typical design used for the last few decades and found in the majority of single-family subdivisions. The Committee recommended that the requested sidewalk design be switched to default to the "standard sidewalk type", and that the "combination type sidewalk" be requested as an exception. To promote more walking, this design would move the sidewalk and pedestrians away from the street and create a landscaped strip where a tree-lined streetscape could be encouraged. The Committee also recommended that Title 16 be amended to require Planning Commission approval for any sidewalk exceptions as part of the initial subdivision request. The second issue concerned landscaping and the desire that trees be required in the front yards of new single-family homes. The 'City currently requires trees along the street frontages of multiple-family, commercial, and industrial developments. Along single-family lot frontages, trees are not required though developers usually provide front yard landscaping on a voluntary basis. Therefore, to help create Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission June 2, 2005 Page 2 more shade and greenery within a new subdivision, the Committee recommended that at least two 15- gallon sized trees be required in the front yard of each lot before the initial occupancy of a home. Tree species and location in the front yard would be at the discretion of the developer and/or homeowner. However, if a homeowner replaced those trees or even removed them, there would be no penalty or violation. The Committee felt that the initial planting would encourage homeowners to keep them or redesign their front yards with other tree species further enhancing the streetscape. Lastly, the Committee requested the Parks Division look into publishing a tree list that would help people decide suitable tree species that they could plant in the parkway strip between the curb and sidewalk. Because this strip will vary in width, some tree species are not preferred due to their shape, size, root characteristics (i.e. lifting the sidewalk), etc., and since maintenance of those trees will be the responsibility of the homeowner, this list would help to lessen the likelihood of planting inappropriate trees. The Committee encouraged the posting of this list on the City's web site for easy access by the public and developers. RECOMMENDATIONS The Ad Hoc Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Planning Commission adopt this report and fonNard the recommendations to the City Council for their consideration: 1. Require that the "standard type sidewalk" design be the normal requirement for sidewalk installation along local residential streets and that the "combination type sidewalk" design be specifically requested as the deviation from that requirement. Recommend amending Title 16 to require Planning Commission approval for deviations to the sidewalk standard as part of the initial subdivision request. Aisc, since revisions would be necessary to the Public Works Subdivision Design Manual sheet requiring the standard sidewalk design, include reference to Section 17.08.175 of the Municipal Code regarding "clear sight view" for trees planted in the parkway. This reference is intended to help developers and homeowners that plant trees in the parkway to place them in areas that do not obstruct sight-line visibility for drivers. 2. Require that new single-family lots be required to have two trees in the front yard. The minimum tree size would be 15 gallons, tree species and location would be at the discretion of the developer and/or homeowner. This requirement would only be for the initial occupancy of the home and would not obligate the homeowner to keep them if other landscape designs were used. 3. Request the Parks Division to make available to the public through publication and posting on the City's web site, a list of appropriate trees that can be planted in parkways between the curb and sidewalk. The list would also include standards for planting, pruning, and general tree maintenance. P:\Memos\AD Hoc Plan Dev 5-11-05.doc GENERal. NOTE~' I ~ ~ grade ~d cro~ section, ~ c~pa~ $hoN be ~ f~f ~/ess Co~efe ~/I ~ CIo~ ~' ~ s~k] ~d C/fy En~me~ ~foce s~ll ~ fim~d to q.'a~ ~ c~ s~fi~ w~h o fl~, troweled ~, and "- SIDEWALK 5~G" mie~ m oll oth~ zones and prefor~d strips ~ a ~rab/e. res/l~nf on me~ o'~ ~?s; c~b fo wan S~ ~1 ~ ~ored ~ a m~i~m dep~ ~e ~/I i~ c~fruc~ed. ~" un,ss ofher~e d~iecfed ~ the City Enq~ee~ ~i~ N~ ~d~alk c~$f~Cf~On m blocks ~lh st~olk shall conform ~ d~men~,:on and location to those ~ place. at ~ first scormq Ii~ at ~ ~yond ~ ~ A oerm~t for ~01~ co~t~li~ and rec~- " Struction shall be obta~d from t~ Detriment ~ ~ Public Work~ a~ shall occ~ acf~/ ~r~. I ~y variance m fm/~h, color, ~ material fram ~tandard wiff require a ~p~b/ ~rmif fr~ L~ the City C~il. Sto~ord Curb Re~n rodl~ O~ioli~$ ~m t~ c~bl~ati~ type sholJ ~ ~ feet unless ~$ $~rd ~ mean~ t~.m~ ~mift~ by ~e directed by t~ ~ a~o~igte ~m~n ~ovt~i~$ of Cheptem O~y En~in~ of f~ Municipal L. Va~ TYPICAL SECTION 8uild~ for n~, ~emodeled, or expanded ~ildinq5 ~ set forth i~ Chapter 12. 40, G~fion ~. 40.0/0 of concrete ~rb$, ~uffer~ and s/d~01~$ according .M ~ fhi. standard droning.. SIDEWALK K McOuff fence ~ ~e their constr~fion ~oronfeed by ~NB/NARON ~P~ cos*, certified c~* ~ mr~rote ~rely ~ , ~ ~' STANDARD TYPE oopr~ ~ ~he City Atfom~y ~ o ~ifion ~ final opnr~ol ~d acceptance ~ f~ Chief CI~ OF BAKeRSFIeLD BuHd~ /n~ector for oc~n~ fo f~ ~ilding ·BY VOI. UNTEEgS . : ' . s,~cE ,99,' .' .. .TREE FOUNDATION .. JU~. ~ Z005''' ~ Mr. Ji~ Movius . - , , · nn re r ~ Ci~ of Bakorsfiold ~~~ i7~ 5 lm~un . ~ t~ Bakersfield, CA 93~01 ~- '~~. Iho lr~ FouhdatiOn ~ landsmpin~ 'r~mm~dation' that is bein~ ~nsidered fOr. ~~~ adoptiOn by tho Piannin~ CommisSion to be fo~ard~ to tho ., '~~. Cit~ Council for ~heir approval.' We are excited about 'the ~-~ pmgre~ ~ing 'made in our .~tY in regards to u~n [omst~ - ' .-. ~~. '4':desire' to'~e more troe~ in now d~velopmonts. · · -..~~ ~. .'.HowoVor, in iioht of the fact that'our cie'has no u~an ~omster, ~ Howovor, ~ would, fiko to hav~ ~o'ci~ r~mmond tho uso .. ~~ [. . . . . ~}~ · o~ ~uml ~ils in'~e plan[or ~ .' had'od~inafly ~mmendod this ~pe of soil ~ .' · 8~um~: · - witho~ ~ u~ of rOOt · 4. ~ show" that .-. landsmpe aPplimtiOns . . . [[661}325.66~ I 2300 TRUXTUN AVENUE I-S01TE ~7 I BAK 2~ Requiring tWo 't~ees Should-be a'.'minimUm standard, not .thb " requirement. The ·number of.trees should be determined .by Iot..size. " Obviously,. larger lots may need more trees. Also,. the proper siz6 of the .. trees is not 15.gallon. Nursery st~ndar~d.s- have changed and gallon size' is - ..no' lOnger a. tree.'measurement. Trees that develo_pers pu'rchase should - al,so meet ce. rtair~ requirements in'terms of health,, sb'ucture and' curi'ent ". disease' ahd/or fungus manifestation·. This could be reference~ in the tree The requirembnt for occupancy and .not .obligating "the homeowner to keep them if other landscape designs Were used"-seems in conflict with .. ._ Municipal.Codes 12.4'0.040 and 12.40.095, both .~ referencing duty'to. maintain trees. " ... - .. If homeowners and develoPers determin~that trees will not be used in the ' landscaPing, then' requiring t.he developer to provide trees elsewhere '(i.e.: - a city park) would still increas6 the tree canopy in the co~nmunity.' This -. . type of mitigation-is .used extensively !n other .communities with these types, of landscape requirementsi-" " ' , 3. ..-The CitY's "urban forester developed a. comprehensive ire~_li~t' " I~efore his depa.rture. That .tre~ .list should 'be made 'available t° the ge,.neral public-in a format· that. is '(~;oi~ducive to 'use,. bY landscaPers,. .. lan_ds~pe architects and 'developerS. However, in the Plan check phase of development,.-it is in~,um~ent upon the city to determine that some trees- ~ "- may be' inappropriate due to developing species iSSL~es. For instance, Fireblight is currently, attacking :FlOwering 'Peai- species throughout the- valley.. However, we continue' to allow this tree tO be_planted, knowing,that -' th'ere is a goo,d chance it will not live through-the fir-st Year and that it is " "' 'infectir)g .mature trees. Because we d~) no~ have an urban.forester at this .. _ '. time, plan checkers must.be trained in species charactej-istics· to develop a , . ' sustainable urban forest.in BakerSfield. ' ~. , .- We hope'that these concerns lead to the c0r~tinua'tion of an-increasing canopy in our.city. We look forward to working With yo,u on the implemenation of this.new Executive Director · ..'Certified Arborist #WE-7103A " PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~_")-L~/.. You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~---/,~' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please till out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: ~ Address: ~) ~"'-C'-~,L ~ ,,O.____ Phone: Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue .Benham Name: Organization: Address: Phone: f~l~ ~{ol-O -~-~ ~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes.per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~ ~,.~1~ ~ Company/ ~q' .~,'~k-r~ ~ Organization: Address: Phone: ~' ''~ -~ ~' q"~ 7~ Fax/e-mail: ~ ~. ~.~OC~. 1~ Subject: ?~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~, Company/ Organization: Address: '~ "~0 /~-C~-~/~ Phone: '~ ~'-~' o/O"'~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: J~l'[JV~)(/l'h '~¢"£~,~ Y~I%C~ ~'~J Page 1 of 1 Referral Display '~: I.R.e?'9¢°~-1~7-~6- ............ ~i ~i;i~~ Sue Benham ~ [ ............... Referral Requestor: ~ , Ward: 2 ~ Created: Req. Completion Date: ~::~, Meeting: ~~ ~~ Initial Referral Information Short Description: Long Description: ***REFERRAL TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE*** COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED COMMITTEE ADDRESS CONCERNS OF ATTACHED LETTER REGARDING THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION -?',,'i,; Attachment A FOR GPA AND PRE-ZONING #04-1764 ON SE CORNER OF PANAMA LANE & BUENA VISTA ROAD. ":~; ~ Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Lead: -~ Assigned To: Response? ~. R1 (1) IUrban Development Comm. Reassigned 1o: Response.'? Optional Citizen Contact Information Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: http://¢w~rk/escripts/~w~b~d~/¢f~derf~rrnc~nt~nts?F~d~r~D=~~~~L. 7/8/2005 Barbara Grlmm-j3(arshall June 13, 2005 James Movius, Planning Director City of Bakersfield - Development Services 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Draft Negative Declaration for GPA and Pre-zoning #04-1764 (southeast corner of Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road) Dear Mr. Movius: As a property owner within 300 feet of the above proposed project, we want to express the following concerns regarding the draft negative declaration: · Circulation elements must be addressed in the area. Transportation issues are created as more residential areas are developed. Buena Vista Road is a major arterial road and, as such, improvements are critical to adequately deal with future traffic impacts. Currently, the traffic circulation On Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road is outdated and inadequate. Improvements need to be addressed today, prior to even more housing coming on line. · The intersection of Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road is a gateway to future residential development in the area, In order to maintain the best possible quality of life for current arid future residents, adequate landscaping and streetscaping must be included in the area.. We have had discussions with adjacent land developers, Council member Harold Hanson and neighbors and all agree that this arterial will be the next Gosford Road. It is critical that the city maintain a high level of standards not only for future residents, current residents but for the'city of Bakersfield as a whole. I hope you agree. · Lastly, we hope the applicant must be held to the highest standards when mitigation measures are developed on this proposed project of 41 acres. Mitigation measures must address the needs of current residents living in this area, for us personally this would include but not be limited to traffic (ingress and egress to our property), drainage, lighting, noise abatement, perimeter walls, landscaping, lot size, and multilevel homes adjacent to our property. In conclusion, it is important to note that we do not oppose this.project or the proposed negative declaration, but we do ask for the department's aWareness as we address our concerns with the applicant directly. We are available at your convenience if you have any questions, to further discuss our concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Barbara Grimm- MarShall / Darcy M~sshali Cc: City Council members Bakersfield Planning Commission 7'158 Buena 'lTlsta ~oad Baicers£1eldo Call£ornla 95511 661.851~873 661.851.1592(~'ax) Page 1 of 1 Referral Display ,o: ............... 2 Requester: [Sue genham ~ Ward: [ ..................... ~ Referral Created: Req. Completion Date: ~;~ Meeting: ~~ Initial Referral Information Short Description: I-"BIG BOX" DESIGN STANDARDS Long Description: ***REFERRAL TO P~NNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE*** COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED COMMITTEE REVISIT THE ISSUE OF "BIG BOX" DESIGN STANDARDS. .. %~.~ ..,~..; Attachment A : '): ~. :': t:~ Attachment B ~::7~';'. : ;',~ Attachment C Attachment D Lead: ~ Assigned To: Response? O R1 (1) i~}~~¢-~,~2 ........... ~-~ ~ Reassigned To: Response, Optional Citizen Contact Information Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: http://ew~rk/escripts/eweb~d~/ef~derf~rmc~ntents?F~der~D~~~~~L. 7/8/2005 The Bakersfield Cali,vrni%, ~ Business · fax: 395-7519 · e-mail: cpeterson@bakersfield.com RIC FRANCIS / AP Estela Roque, center, and other Pedestrians stroll and relax' outside thi"~:Wal-Mart In Long Beach, Wal-Mart and other retailers are Using different designs to meet local aesthetics. -.: ~-. You're pretty ¥ for a Wal-mart '* , This Wal-Mart super store located In Big boxes forced to play ball w, tl, reties on aesthetics.~.;,, .o.., Roc~,,exas, Is a .ew,rotot~,e . . ~i ".: ":. ' . ? that features a broken plane and ~By ANNE D'INNOCENZJo * .would be too cost~'~ rec~.i~ign its startda~ :...*diff~:~ent levels of roof tops, enabllnE'lt: .~ ."- · '., .. , concrete block buildingS;~cording to towi:t:, to be more easily customized to dlfferent ny om .?s. assumm .tt could just move. into brick co[o~ design tt~'~ed th~.'t~/~n-:?~j~t, a qi/e:stion of when,' ~id ~tUs. The ordi- allng to prom ~[s rich heritage f~om Wal-.~ was not enth~ias~c about the~:,:i~::,Such a4jusUnents are _: beComing mOre rellJ~?ra, wl,.the town-:-, establi~, heal.in 169~. o. rdinari ,.c~, b~ut town offi '.ci~.~ would'fi'bt back ., :: :conanonplace as commuflities "across the embCOmm .er?.. cop~.c.?onwoddhaveto mr ~or.,.,_..rsT-n?lcL .~.e_n~-d_~_was"ro~sonabtv ~ ~ and des~n'of ~m out~et~ me · .r'~c.e_tr~. uonaz a~, tectural styles -- .aU~TQ_. '..ve--zorab~gbox, i~esaicL . ]a~,s, aimed squarely at'curbin~ behemotla tLrSt, Wal-Mart balked, arguing that it theywemconungmtoour ,COmmunity; it was ",' ' PleasetumtoBOXES/A14 Business BOXES-' Critics say what's truly ugly about big boxes is the sprawl they bring Shopping along miles aisles A look at how the floor space of three selected retailers C~dmedfmnk~3 Stores are qea.ming Q~m these size up against one another: cunform to the local landscape, towns and learaing they can push the Target* Home Depot Wal-Mart** The so-called"big-box' mmilem are envelope," said Tan Brace, senior vice learning to be mom flexible in order to president of development at Develop- Number open the new stores they nced to meet em Diversified Realty Corp., which is of stores ~1 136 annual sales growth target~ But local building the Wal-Mart stores in Free- activists argue the designs merely hold. ............................................................................................................................ dress up the same old mt. all sprawl. But communiBr activists aren,tbuy. 233 320 The trend begart in reso~ areas like ingit. {in millions) Bal ltarbour, Fla., but now mountain- "I['s askin-deep ehange.it'slikeput- ' .............................................................................................. i .............................. Average square themed or seaside ~e.~ions of big box ~ a tuxedo on ~e~ '["~e ~t. age per store stores are popping up in ord~ mor~st~issUUthem,"saktAlNom~m, (in thousands) * SuperTargetonly towns like Freehold and Galthembur& president of Sprawl Bustem, a group ** Su~ente~ M& Wal-Mm~has asr, om with a~q~ger that works with local communiQes to souse: The com~a.ies facadeinCentenni~l, Colo.;anag~deco fight unwanted store development. store in Long Be~ch and a design in NormanispushingforcommuniQes this past spring to split the store in counter. RoundRock, Texzs, meant to resem- to limit the size of these stores to no two -- a retail section and a garden "WehavetomainmJnallourop~o~ ble a series of Main Steer storeffont~ more than 50,000 square feet, with a center side by side and sharing a and be flexible, to be wl~re the co~ Target l~s a colonial-style store in 25,000-squa.,~foot limit pe~: floor By parking lot. sumem are and where they want the Gaithemburg, Md., and The Home core--n, a typical Wal-M~ super But the retailer backed away from stores,' she s~id. DepotInc. opened last summer a sea- center averages 187,000 squ~re..feet the idea atT~er it cansed an uproar in the Lastyear, Wal-Mart c~me up with a side-themedstorenearaninletinWest and a Home Depot store averages community. It is now preposing one new prototype that can be easlly cus- Vancouver, Canadz. about l00,000 square feet. ~ store ~ meets the town's 75,000- tomized to a particular communk..~ Fast-fcodoutietshavealsobeena Retailem are finding novel ways square-fcot size requirement. 'We are finding that there are many target, forcing McDonald's Corp. to around those limits. Faced withlimi- Mia 1~ a spokeswoman for · areasthathavehigherex~ons for give up its golden arches for colonial tations that would block plans for a Wal-Mart, said the company is not mi- the types ofstores that are coming i~' architecture in Maine and adobe style 145,000-square-foot store · in lng out the option elsewhere -- the said Bill Cormll, director of architec- inAfizona. Dunkirk, Md., Wal-Mart proposed flxstarrangementofitskindforthedis- ture at Wal-Mart. For project to work, memb6rs will need to put regional interests first' C(J~nued~A13 percent below the state avenge. Assemblywoman Nicole Pan~, D- Between 1999 and 2003, unem~loy- Hanford, who introduced a bill to cre- ment in the Central Valley averaged 10 ate a ~ body in December 2004, percenL That's 4.2 percentage said the group would give the valley a higher than the state rate. leg up when it comes to funding from Another ~q)ort from the group ~aid ~. state grants and progranx~ 14 percent of people in the w, dley .f~o. m 'We've been identifiedin the Central infants to age 64 have no health insur- .~ Valley as the Appalachia of the west,' ance. That's the same as the state as a Parm said of local need~ whole. ~.~ The valley has special needs in the The executive order requir~ "the · areas of tm.qsportation, air pollution group to produce a San Joaquln antipoverty. Thoee can get lost in the gicActionPmlx~fltosendtothegover- sta~ Legi~'.~l.~ge because walley repre- nors office, the board of supervisors in sentatives are oumumbered by offi- participating counties and dty councils cials from mom populous coastal in each galley county by Oct 31, 2006. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, left, pre~ent~ California Assembly membe~ regions, said Assemblyman Kevin Congressman J'lmCosta, D-Fresno, McCarthy, R-Bakemfield. . applauded the governor's decision to ~lcole Parra her copy of ~xecutlve Order $-~0~, which cre~ted the That's why the valley needs the new create the group, s~qing it formalized California Partnemhlp for the San Joaqull~ Valley, after he par~emhip. "It doesn't guarantee everything but pagme, mhips he worked to develop during the fourth annual Central California Mayors Conference, Friday In during his timein the state Le~sl~re. Fresno. what it does guarantee is avoice at the But he said the group must actually table,' McCarthysaid- show improvements for the region, emof is giving some attention and behind regional interests, mid CarrA According to a January report from ' "You're .ultimately judged by how resod~ces to thewalley's problems. But Whiteside, president of the Great?~ Modes~o-based research group The much you are able to achieve," Costa itwillbeuptothepowemthatbeinthe leyCenter. Great Valley Center, per capita income said. regi6fl to put solutions into place. That ~I think it's up to the regien to make for 2002 in the Central Valley was 26 Thenewpartnemhipshowsthegov- mayfaeanputtingindividualpriorities itwork,~Whitesidesaid. HOUSING: LOng-term interest rates' . "'; will play a big part, economist s Ys -, , "' " The'U.$: Cofi~umer Product eafe~y were mOorted. ~ from kl~ ' . sales I~t month fell by 6.5 percent to ¢orpmissl~n, in coo0eration with the occuffed so far this year. $217.000. . . _Ar~d.~_~,' attributed th~ firm named beow announced a volun:. ., . bright gm~en or bluewRh agree~ ar~lb~e · ~rhebig yg lng .... 'insal" ' .' tary recall of the follo~ag consumer pla.~¢lxa'terfqo~turtlein~eceme~, _ ke_ ~o_ forward will be decline to a bag d~6p es m the '. ,. B A K E R S F I E ~ D Development ~.~e~ces Department- £1anning Division July 15, 2005 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JAMES D. MOVIUS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL # Ref001176 GRIMM-MARSHALL LETTER ON GPA/ZC #04-1764 Barbara Grimm-Marshall and Darcy Marshall submitted a letter regarding the above-mentioned project located adjacent on the north side of their property line (see attached map). GPA/ZC #04- 1764 is located on the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road, and consists of a request to change the land use and zoning designations on 41 acres from agriculture to an R-1 zone for development of single family homes. The Grimm-Marshall's property is located on the northeast corner of Buena Vista Road and Berkshire Road (extended). The Grimm-Marshall's lists three comments in the letter. 1. Improvements to Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road must be addressed now before more housing is built. 2. As the "gateway" to future development in the area, the intersection of Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road must have adequate landscaping and streetscaping. 3. The applicant must be held to the highest standards. The Grimm-Marshall's are concerned with access to their property, drainage, lighting, noise abatement, perimeter walls, landscaping, lot size and multilevel homes adjacent to their property. In response to concerns 1 and 2, the developer of GPA/ZC #04-1764 shall be responsible for construction of street improvements to City standards along Buena Vista Road and Panama Lane adjacent the property subject to GPA/ZC #04-1764. The developer will construct half the street immediately adjacent this property, with some transition pavement. In addition, the developer will pay the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTF), and a proportionate share of local mitigation traffic fees (not included in the RTF), for improvements at the intersections of Buena Vista and Campus Park; Buena Vista and Pacheco, and Buena Vista and Harris Road, and Mountain Vista and Panama Lane. Conditions of approval require the developer to submit street right-of-way and landscape dedications in accordance with City standards for Buena Vista Road and Panama Lane. A comprehensive drainage study and master sewer concept study are also required. The City's standard street lighting is known as "zero cut-off," which directs light downward, reducing light spillover. Typically, perimeter walls and lot size are addressed with the subdivision application. The existing access to the Grimm- Marshall will not be affected by development of the subject property. The R-1 zone does allow two- story homes. The developer has spoken with the Grimm-Marshalls several times. The developer reports that they have mutually agreed to discuss the lot lay-out and housing type on the lots adjacent to the Grimm-Marshall property at the time of the subdivision map application. The City Council will hear GPA/ZC # 04-1764 at the August 17, 2005 meeting. JDM:jeng S:\GPA 2nd 2005\04-1764\M-AT-GPA04-1765.DOC Couch, David R [PVTC1 3m: Scott RK (Kent) at Aera [rkscott@aeraenergy.com] nt: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:21 AM : City_Council@ci.bakersfield.ca.us Subject: New Large Retailers in Bakersfield Dear Honorable Council Members, I have read with interest the plans for COSTO to build a new store in the southwest, and I have read reactions to that plan in the Californian, both pre and con. It seems that a legitimate concern, as opposed to many special interest self serving objections, is the possible creation of yet another large abandoned building in the future. We are all very aware of the many abandoned large buildings in our city that result in blight and safety concerns. My question is this. Is it possible that a law, or ordinance, could be passed to require companies to either make sure a building is occupied within a year of abandonment, or require they be torn down and the site restored to dirt? I realize that we are anxious that business continues to view Bakersfield favorably, but I also believe we should require some accountability for companies who just decide to board up and move across town to a more favorable site, leaving our older neighborhoods to deal with the consequences of deteriorating buildings. How about it? Is it worth a consideration to hold them accountable? Thank you for your consideration. ,, Sincerely, ~,~ R. Kent Scott Aera Energy LLC rilling Specialist -665-5580 / 201-7846 rkscott@aeraenergy.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks- Fwd: Fw: meeting From: John W. Stinson To: Jean Parks Date: 7/14/2005 4:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Fw: meeting >>> "Sue Benham" <sbenham @sbcglobal.net> 6/27/2005 10:53 PM >>> Dear John, Would you please add this to our next P &'D agenda and please advise Mr. Love that we have done so. (If this requires me to make a referral at our next Council meeting, please let me know and I will do so.) Thanks, Sue ..... Original Message ..... From: Harry_ Love To: S ~.~.B_..e_...[!h ~_~ Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:13 PM Subject: meeting Dear Sue, Representatives from the Sierra Club, myself and Gordon Nipp, would like to speak before the Planning and Development Committee at it July meeting on Monday, July 18. We need approximately 20 minutes. T opics of the presentation: 1) request that the committee recommend to the City Council that an ordinance be adopted to require builders of new homes to include solar photovoltaic panels within the contraction of homes and 2) request that the City become a sponsor of the upcoming solar symposium on September 20 at Norris Veterans Hall. We hope you will grant our request to speak. Another Sierra Club member and expert on solar photovoltaic products, Ken Smokoska, will also be present. Please inform me as soon as possible as to your decision. Harry Love 589-6245/805-1420 file://C :~Documents%20and%20Settings\jparks. BAKERSFIELD\Local%20Settings\Temp\,... 7/29/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: June 8, 2005 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM: Il. ~. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD FROM: DATE: May 27, 2005 CITY A'R'ORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Resolution establishing City Council policy regarding the extension of vesting rights for subdivision maps RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Committee recommends adoption of the resolution. BACKGROUND: The Planning and Development Committee reviewed, the issue of the extension of vesting rights for subdivisiOn maps. The Public Works Department appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to allow extensions of vesting rights for two Tracts 6087d and 6104 phases 1 & 5. The extensions 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. Porter-Robertson appealed one tract and Mclntosh and Associates appealed decisions of the Planning Commission to deny extensions of vesting rights on twelve other tracts (Developer- Castle and Cooke). If the Planning Commission's decisions are overturned and the extensions of time for vesting rights for the developer appeals are approved, the loSs in revenue to the City between the old fees and the new Traffic and Park Development Fees would be $3.3 million (approximately $2.8 in traffic impact fees and $500,000 in Park fees). These monies are needed to pay for traffic and park improvements required by these developments and staff recommended the extensions not be granted. When the Council was considering these development impact fees, there was clear direction the fee schedules be developed in such a way that would pay for the needed infrastructure. Not granting discretionary vesting rights extensions is a logical step to ensure the needed money will be collected. Citywide there are other developments that may request one-year extensions to be able to develop under the old fee. If the extensions of vesting rights continue to be granted, it is possible the City would give up additional fee revenues above and beyond the $3.3 million in Transportation and Park Development fees noted above. The Planning and Development Committee agreed with staff that discretionary extensions of vesting rights should no longer, be granted and recommended that the City Council adopt a formal policy in this regard in order that all requests are treated consistently. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page2 Staff has been notified that Castle and Cooke has withdrawn their appeals of the Planning CommissiOn's decisions regarding Tracts 6086, 6087, 6111, 6127, 6128, 6150, 6151, 6185, 6199, and 6223. Porter Robertson's and the Public Works Department's appeals are still pending. These appeals have been scheduled for hearings and further Consideration before the City Council later on this agenda. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY ' COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING THE ~ EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS FOR SUBDIVISION MAPS. 'WHEREAS, the City CoUncil receives requests for the extenSion· of vesting" rights beyond what is granted by statute in the Subdivision Map Act for subdivision maps; and ' WHEREAS, under State Law the City 'has discretion-as to the granting of sUch extensions; and .. WHEREAS. the City has 'established fees related to development which are deSigned to · provide for certain public infrastructure and facilities which are to serve such development; and WHEREAS, the discretionary extension of such vesting rights by the City Council would result in an insufficient amount of funds collected for the infrastructure 'required by the related development pursuant to city fee programs; and · WHEREAS, it is important that there be consistencY in the discretionary granting or denial of extensions of vesting rights by the City Council; and WHEREAs, the Planning and Development Committee of the City CounCil has recommended that the City adopt a policy to no longer grant discretionary extensions of vesting rights for subdivision maps beyond that granted by State law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: .. 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The City will no longer grant discretionarY extensions of vesting rights for subdivision maps. I HEREBY CERTIFY. that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City' Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ' , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULMVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED HARVEY L. HALL MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield " APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: " RE~E'rVED:' , 5/24/06 3:08PM.;. ->CITY OF 8AKERSFi'Ei_D,; #?30; PAQE 2 Castle&Cooke CALn~ORNIA, INC. Steph~n j. DeBrax~ -. M,y 2¢, 2O05 Bak~fleld City Council c~o c~ Ckrk City of Bakmfidd . 1501 Truxtun AvenU~ Baka,'sfldd, CA 93301 Re: .V~ T~ve Map ~ W~w~ T~ ~6 T~6111 T~6127 ~ 6128 T~ 618~ T~t 6~99 K~'McWb~ 10000 Stockdale Highway (9~11). EO. Box 11165 · Bakersfield, CA ~389-11~ · (~61) ~, Pax (661) From: Linda Cohen To: Jean Parks Date: 5/19/2005 9:06:31 AM Subject: Planning & Dev Comm Per Bob, refer to the sidewalk item as "policy/ordinance for maintenance of sidewalks." CC: Robert Sherfy PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ t Organization: Address: (~_-'~.~ f--~-~.__~.~ ~L-c,..~-c~t,t~ ~"~w,,~, Phone: ~ 1 ~-- ~ ~ ~ Fa~e-mail: ~~ ~o ~, Subject: ~; I(~; Z ~ ~¢~.~p~ ~~ ~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~'-??.~/0 ~'~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: Address: ~'2-~ ~,.~ Phone: Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee 'of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill oUt a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ ~,~_.~ ~/(~/r~'~y~ ~~.~, Organization: Address: Phone: ~'~.~'~- 0~t~-~ Fax/e-maih Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planning and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: J~~ Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: 57_.~" _~"~ ~ Fax/e-mail:~ · Subject= ~--j~-.~ tl ~ i'rL~_ ~,~ p ~ (.~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planning and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Organization: Address: ~ L~Lt~ ~ ~1~O.~ J'J~,~ Phone: c~ -/~_., ~-~ Fax/e-mail: I In~u~ : - I Subject: '~,~.~,t,u~ul'n~ ~'~ "~l,~.[I/U,~,~_,~ ~n~ C~C-~ ~]~, PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~ Company/ Organization: Address: ,.~ ~/~) / ~' ~'~..--~'~ ,~7~-'--' Phone: ~ 7 '/~' ~/~ Fax/e-maih Subject: /~ :'~"~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~~f You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on .the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: Address: ?~/ ~ J¢"/"/A. ~ ,/~'/.~,--~ /'?-- '~(~) Phone: Subiec,= <gA PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: .~Y"~'"'c.~ ' ~ ~,,~ ~..~:~___..~-- Organization: Address: Phone: Fax/e-mail: Subject: % ~'~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ ' Organization: Address: Phone: Fax/e-maih Subject: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: April 13, 2005 I AGENDA SECTION: New Business ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: April 6, 2004 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER ~ /'~ SUBJECT: Safe Roads Committee - County-wide Workshops RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends discussion by the City Council BACKGROUND: The "Safe Roads Committee" is interested in having community workshops throughout the County to present information on a proposed ballot measure for a ~ cent sales tax for transportation funding. Councilmember David Couch, City representative on Kern COG, asked that this item be placed on the agenda for Council discussion. The discussion will revolve around the setting of dates and locations for workshops. · This is a discussion item only. No City Council action will be taken. April 7, 2005, 9:40AM C:~Documents and Settings~achriste~Desktop~safe roads committee new bus 4-13-05.doc MEMORANDUM April 7, 2005 ~ ~/ TO: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMI~EE = ~ Sue Benham - Chair David Couch Mike Maggard . ~ FROM: ROBERT M. SHERFY, DEPU~ CI~ A~ORNEY' SUBJECT: PROPOSED SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE Over the years, the City of Bakersfield has been involved' in numerous lawsuits alleging a dangerous condition of public property caused by cracked or raised portions of sidewalk. Back in 1995, the City Council adopted a sidewalk repair program. The sidewalk repair program set repair standards based on the alleged height of the defect. Case law subsequent to 1995 has removed this criteria as a basis for finding the sidewalk dangerous. Under current law, a sidewalk will be considered dangerous based on the totality of circumstances (not just the height of the defect, but any jagged edges, visibility, including lighting conditions, and other factors).Therefore, staff is recommending that, at a minimum, this program be eliminated. As background, under state law, while the owner of property fronting on such sidewalk must maintain it in a non-dangerous condition, actual liability for injuries has always fallen on the public entity. (Streets & Highways Code Section 5610.) The only exception to this rule has been where the property Owner does something affirmative to cause the dangerous condition (such as allowing roots from a tree ~on the owner's property to cause the defect in the sidewalk). Public entities in California have attempted to shift some of the liability from the public entity to the property owner. The attached proposed ordinance is modeled after the City of San Jose's ordinance which has been upheld by California Court of Appeal. (Gonzales'v. City of San Jose) The City's outside counsel, Clifford & Brown, has requested that the City of Bakersfield adopt such an ordinance. It will help in the defense of alleged dangerous condition of sidewalk lawsuits in that the City will be more likely to get a contribution from the property owner in the event the City is sued. According to Rick Buys, the Liability Claims Manager for the Contra Costa County Municipal Risk Management Insurance Authority (who represents 17 cities), in cases where the sidewalk defect was not caused by the property owner, cities are frequently getting 50% settlement contribution from the homeowner's insurer whereas before there was such an ordinance, the cities were only obtaining nuisance value at best. In cases where the property owner caused the defect, these cities are getting most, if not all, of the settlement contribution. RMS:dll/Isc S:\COUNCIL\ME MOS\04-05 Memos\SidewalkMaintain. P&DC.doc ORDINANCE NO. ' AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 12.38 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.38 is hereby added to the Bakersfield MuniCipal,Code to read as follows: ,,;,,-'" Chapter 12.38 Sidewalk Maintenance. "-. 12.38.010 Maintenance and rePair 'of $idewalksl The owners of lots or portions "of lots ~8 acent to. o~'fr°nting on any portion of a sidewalk area between thePrOperty line,of,,the lots and . .the street 'line, including parking strips, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and "persons in posSession of such lots by virtue of any permit or right Shall repair and maintain such sidewalk areas and pay the costs and expenses therefo'r.., ,,, '-, 12.38.020 ?:;uab!lity f°r,injuries to public.. .~. The property Owner required by Section 12.38.010 to maintain and repair the s~dewalk.'a.,rea shall o~~e'A duty'to"members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewall~area in a safe and non-dangerous condition. If, as a result of the failure of any property Own~hto maintaih the sidewalk area .in a non-dangerous condition as required by Section' 12,38;010,~any~,person suffers injury or damage to person or property, the property owner'Shal!b~ !i~i~le to' such person for the resulting damages or injury. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ......... 000' ........ S:\COUNCIL\Ords\04-05 Ords\12.38SidewalkMaintain.doc April 7, 2005 -- Page I of 2 Pages - I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakemfield APPROVED: ' ~y: ... HARVEY L. HALL '-. ,v,avor , . APPROVED AS TO. FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO ,. City A~to.....~... ,, ,. · ~-: ' i ,;:,. ............. ~.~.}., ',,. '..... ,_.. ROBERT M. SHERFY DepUtY, City Attorney/' RMS:dlI/I$¢ S:\COUNClL\Ords\04-05 Ords\12.38SidewalkMaintain.doc Apdl 7, 2005 -- Page 2 of 2 Pages -- Page 1 of 1 Jean Parks - Re: New date for Planning & Development Committee From: "Sue Benham" <sbenham@sbcglobal.net> To: "Jean Parks" <Jparks@ci.bakersfield.ca.us> Date: 4/7/2005 3:03 PM Subject: Re: New date for Planning & Development Committee Sounds fine, Thanks, Sue ..... Original Message ..... From: Jean Parks To: sbenham @ sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:53 AM Subject: New date for Planning & Development Committee David said his calendar is okay with moving the Planning and Development Committee meeting to April 25th at 1:00 instead of the 18th. Also, I confirmed the date with Mike Maggard's administrative assistant. John asked that I let you know that it's okay with everyone and confirm with you. ~e://C:~D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\jparks~BAKERSFIELD\L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp\G~ 4/7/2005 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March 301 2005 "[ AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar I ITEM: [ G. V'. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD /-/'(~ DATE: . March 22, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Resolution of the City of Bakersfield in support of Senate Bill 926 relating to Biosolids. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND~ .... ':~ ?~'~ ''~ Biosolids are the residues generated during the treatment of domestic Sewage. In the past, large amounts of biosolids were disposed of in the ocean. However, since this practice was shown to be detrimental to our ocean resources, municipalities have been looking for other disposal and beneficial reuse options. Biosolids can have beneficial uses as a fertilizer or soil amendment because it is a good source of nitrogen and organic matter. However, biosolids can also contain pollutants that have passed through the wastewater treatment plant, including heavy metals, hazardous materials, and carcinogens, especially if the biosolids originate from areas with heavy industry. Scientific studies as well as antidotal studies indicate that exposure to biosolids can have significant health effects. Because only a few counties accept the vast majority of biosolids for reuse (including land application and composting), these few counties are being unfairly burdened with a disproportionate amount of the state's risk associated with biosolids. In the name of fairness, counties should thus take the responsibility to dispose and/or reuse of the biosolids that they generate within their own jurisdiction. SB 926 would prohibit the exportation of biosolids to another county for disposal or reuse. Counties will continue to have the ability to adopt local ordinances that are stricter than the state and federal requirements. If there are no feasible disposal or reuse options within' the county, the State Water Resources Control Board has the ability to grant an exception, as .long as the accepting county is in full agreement. S:\COUNClLgAdmins\04-05 Admins\SLUDGE.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 926 RELATING TO BIOSOLIDS. WHEREAS, all sewage treatment produces biosolids, or treated sewage sludge. And many municipalities desire to put these biosolids.to reuse, including land application and composting; and WHEREAS, biosolids can contain heavy metals, pathogens, synthetic organic compounds, and other pollutants; and WHEREAS, the application of biosolids to agricultural land inherently, poses a potential to contaminate groundwater; and WHEREAS, groundwater supplies, especially in the Central Valley, are an invaluable resource for both urban and agricultural uses throughout the state; and WHEREAS, once the groundwater is contaminated, if treatment is possible, it can be difficult and expensive; and WHEREAS, contaminates in biosolids also pose threats to public health; and WHEREAS, Kern County has been the main destination from biosolids from LOs Angeles and Orange Counties for years; and WHEREAS, Kern County is currently considering a project that would significantly increase the amount of outside biosolids already coming into the county; and WHEREAS, Kern County has a valuable agricultural industry in fruits and vegetables that can be severely damaged by contamination, or perception thereof, by biosolids. · S:\COUNCIL~,esos\04-05 Resos~SLUDGE.doc - Page 1 of 2 Pages -- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City ·Council of the City of Bakersfield hereby goes on record supporting Senate Bill 926 (Florez) that would require counties to find reuse and disposal options for biosolids that they generate within their own boundaries. ....... o0o ....... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: ' AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER MAGGARD, CARSON, BENHAM, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER 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 VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney S:\COUNCIL\Resos\04-05 Resos\SLUDGE.doC Page 2 of 2 Pages -- Page 1 of 1 Amber Lawrence - report From: Donna Kunz To: Amber Lawrence Date: 2/28/2005 10:46 AM Subject: report ~...~.~. ~~ Amber, please run the attached by AT for his comments and file://C:LDocuments%20and%20Settings\alawrenc\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW} 00001 .HI... 2/28/2005 B A K E R S F -'I E L D Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDU February 24, 2005 TO: Planning and Development FROM: Donna L. Kunz, )ment SUBJECT: Report on meeting with D( :~on concerning high p[iQrit¥ in Downtown. As a followup to the last incentives were identified, the DB, asked '~* directed redevelopment efforts on key directed staff to meet with the Kathy Butler presented staff a map of in which the DBA would like to see directed DBA requested that the Redevelo parcels for future redevelopment oppo! id sites for the future development of pa es. le present financial constraints of the Downtown RE a commercial area around Chester Avenue was id~ uested that EDCD staff visit the building owners to determine'.' interest and also market the area to private developers eted redevelopment location". The targeted location selected is blocks that lie within the boundaries of Eye Street, 21st Street, K Street and 19th Street. (Map Attached) It was recognized that several existing buildings in the targeted area are already successfully revitalized and that the focus should be on the buildings that are either vacant, underutilized or severely distressed. Redevelopment activities and objectives are determined by the Redevelopment Agency. Staff will present the DBA request to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration at the regularly scheduled meeting in April. dl:\C:~d)ocuments and Settings\alawrenc~Local SettingsSTemp~lan&Dev2.doc Wn____ _ .--...Ker'n ow .s r t "'" ' ng .ows p pui ' earlY 1900 "" ' Old To . e .its 0 igins, o the. Bu al : o ar.in ,s . .:~oumern~' -'-- - t-acmc Ranroaa..' .. . .... :.... .- .. , · .. ' I~'i 1874, tlie SouthernpacifiC (SP) Railroad eitendecl its tracks' Maiiy ·houses in the F__,asi. Bakersfield area are excellent.e~-' TIII2OUGIi' " South to Bakersfield, l~nkihg.ffo'm 'the n0ah,.:the san Francisco-Los '-': '-a-mp.les~ o'f Bungalow and Vernaci.ilar architecture~ Bunga!ows are . . ' · ~ AngeleS'railroad conStruction proje&.'.' - , .... typ!cally one-story strUctures with a brOad, gently:pitched gabled': . . -. · . ' · '. Bef°re. .... the'railrOad reached'Bakersfield dfet/d had.developed roof. The. roOf Overhangs a.front porch which is' Often.supported by .' .between t'lg, e ' - ' '-'. ' ~' '-~ '.'battered Piers. 'Materials most often used are. brick"stone, sh'ingles, '" · ..... ... people of Bakersfield and SP...The i'ai.lr0ad d.emanded a · - .... . : strip' of land. tw0. ..... bl61ckS· wide On each·side Of the .track for. building . ..and~0mbinati0nof''w0°d sid.ing, vernacUlardescribes'. ._' gtrUctUres.exhibiting... ~fl~"a-.' .. · .. ' VI~i' :' ~ .~,.,~;J~. j.' ' . '"' " · its right, of-way. Bakersfield..Would 0nly permit one block on either · .. · -' · - · · ..side'i The railroad b?Pas~ed Bake~field ~fid built:itS tra'ck~ nonh.of architecture.'geveral of.tYpes . ' the.town...- ·., , . ,....-::.., . .. .. . . . ~' '-i. ...' ' : houses were ' '"oumuer~',. mtmeu . . . ut ~v~assacnusctta, cohstrUcted · . . .' ... ....... :- . ..'., . By..t874, regular'Passenger and. freight traing'were.0perating frOm around',:19.05 _ ~i i " "" ' "' ' : .... '"" ' the statiofl at Sumner. The San Francisco-Los'Angeles line Was- . "1940. Many- -. ~~ ~ ;' .... '.: . .. 7.... . completed on September s, 18761-' "" ' :' · : .... i'..' ...... .,,..~.. , :. were USed,for" .--~.'.'~.~. "~: ' " ' :' .. , _ The' establishment of'the railroad attracted many ethnic gi'ouPs. · railroad person7- fB~r~a-7._f~:~ ~3¢L:&3~ .: - to SUmneL During tti'e construction0f the TehachaPi LoOp, 1874- . nel and owners ot ~mployees of:area busineSsos... ... . 76,' many.Chinese se/tlCd [here. Thcopening Of. the railrOad broUght TWO excellent· example~s"of Vernacular architecture ar~ 10cated'i . . the French.'· .victor'_ __L°uis. Amg_bdCame ..~ssociated'with 'an Iratian at 1032'_ and._ ..1033 K~rn Street: Both of ·these skfictui'es are suspiJ .' . . · Swiss,' Beneditt0 Ardizzi,'and together·Opened the Amy'and Ardizzi. · ciously of.the Clarence'CUllim6re desier~.~ · . .. '" ' .-. .-"" "' · ? ' ':-'": · Mercantit'e in-18761 The Basque, primarily ranchers and farmers in. Su.mner's ·east-west streets were named after letters in the . - ' ' '- . ·" : . the are~/, also 0wned-~i0ie~s and' bakerieSl .''. ' ' ' ' '> ...... ' alphabet.-Sumner later' became part of'Bakersfield,, a 'dity Which.· ' · .Bakersfield got' i/s' railroad' when the-San Francisco'.(SF)/~nd. 'used.the Mp.~ab'et for:its north-south streets'.' Being a city. With tWO' '· san Joaquin Valley (SJV).Railroad b'rought'its tracks from the north sets of.streets with the same:names was.'auoided when'Sumner'S--. ' ' i. " . .... " " in 1898. In Ig00,1Santa Fe. bought the SF'and SJV line, known streetswere-renam~d: "A" Street 6ecame Alpine, ,B"..became '. ' '. ".. :...- · .. ~s'"The:Pe0p[~'S."" ' - .:. ~ . Butte(and,so forth, With a few exceptions,.ending with Oregon,; ': ' .' 1" Pacifi~.,and Quincy Streets. ' · .. :.... -Railroad" for · . · : -.$6,000,000.Today Bakersfield.' '.- '" ' 1' :' Beale Family inflUenced Street names··· .' ' :. .-:... · ... . . still, retains Santa- .. "{." streets in the area'are ·named after the Beale Family, Edward · Fe.and southern.· . ~.":} FitZgeraidB6ale first'came to California as the m:ea S;Superinten, ii .... · .' . .:' i PacifiC ':'"' ' :'l~'i." dent of Indian Afh{rs.'.He tried to humanely balance the needs of ' .'- . ' . , '" "railroads.' ." the ~ettle~s and the Indian~.. His ~0n; TrUxtun'Beale; ofice served as ' - -'. ·. ' ·. '" : '-' '" The'Ciiy :" ' the United'StatesAmbassador.to Spain.·TrUxtun.·Beale contributed " .'-, · .... .. · .. · : the Beale Memorial Clock Tower to Bakersfield as a memorial to. . " . .'--'s-or'c°fH'it iBakersfie!d' .. ' his'mothe?, Mary Beal& originally, ihe. tOWer Was placed 'ia the'.' - ' l ' -- BAKE~tOGO DEPICtS'-'STREET ~. '' ': '- ' ' ."' ":' . ' ' ' Chester Avenue and 17th Street intersection, but was darhaged in 'ti"::' ]}~c$lrI~m -"Punu¢.UsnAn¥ , . , . - . · ' ,' - . COMPLETED : ' PreservationCOmmisSion Welcomes yOu tO.iake a"tOur Of the' : the !952 earthquake. A replica. Was later buili in front of·the Kern HI&TODIC JUL:Y 7TH. 1915 '"' i many.remain, ing historically, and architecturally Significan! strUctures County Museum... · PLACED ON' ' " " COl~,lle~IOlq · . N~m. VATiON · nm ~y'-';';to-' of East Bakersfield. '- - ' ..... <' · .~ - ~ATIONAL. ' ' "-- ': '. that.COntributed to·the · ' ' . . REGISTER OF .. ..· .' ':... ... . .-.. ' -' ' - ' ' Design by Carol¢ Richwine .HISTORIC - . '. . · . ' ' ' : PLACES - ' ' - . " " - " APRIL 1ST"- 1981' .' -. .' · Old Town Kern .Landmarks comp' exwhi~:h had l~een onsite s'~nce prior to the t'um ofthe centu'.ry. The and the-arcade are the only elements which have original architecture .. .. buildings were constructed in-the 1930's and"early 1'940's as part of an -)somewhat.intact. Bri.ckforthehot~landdepoiwe}efurnished:byCurranand ' : . ' · ' .'" ·. ~ UPgrade, of tile school system. OriginallY·having a' brick building·in the.".' -. Swan, pfedeceSsortoSandstOneBricl~,anearb~,busfnesswhlchnowoperates '' " . ' Bemard'st. '~'.- "'" . ~: [ .' .'" ' ' . .... . .middle, -the. complex: grew into. neck buildings as 'time progressed.' The .'.'0n East Tmxtun Avenue. Laid out by SoUthe'i'n Pacific;' the t0wn'ofSumner ~ ~~iiie/. 'i../~' ......' °riginM brick building iv'as und°ubtedly rem°red after the 1952 earthquake was a bitsy' railroad town wiih the depot, hotel, roundh0uSe, Switching yard,.. . .. :' . .., ' .. , ':, -livestockpemy, an.d slieepsheariiig facilities..The'bUildihggwer~altered and. 15. BimatHouse-$27..NilegStree't BuiltbyLeonJ. Bimat'i'n. ii~!0, this' ,expandedsuPerficialiy. in1895uponthenearingofthecomPleti0noftheSF abuse is an. excellent example .of th~ iCaiifomia Bungalow style and' :is'. ' '*'and Sj¥ Railroad in..1898. .... ... : .-'- . i.... · designed after the GreenBrothers'h0mes..Bimatwas from Bassei'PYrenees, : · : ' "· ' i. .' i.. . . ' .I . Frant:e andhis Wife Malvina Rostain-was from Hautes-Alpsl France. -" ' 13. The Iberifi Hotel~ built in 1893 by the B. asquecommunitylsnoi.~,named .' . ..' "' ... i i .. - '. '- · .' . . : Noriega"s,.525 Sumner Street. Basque'slyle.'boardin~ house, meals, are' "' ~ ~"-22~sSt' " 6. Eaiq Warre'n's H0me-.707NilesStreet. In.1889:Eari.Warrex/'sfather', .' 'serVe'd'there today.' , -. : . :.... . - , ~,.~..' ~' "~ :~~ n'~-7~':' ''.~So~e~~ Methias'Warren'f°und'W°rkasacar'repairmanand'carinspect°rf°rthe ~ . : .' .... -'..: .. Southern. pa~ific railroad. He located his fanfily;"in a little row house across .~ 14. Pyrenees 'cafe :J'601 sumner:.Street, 'olSened' in .:.!935 :through 'a . ' ···.~~ · L·~:>~ fr0mthes.h0pyards?EarlWarr¢~spe/i.t, his~hildhoodthereandlat~se~ed, :·partnershipbetW-eenincencio-Jack-JuarenaandJeanne-Jennv-iriban~e.: . ~ . ~ · ~ · · 5.I' ~,~ ~.,.~ ,~ ., as the Chicf. J'ustice .of the unite.d States SulSrenieCourt.... . . . . . . .. ., . Dunns. !n'thOse'dayslunchcost$..50anddiraler$.75:~Drinks'wereserved'. . . . . . .. · i ~:' i ~ ' ~ .'! · """ .... ' ' ' : insideandals0'thr°ughawind°Wt0patr°ns'°utside'aprac'ticelater'deem~d "~ ' ~t ''/ ] ~ ' ._'.~~l~ '~, ~ 7~'TheTej0nTheater'~i20OBakei-street,'6pened0nJun~'17,1947: The illegal by' lOcal authori- ' "' '" · ~t~i ~L~' : building isanexamPleof'mini'malistartdeco'architectiire and '&'as the last " ; '. '.-'' ~ '."'. '"~1 ' '~ ~'~,,~ ,;,~/ .~"~,~ ~ · theater'builtby'the Bakersfield Lemucch[familvl The theater is'now ~ised '~'' :, 15.: Ar'sene Peter. Bet-...'...'. ~' ..,~ ~" .i .. ' ...~ . ~.'. ~. f01' the screening independent, foreign and aa.flints; as as." /~,,--~ ~ .*- ~..,... ~ ..' /: ! ~~~ ..:, otherspeclalevents~ "~.'''." ~ - 'Street. Destroyedbyfire .'~ii:~ ~~' " i~ . ": : .: ' .'i.' ..' · .'~ .' · · ~. i' .'..' 'ii'' ." ·i ,. i/{ ~i994;. the B'ernar. d':- · . ·8. Olcese Hous~ - 528 Monterey Street Lousie Olcese built this part . ! House was one of few ex- ~ ~ i .: '" ~!'talianate'partQueenAnneandpartVict°rianh°n~ea.saweddinggiftt°hi~ 'ampl.es~fQue-enAnnean'd i' /~[~1~'~ ~ -.E.Truxtunive:. '.. .... . .~'~ ~ .... , 'f inl8 ~.Atonetimeascreenedporchwasonthe estside, PorChes were ' Eastlake archite, ctureleft J~...,_~Z~k~:a~,__. m · .: . .. . .. : ' used for sleeping outSidej:Tliis'hou~'e.also has a basemenL ' . '" ' · , in Bake~sfi~'ld.' ·Bernard · ' : - .' · : .:-', . "'~. ' . "' - '. ' 'i: ' .... ' '.' .i · ' ~ i.and his Wife came: to'-~~..~ · I. The French Shop 0pcxted at 1820 Baker Street iii 1941.' . .:. 9. Snider's Cyclery in, business'since' 1904; and at its present locati0'n'at.. Sunmer m t875 shortly '-~: - "-'"'--ct~,4.=~...c . · . ' ".' ' .. '· ' .. ' " .. !. ' 1011: Baker'Stree~ 'since 19421 has' a sianiPed tin. Ceiiing'and vi'ntage a'fterSouthemPacificlaid ' i '" ! ::: ' ' ' "i ': .2; Baker Street Library '~ 1,~00 Baker Street -The libra ry, built ih 1915,. J ". 'Photographs, ... '. out the town. He was the'treasurerofSumner, a.s'tage operator, an accountfint · . is a classic example ofltalianRenaissan~:8~,ersionOfGreekReviqal Federal ' · :. .. .. .- . ~. and assembled the Bernard Addition to the north, of Monterey.' . · .lSublic building'architecture. Architect O..L. Clarkwas commissioned by the. 10. BroWn BUilding- 630 KentUcky. street. "This is a three-s[ory fiotel/ ( .'~ '. - '- · :. :... ' -.. City of Bakersfield to.de'Sign the. library. · In the" 1980's the'building .; · shopcombinationbujldingWhich'wasconmmninthe 191'0,20era':' It is the 16. Pyrenees BakerY- 717 Ea. stllsiStreet;'bakes71000'lgs:0fsourd~ugh.' · tinderwentarchite~tural'renovati6nandseismicretrofit, ltwasplaced onthe i. . only multi-story c0mnlercial.s.itruc'ture to surVNe.'intact in East Bakersfield. :' bread da'ily, and has been ii{the'area for ni0re than 'i00 yearsl '" : ' · · , Agood example 0f Revival.architecture, it is finished inbrick.xvith clinker . . .... . · - . ~. . . · National Registerof Historic Places in Aprii'1981. 5 5' .I bricks..in decorative niotifs.' : . ·'" 17. Uhalt'sBlacksmith'& WeldingW~rksi532E. i9thstreet.'.Thissteel -' 3. Noriega House:- 1'325 Baker street' ;' Builtby Faustino MierNoriega ' : ..-..'. ..'. i .i ' . : · '--... , sidedwood.framebuildingiSoneofth'elastof'itskindinBakerSfield2 Ir'dateS in the 1890Ys, this a one. and 0ne-half s.t0~.'Queen Antic cottage with..a ' ' 11. Saba's -_.9t5 Baker Street, Carries men's fashions. The store was ' : from 1920 whenblack~miths still worked i'mn' for agriCUlturailS~irPoses .Classical Revival'P°rch and detailing..It is the only:one of its kind in . ' esi'ablished in'1934;and h.mkes men's'suits t6order anduniforms forp01ice :E%t Bakersfield. The business was 0ri~nally.pUrchasdd from Prosper . ..'. Bakersfield. Originally in 'sheep raising, N0riega went. into ,the. hotel 'and 'hi~hWay Patrol officers fromar°und the state. ' ". Paquetie by Bernard6 Uhalt in 1911,'when it was Ioeate'd on Eu}eka Street. business in 1893.' .. .. '. ', .. : . '' . i- Uh~lt 5vas pne of the.many native Basques who settled in-Ea-si Bake~fie'ld . ' ... " ' .... 12. SoUthern Pacific Raiii'oad'.Depot- Baker and sUmnerStreets "The : ' ' "" .. 4. Education center'- 1300 BakerStreet This PWA Moderne style wing sSuthern Pacific Deppt (closest'to Baker stree.t) a nd Ho'tel Was comPletedin ':'18. 'Luigi~s - 725 East 19th Streetl was first established'by Joe LemucChi structure with cubist design windows is'actually seve{'ai buildings added to ~ i889. separatedbya porticopr0menadeonthe .north (t~ck)s.ide the complex '.. '; When'he opened his grocery store in 1910~ East l'9th Street was then a major ..... .. · .... . .... route and Italian sandwiches were sold through a Storefront'windoV'~i " each other. This set'of buildings are. the last Vestige:of a 1930's school has undergone ~everal rem0deh and is an architeeturaldisaste'r.'Ther0ofline' .'-" .... . '- ' B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 24,2005,--., .-- .~.,~j~w~r.) TO: Planning and Development Committe~_/~0.~ V FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Report on followup meeting with Downtown Business Association concernin9 high priority redevelopment opportunities in Downtown.' In a recent meeting with the DBA, Kathy Butler presented a map of several blocks within the downtown in which they felt directed redevelopment efforts needed to be undertaken. After a discussion concerning the financial constraints of the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area, a single area was then identified to receive redevelopment focus in which EDCD would visit the building owners to determine their redevelopment interest and also market the area to private developers as a "targeted redevelopment location". The targeted area is several blocks that lie within the boundaries of Eye Street, 21st Street,.K Street and 19th Street. (Map Attached) It was recognized that several existing buildings are already successfully revitalized within the targeted area and that the focus should be on the buildings that are either vacant, underutilized or severely distressed. ds:\S:\DEBBIE'S\Plan&Dev2.doc  ] ' MU IT - ' ~ PROSTHEZ ~6 ~ ~R'iH~ KERN 0OMMU~IITt'COLLEG~. DI~T ' F )I.NICK I;AMIL¥ TRt~S1 2 $1 ~ ~tLl~8 W~.TE~ H · 71ERi~Ii~B9 & JOYCE TR LL¢: AMER[GN~I IWI NAM VAN IHVESTMENT8 LLI~ & GABRIEl, FOX'TIIEATER/ FOUHDA'IION I~AR~RA .JA~E8 DAV1D ~ G~O~5 MARI'iI~ ' E~RPR~ IN~ B~FO~ . ._ ~ECTRIG ~0 ~ lNG ' ., * LIVTR / &~T~RIk~. DPLL~ I ~UEU 19TH IA/All PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Plannin.q and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date /"-~ I-'~'--- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Fax/e-maih. Subject: '~,/~ ~_.~. PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Planninq and Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Company/ Organization: T~. ~(~ d ~'~'~ t i Jean Parks - Planning and Development (~mm tree Meetin's .................................................................... Pa e 1 From: John W. Stinson To: Benham, Sue; David Couch; Maggard Mike Date: 1/14/2005 11:35:38 AM Subject: Planning and Development Committee Meetings Planning and Development Committee. Chairperson Benham has requested that the following tentative dates and times be scheduled for committee meetings in 2005. Please note in February there is no meeting scheduled due to the holiday and Joint City/County meeting. Please let me know if their are conflicts or if there need to be time changes. January 31 - 1:00 p.m. March 14 - 1:00 p.m. (Mike - Sue said if this would be better to schedule this meeting at 3:00 p.m. that is ok with her, please let me know your preference) April 11th or 18th (Mike - again Sue asked that I get your preference between these two dates - and your preferred times - Thanks) The remainder of meeting times will be set at the first meeting in January. When I receive confirmation of the dates, I will send them out, along with a list of open referral items. Thanks CC: Alan Tandy From: John W. Stinson To: David Couch; Maggard Mike Date: 1/21/2005 11:33:20 AM Subject: 'Planning and Development meeting dates Councilmember Benham asked that I clarify that it was her intent to have 2 Committee meetings in March since there is none scheduled for February due to holidays and the joint City/County meeting. Therefore the meetings scheduled for March 2nd at 1:00 p.m. and March 28th at either 1:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. are both meetings she would like to schedule of possible. Thanks CC: Alan Tandy; Benham, Sue From: John W. Stinson To: Benham, Sue; David Couch; Maggard Mike Date: 1/14/2005 11:35'.'38 AM Subject: Planning and Development Committee Meetings Planning and Development Committee Chairperson Benham has requested that the following tentative dates and times be scheduled for committee meetings in 2005. Please note in February there is no meeting scheduled due to the holiday and Joint City/County meeting. Please let me know if their are conflicts or if there need to be time changes. January 31 - 1:00 p.m. March 14 - 1:00 p.m. (Mike - Sue said if this would be better to schedule this meeting at 3:00 p.m. that is ok with her, please let me know your preference) April 11th or 18th (Mike - again Sue asked that I get your preference between these two dates - and your preferred times - Thanks) The remainder of meeting times will be set at the first meeting in January. When I receive confirmation of the dates, I will send them out, along with a list of open referral items. Thanks CC: Alan Tandy From: John W. Stinson To: David Couch; Maggard Mike Date: 1/21/2005 11:33:20 AM Subject: Planning and Development meeting dates Councilmember Benham asked that I clarify that it was her intent to have 2 Committee meetings in March since them is none scheduled for February due to holidays and the joint City/County meeting. Therefore the meetings scheduled for March 2nd at 1:00 p.m. and March 28th at either 1:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. are both meetings she would like to schedule of possible. Thanks CC: Alan Tandy; Benham, Sue ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar MEETING DATE: January 26, 2005 ITEM NO: TO: Honorable MaYOr and City Council APPROVED FROM: Development Services - Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD CITY ATTORNEY DATE: January 4, 2005 CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance adding Chapter 17.59 and amending Sections 17.04.045, 17.04.128, 17.04.322, 17.04.618, 17.08.070, 17.08.110, and 17.25.060 of the Municipal Code relating to wireless telecommunication facilities. (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance. BACKGROUND: reading of this ordinance was given by the City Council on January 12, 2005. The issue concerning wireless telecommunication towers was initially discussed by the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council on April 26, 2004 with direction to staff to prepare a draft ordinance. That draft was reviewed by the Committee at their meetings held on August 16 and October 11,2004. It was then forwarded to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2004 and voted unanimously to forward the ordinance to the City Council for adoption. They made only one change to the draft forwarded by the Planning and Development Committee by adding added item M. to Section 17.59.030. This item permits the approving authority (ie. Planning Director, BZA, Planning CommisSion, or City · Council) to require landscaping as necessary to further screen or aesthetically enhance telecommunication facilities as it relates to adjacent development. The Commission also considered' comments received from sOme telecommunication companies but no further amendments were made other than some section numbering corrections. The new ordinance encourages companies to configure their wireless communication antenna and tower facilities to minimize visual effects upon the skyline. It emphasizes improving design and overall aesthetics of antenna monopoles. Antennas that are camouflaged as trees, architecturally incorporated into existing buildings, or completely concealed inside building structures such as steeples, will be permitted through an administrative review by the Planning Director. Antennas that do-not incorporate . any concealment, such as the typical silver monopole with a large arraY on top or lattice towers, will be ruired to be reviewed through a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.. The ordinance addresses setbacks from property lines and other antennas and towers, establishes a consistent height limit sensitive to the surrounding natural setting, encourages co-location of facilities (through greater separation of antennas), screening of associated equipment, and the use of "best-technology" stealth designs. January 4, 200~, 3:39PM P:.IORD_CEQA IWkeless Telec~ommunication - CC Admin Ad~o#on. doc ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.59 AND AMENDING SECTIONS '17.04.045, 17.04.128, 17.04.322, 17.04.618, 17.08.070, 17.08.110, AND 17.25.060 OF THE 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:Y:)RD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 26, 2005 1'7.59.020 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, per.sonal 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, field lighting and signs (excluding outdoor advertising structures), 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 so that it is indistinguishable from the main structure. These antennas may be permitted in any zone district. P:~ORD_CEQA\Wireles~ Telecommunication Ord. doc January 26, 2005 -- Pn0e ~ of R Pa~es -- 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. 51 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 17.59.030. 2. New uncamouflaged monopoles. 3. All °ther 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~Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 26, 2OO5 ' -- Pa~e 3 cf ~ Pa~e~ -- 17.59.030 Development and Design Standards. A.' Minimum setbacks of any antenna or tower, including equipment and equipment buildings, shall be as follows:. 1. Fifty (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 monopo!es and lattice towers, and 20 feet for equipment.buildings. .. 3. All other setbacks of the zone 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 maximun~ height of an antenna or tower, including equipment and equipment buildings, shall be as follows: 1. Sixty-five (65) feet or no more than 20% above the existing height of adjacent natural objects, whichever is less, for stand-alone monopoies on property zoned or designated residential, residential suburban, agriculfural, Or open space. Natural. objects do not include fabricated structUres such as buildings, signS, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication towers. 2. One-hdndred. twenty-five (125) 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 commercial or industrial. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, signs, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication towers. 3. If the antenna or tower is mounted on a roof, no taller than 15 feet above the roof or 20% of the building height, whichever is less. 4. If the antenna is architecturally integrated within a building or structure, or concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as a clock tower, carillon tower, and steeple, its height is limited by the height of that building or structure. 5. Equipment buildings shall not exCeed a height of 12 feet and an area of 750 square feet. P:~ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Oral.doc January 26, 2005 -- Page 4 of 8 Pages -- 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. Use of barbed or razor wire is prohibited. Trees may be required by the approving authoritY .· when deemed necessary to ensurecompatibility with the surrounding area. 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. E. Signs and advertisement are prohibited, except required informational signs for public safety in accordance with the area limitations of Section 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 monopoles, slim-lined monopoles, and lattice structures shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet apart. Camouflaged monopoles shall be located no closer than 300 feet apart. Co-location is encouraged to minimize the number of antennas and towers in an area. P:~ORD_CEQA\Wiretesa Telecommunication OrcLdoc Janua,-y 26, 2005 -- Pnn~ ~ nf 8 Pan~..~ -- 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 regarding their original approval such as painting, material screening, camouflage, landscaping, or anything deemed to the appearance ' ~ of the overall, facility. M. '. Landscaping may be. required to further screen, aesthetically enhance, or blend the facility with adjacent natural features or development when deemed necessary by the approving authority to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 17.59.040 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. SECTION 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. P:~:)RD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord. doc January 26, 2(X)5 -- Pnn~ t~ of 8 Paa.~ .- 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 radi° 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 installed in accordance with Chapter 17.59. 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 ........ I P:\ORD..-CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Or,.doc J~nua~ 28, 2005 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield .at a'regular meeting thereOf held on , by the following vote: · AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ' ABSTAIN: CoUNCILMEMBER ABSENT-: COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED · HARVEY L. HALL Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVEDastoform VIRGINIA GENNARO City A~orney By: P:~ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 26, 2005 -- Page 8 of 8 Pacl_es St;at;us Report; - 1/1 8/05 Current Priority Items: Minimum Park Size & Park Credits for Gated Communities - Referred by Couch 9/10/03 ~ ~ Zonina Process - Biq Box Centers - Referred by Couch 2/12/03 (St:a(~as2 P~ann~ng te cern n~ttee} 3~ Road Referred by Couch 3/15/00 Additional review of issues related to the 6PA/EIR Referred by Couch, Benham & Maggard 12/11/02 (status: The following issues were identified at the Feb. 2, 2004 meeting: Policy on bus steps and turnouts to aid traffic flow; cell towers; Require developers to ocer solar as an optbn; Specific plan for the noRheast; Minimize light pollutbn to preserve the night sky; Update on Alternative 15 and Highway 58 realignments by PW. (Status StaCf has me~; w(h Centa? tsse on ;}¢'e{eve~ta c panes bus tuFne~s s and cee phone ~ewe~s.. Ce lewe¢ en~a%ce gven f~,s~ ~ead ng on ~/I2 05 and scheduled e? adep aen Ordinance Enforcement - Referred by Benham 5/8/02 (Status: Tree trimmin9 permit ordinance to Council 4/30/03) (Sis' ~.~s 8ta~ a~ev~ew n9 T~ee Tech~"~ c;S Mant a~ wth Tree Foumtst~on and t-esea~ch n9 ~ss~ es t~at Com~*n~ttee ~'eq~ ested ~t~on Fees - Refecred by Benham 6/25/03 (Status: repo~ by staff at Feb. 2, 2004 meeting. {S(a~:us: Stale: to ana~yxe he costs of epson 2 to pre~ec( ne >atts~nn'~ent em;ss~ens be m~t~ga(:ed to zero ~nd b *;g ~he back (e the commStee~ S~s~f Sent ~e{te~* to SJAPCC~ to get e~esse~s offset nfern' at, on. Update to Ce~n tree en 7. ~raa EIR - Referred by Maggard 9/8/04 (Status; Repe~'t m~de by staff: at ~ e/11/04 Corem t('ee meet;rig Me sct~en ~aken by Common,tree } 8, Establishment of Be~odal Grove - Referred by Maggard 8/18/04 (Stat~.as Staf~ win ~ePcesentaSve of Tree ~:em'~dat on and ~'nade pesentaSen to Con m~ttee 9~ Headn - Referred by Council 7/21/04 {jS{stus Repe~ ~o Comm,(tee 8/t684 Councs~nemeer Couc~ to ~eet wth P~. bNc Woe'ks Staff and b~ng bacR ~ecen~'nendat o '~ for Ce~nm tree 10. Enforcement bade tree ordinance - Referred by Benham 11/04 4e ~> erd~'~anoe Te ad ~ess~n8 these net ~} cen~pNance wtN ~:~ shade ~.,~d:y Attorney to ~ev es/ehe~'~ c{ee t~ee e d~nsnces~} Status Repot1; - ~]/S 8/'05 Pending or in Progress ~tems: Leaf Blowers ~ Referred by Hanson 7/31/02 (Status may be p~-e erupted by egis~at on CA~B?} 2. Commerc~a~ and Industrial Develo - Referred by Couch 6/27/01 (Sta 8s On hok~ ~ Davd Coach wo~,~d ~ke schema(c ~ace Needs - Referred by Couch 2/06/02 {SSatus: On hod ,.~ Bend n9 stae 4, Future ~eratJon of Bakersfield A~r~od, Referred by Maggard 8/21/02 ($~a~.us:' Pubc CB6 Fleet Veh~cies - Referred by Maggard 12/11/02 nfen~aat on e Cemnl gee 2/3/03} Commercia~ Development ~ OvemiG.b.! Parking and Campieg in Lots - Referred by Maggard 2/12/03 Northeast Bluffs - Referred by Maggard 2/12/03 {State, as: es B..i.ab.~ax 99 ~ Scenic Corridor ~ Referred by Benham 2/26/03 9. La~dsca~ Pla~s - Coordination between Parks and Public Works - Referred by Couch 9/24/03 10, Pedestrian Trai~s & Pocket Parks -- Referred by Benham 9/24/03 11, Noise Ordinance Amendment - Referred by Benham 11/5/03 ~2. ~uest from North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District to parks withi~ the district from O80 en $ ace to RE Recreation ~ - Referred by Council 2/11/04 (S stun: Staff is revew ng the xeques~, e dete~'m ne f Nerve a~'e any ~ssues e~~ cencexns ~e~ated ~e ~he p~'epesed change} 13. Zonin~ Ordinance Review re~ R-Z A~enities - Referred by Maggard 4/28/04 14, ?~ Cent Sales Tax for Transportation - Referred by Ma99ard 10/20/04 15 DowRtow~ Development I~centives - Referred by Benham 1/12/05 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: January 12, 2005 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar [ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City CoUncil APPROVED FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Dev. Services Dir. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: December 29, 2004 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Bakersfield Municipal Code Sections 16.16.010E, 16.20.040, 16.20.060, 16.22.020, 16.24.090 relating to maps, adding Section 16.52.050 relating to appeals of map application denials, and amending Section 17.14.070 relating to lot area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recOmmends first reading of this ordinance. BACKGROUND: Chapter 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code deals with subdivisions. The proposed "clean-up" ordinance prOvides for uniform numbering of phases or units on final tract maps and final parcel maps, establishes notice requirements and exceptions pertaining to drill sites and mineral rights, and provides an appeal prOcess for tentative subdivision map applications r~jected as incomplete. The amendment to Section 17.14.070 simply corrects a reference to another Municipal Code section. S:~COUNCILV~:Jmins~04-05 AdminsH 6.16.010EtcAmend. Maps.doc December 29, 2_004 - 10:44 AM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 16.16.010(E) RELATING TO TENTATIVE MAPS, 16.20.040 RELATING TO FINAL TRACT MAPS, 16.20.060 RELATING TO FINAL TRACT MAPS, 16~22.020 RELATING TO FINAL PARCEL MAPS, 16.24.090 RELATING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, ADDING SECTION 16.52.050 RELATING TO APPEALS, AND AMENDING SECTION 17.14.070 RELATING TO MINIMUM LOT AREA ZONING BE IT ORDAINED by the COuncil of the City of Bakersfield as folloWs: SECTION 1. SectiOn 16.16.010(E) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is herebyamended to read as follows: 16.16.010 Filing. A tentative map (tract or parcel) for which approval is sought for any subdivision shall be filed as follows: 'E. Every person submitting a tentative map shall also submit two (2)sets of postage prepaid, unsealed envelopes addressed to all mineral owners and lessees of record appearing on the title report as shown in the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (herein this title referred to as D O G G R ) recOrds as operator of record '-o '''~ -~n ,4 ..... ~ ,~,,, ,4.,+,, ,,~: .,,.,,.,,..,..,,;,.,., ,.,~:,~,,,.. ~ who have not waived their riqht of surface entry underlyin.q the subdivision. The applicant shall submit a copy of the letter from D.O.G.G.R. identifyin.q the operator of record, if any, with the subdivision application. The letter from D.O.G.G.R. shall be dated no more than 30 days prior to the subdivision application submitted and shall list said name of operator of record and their addresses as shown in D.O.G.G.R.'s records or a written statement from D.O.G.G.R. that there is no party of record with D.O.G.G.R, relative to the site. -Page 1 of 9 Pages - SECTION 2. Section 16.20.040(D) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: . 16'20.040 Form and Contents. ' D. Each phase Or unit shall be numbered in consecutive order, be.qinnin.q with the number "1." For each phase or unit, E~ch each buildable lot shall be numbered in cOnsecutive order be,qinnin,q with the number "1." eaeh Each nonbuildable lot shall be lettered in consecutive order be.qinnin.q with the letter "A.", ~.".d c~ch Each street shall be P, ame~ labeled with the name approved by the planning director. SECTION 3. · · Section 16.20.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as folloWs: 16.20.060 Statements· of parties having record title interest. A~. A statement, signed and aCknoWledged by all parties having any record title interest in the real property subdivided, consenting to the preparation and recordation of the final tract map ·is· required, except as omitted pursuant to this section. ·· 1~. A__~. The signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to, minerals, .including but not limited to, oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances, not including lessees of such rights, shall be required unless his name and the nature of his respective interest are stated on the final map and the advisory agency determines, or on appeal the city council finds, at least one of the following applies: 1. The party'_s right of surface entry has been expressly waived by recorded docUment, including, but not limited to quitclaim deed and/or reservation. 2.. The party'.s interest is less than twenty percent of the mineral interest estate and the signature or express waiver of right of surface entry by recorded document, including, but not limited to, quitclaim deeds and/or reservations of one or more parties having a combined interest of more than fifty percent of the mineral interest estate has been obtained. 3. The subdivider intends to reserve a drill site or sites as defined in Section 15.66.080 C of the Municipal Code on or within a practicable distance of the subdivision as determined by the advisory agency, and as to which the owner of the mineral interest has a riqht of access and use that is or has been reserved and is delineated and labeled as such on the approved tentative map for the subdivision or, if -Page 2 of 9 Pages - outside the boundaries of the subdivision1 is specifically described on the aPproved tentative map; and is Subiect to the followinq notice requirements- ~. a_. At least thirty days prior to the date. of headng on the tentative map, the subdivider has. given written notice, by registered mail or if impracticable as determined by the planning director, by publication once in a .newspaper of general circulation. '2 b. Notice shall be'given to each mineral owner and lessee of recOrd who has not Waive'~ his right of surface entry underlying the subdivision as set forth in the preliminary title report required by Section 16.16.010(D) and as shown in D.o.G.G.R. records as operator of record as of thirty days of the date application of the tentative map. 1~. c_. Said notice'shall include a statement of intent to reserve a drill site or sites as defined in Section 15.66.080(C) of the. MuniciPal Code on or within a practicable distance of the subdivision map as determined by the advisory agency, and as to which the owner of the mineral interest had a right of access and use, is or has been reserved and is delineated and labeled as' such on the approved tentative map for the subdivisionor, if outside the bOundaries of the subdivision, is specifically described on the approved tentative map. Said notice shall also include the nature and location of the project, including a tract or parcel map number and a clearly drawn location map of the project area, and the tentative hearin.q date, and time and place of the hearing. ~. d_. A copy of the notice and proof of mailing shall be provided to the planning director within ten days of the mailing/publication date. The advisory agency may require the subdivider to install a wall or fence and landscaping around any or all reserved drill sites and that adequate provisions be made for maintenance thereof. ....... ~ 3gonc:,' a Drillin.q within the reserved drill site shall .... *;*,,* ......... ~ be subiect to compliance with all conditions and mitigation required under other applicable regulations and processes. · . e. Such drill site reservation(s) shall remain in effect for a periOd not less than ten years from approval of the tentative map. The commencement of drilling and/or extraction of minerals upon that site shall automatically extend the ten year time period until operations on the drill site are properly abandoned to the satisfaction of the D.O.G.G.R. If no drilling and/or extraction of minerals occurs on the drill site within ten years and the surface fee owner has provided notice and documentation as required in Section 16.20.060(B)(4), or upon the planning director receiving proof of well abandonment to the satisfaction of the D.O.G.G.R., the surface fee owner may apply for tentative map . approval on a drill site(s) or, by written correspondence to the planning director, may request that the planning commission conduct a public headng to consider the filing of an amending map to remove the drill site(s) reservation designation from the final' map. Said request shall be processed as an amending map in accordance with Section 66472.1 of the Map Act. Said request shall include a preliminary title report covering all easements, -Page 3 of 9 Pages - .. ownerships and title with respect to the drill site parcel(s), including mineral owners and lessees of record as set forth 'in the preliminary ·title report required by Section 16.16.010(D), and two sets of postage prepaid, unsealed envelopes addressed to all mineral owners and lessees of record appearing on the title repOrt~. Notice of public · hearing shall be in accordance with Section 16.16.060~ 4_. The subdivider submits with the subdivision application competent, technical evidence that production of minerals from beneath the subdivision is improbable. The subdivider shall comply 'with the notice requirements listed below. If the advisory agency determines to its satisfaction that production of minerals f¢om beneath the subdivision is improbable, the advisory agency shall make such findinq. a. At least thirty days Prior to the date of hearinq on the tentative map, the subdivider has Riven written notice, by reqistered mail or if.impracticable as determined by the planning director, by publication once in a newspaper of .qeneral circulation. b_. Notice shall be Riven to each mineral owner'and lessee and operator of record who has not waived his ri.qht of surface entry underlyin.q the subdivision as set forth in the preliminary title report required by Section 16.16.010(D) and as shown in D.O.G.G.R. records as operator of record as of thirty days of the date application of the tentative map. c_. Said notice shall include a statement of intent to present at the hearinq competent, technical evidence establishinq to the satisfaction of the advisory a.qency that produCtion of minerals from beneath the subdivision is improbable. Said notice -Page 4 of 9 Pages - shall also include the nature and locatiOn of the project, including a tract or parcel map number and a clearly drawn location map of the project area, and the tentative date, time and place of the hearinq. ' d_ A copY of the-notice and proof of mailin.q shall be provided to the planning director within ten (10) days of the mailinq/publication date. G~. B__:. The prOvisions of subsection 1~ A of this section shall be applicable to .any final f)am~ Subdivision map unless each lot or parcel created thereby has a gross area of twenty acres or. mOre. In addition, the provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply where the initial gross area of the final subdivision map is leSs than fiVe acres ina residential zone or less than two acres in any zone other than a residential zone. D~. C._.~. The provisions of subsection I~ A of this section shall not be applicable to any tract map or final parcel map which further subdivides property which has been previoUsly subdivided and to which the requirements of subsection E, A of this section were applied at the time of the previous subdivision, unless said tract or parcel map proPoseS subdivision ora drilling site. E~. D.__:. For purpOses of subsection B A of this section, a party's ownership of a. fractional portion .of an undivided interest in minerals shall be cdnsidered a separate interest in the minerals estate. For example, ownership of 1/100ths of a one-half undivided interest in the mineral estate shall be considered ownership of one-half percent of the mineral estate. SECTION 4. Section 16.22.020(D) of the. Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.22.020 Form and Contents. D. Each phase or unit shall be numbered in consecutive order, be.qinnin.q with the number "1." For each phase or unit, Each each buildable lot shall be numbered in consecutive order beginning with the number "1." ear~ Each nonbuildable lot shall be lettered in consecutive order be.qinnin.q with the letter"A." , and The scale of the map and north arrow shall be shown on each sheet. Each street shall be labeled with the name approved by the plannin.q director. -Page 5 of 9 Pages - SECTION 5. Section 16.24.090(C) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.24'.090 Vesting on approval of vesting tentative map. C. The rights referred to herein shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in SectiOn 16.24.080. If the final map is approved, these rights shall last for the following periods of time: 1. An initial time period of tWelve months. Where several ·final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map, this initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. 2. The initial time period set forth in subsection (C)(1) of this section shall be automatically extended by any time used for processing a comPlete application for a grading permit or for design or architectural review, if such processing exceeds thirty days, from the date a complete application is filed. 3. A subdivider may apply for a one year extension of time before the initial time period set forth in subSection (C)(1) of this section expires. The application shall.be submitted in the form of a written request with justification for the extension and all applicable fees shall be paid to the planning director and shall be considered by the planning ................ ~ ..... hoar:rig, at a scheduled meetinq. If the extension is denied by the Commission, the subdivider may appeal that denial to City Council within fifteen days. 4. If the subdivider submits a complete application for a building permit during.the periods of time specified in subdivisions 1.-3. of this subsection, the rights referred to herein shall continue until the expiration of that permit, or any extension of that permit. The time limits set forth herein shall specifically apply only to those building permit applications submitted during the periods of time specified in subsections (C) (1)-(3) of this section. The expiration and extension of such building permits shall be governed by the specific provisions of Chapter 15.12.of this code (Uniform Building Code) pertaining to permit issuance. -Page 6 of 9 Pages - SECTION 6. Section 16.52.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby enacted to read as follows: 16~52.050 Application CompleteneSs Appeal. A._ If, after receipt of an initial application a for tentative subdivision map, the development services director or his desiqnee determines that the application is not complete and upon re-submittal of the same application the development services director or his desiqnee determines the same, the subdivider or desi.qnated representative may appeal the development services director's or his desiqnee's determination to the planninq commission by filin,q a Written notice of appeal and payment of fees with the plannin~ director within ten days of said determination. The appellant shall set forth in writinq the precise basis and issues on appeal and request a hearinq thereon. B._ Notice of the date, time and place of the hearinq shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days prior to the hearinq to the subdivider or desi.qnated representative of the subject real property, the owner's duly authorized aqent, the proiect applicant, and the appellant. Notice shall also be mailed to every person filinq with the plannin.q director a written request for notice. C__:. Any person not satisfied with the decision of the plannin.q commission may, within ten days of the date of that decision, appeal to the city council. All'procedures for notice, review of the appeal, and the holdinq of the public hearinq within Section 17.08.080E shall also apply to the city council... D_ Failure to file an appeal within the time period prescribed therefor shall be deemed a waiver of the right of appeal. SECTION 7. Section 17114.070 (B) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.070 Minimum lot area. B. For one-family dwellings the minimum lot size may be reduced to four thousand five hundred square feet per dwelling unit in accordance with Section .~ o~ 1"/n/r',~/-~ 16.28.170(0)(3). ' '"'"-'"' ' -Page 7 of 9 Pages - SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date o~' its passage. ......... 00000--. ..... -Page 8 of 9 Pages - . I HEREBY CERTIFY. that the foregoing Ordinance was pasSed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting theroof held on ,. by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: HARVEY L. HALL, Mayor CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO CitY Attorney By: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney JE/VG:Isc S:\COUNCIL~Ords\04-05 Ords\16.16.010EtcAmnd. Maps.doc --Page 9 of 9 Pages ~- ADMINISTRATIVE R PORT I ~,,o ~= · ~"ua~ ~'~oo~ IAGENDA sEcT'°N: c°nsent calendarITEM NO: }0. (][.,. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Development Services - Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD CITY ATTORNEY /~'"'~'~ DATE: January 4, 2005 CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance adding Chapter 17.59 and amending Sections 17.04.045, 17.04:128, 17.04.322, 17.04.618, 17.08.070, 17.08.110, and 17.25.060 of the Municipal' Code relating to wireless telecommunication facilities. (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends first reading of this °rdinance. BACKGROUND: ' .~ issue concerning wireless telecommunication towers was initially discussed by the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council on April 26, 2004 with' direction to staff to prepare a draft ordinance. That draft was reviewed by the Committee at their meetings held on AUgust 16 and October 11,2004. It was then forwarded to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2004 and voted unanimously to forward the ordinance to the City Council for adoption. They made only one change to the draft forwarded by the Planning and Development Committee by adding added item M. to Section 17.59.030. This item permits the approving authority (ie. Planning Director, BZA, Planning Commission, or City Council) to require landscaping as necessary to further screen or aesthetically enhance telecommunication facilities as it relates to adjacent development. The Commission also considered comments received from some telecommunication companies but no further amendments were made ' other than some section numbering corrections. The new ordinance encourages companies to configure their wireless communication antenna and tower facilities to minimize visual effects upon the skyline. It emphasizes improving design and overall aesthetics of antenna monopoles. Antennas that are camouflaged as trees, architecturally incorporated into existing buildings, or completely concealed inside building structures such as steeples, will be permitted through an administrative review by the Planning Director. Antennas that do not incorporate any concealment, such as the typical silver monopole with a large array on top or lattice towers, will be required to be reviewed through a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The ordinance also addresses setbacks from property lines and other antennas and towers, establishes a consistent eight limit sensitive to the surrounding natural setting, encourages co-location of facilities (through rearer separation of antennas), screening of associated equipment, and the use. of "best-technology" stealth designs. January 4, 2005, 3:39PM P:. iORD_CEQA IW'~eless Telecommunication. CC Adrnin I st reading, doc ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.59 AND AMENDING · SECTIONS 17.04.045; 17.04.128, 17.04.322, 17.04.618, 17.08.070, 17~08.110, AND 17.25.060 OF THE· 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 · Abandon ment 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\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 26, 2005 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, field lighting and signs (excluding outdoor advertising structures), 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 so that it is indistinguishable from the main structure. These antennas may be permitted in any zone district. P:\ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc Janhary 12, 2005 -- Page 2 of 8 Pages -- 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-locationl 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. 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 17.59.030, 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:\ORO_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 12, 2005 17.59.030 Development and Design Standards. A. Minimum setbacks of anY antenna or tower, including equipment and equipment buildings, shall be as follows: 1. Fifty (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 zOne district in which the facilities are located shall applyl 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. SixtY-five (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. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, signs, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication towers. 2. One-hundred twenty-five (125) 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 commercial or industrial. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, Signs, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication -towers. 3. If the antenna or tower is mounted on a roof, no taller than 15 feet above the roof or 20% of the building height, whichever is less. 4. If the antenna is architecturally integrated within a building or structure, or concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as a clock tower, carillon tower, and steeple, its height is limited by the height of that building or structure. 5. Equipment buildings shall not exceed a height of 12 feet and an area of 750 square feet. P:\ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord, doc January 12, 2005 -- Page 4 of 8 Pages -- 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. Chaimlink fencing may only be used if screened with landscaping that is installed and maintained in accordance With Chapter 17.61. Use of barbed or razor wire is prohibited. Trees may be required by the approving aUthority . when deemed necessary to ensure compatibility with the Surrounding area. 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. E. Signs and advertisement are prohibited, except required infOrmational signs for public safety in accordance with the area limitations of Section 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 monopoles, slim,lined monopoles,' and lattice structures shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet apart. Camouflaged monopoles shall be located no closer than 300 feet apart. Co-location is encouraged to minimize the number of antennas and towers in an area. P:\ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 12, 2005 -- Paae 5 of 8 Pa~3es -- 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 regarding their original approval such as painting, material screening, camouflage, landscaping, or anything deemed to the appearance · of the overall facility. . M. Landscaping may be required to further screen, aesthetically enhance, or blend the facility with adjacent natural features or development when deemed necessary by the approving authority to ensure compatibility 'with the surrounding area. 17.59.040 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 withinninety (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. SECTION 2. Se(~tion 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. P:\ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Oral.doc January 12, 2005 -- Page 6 of 8 Pages -- SECTION 5. Chapter 17.04.618 is hereby added t° 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 installed in accordance with Chapter 17.59. 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\Wireless Telecommunication Ord.doc January 12, 2005 .. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN' COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED · HARVEY L. HALL Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form VIRGINIA GENNARO City Att°rney By: P:\ORD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord,doc January 12, 2005 -- Page 8 of 8 pages -- RESOLUTION NO. 160-04 RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN .ORDI'NANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.59 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield initiated a text amendment to Title 17 of an ordinance adding Chapter 17.59 and amending various sections to the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to wireless .telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, set Thursday, NoVember 18, 2004 at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 TruXtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before them on the proposal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning'Commission; and WHEREAS, the above described projeCt is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of CEQA in accordance with the general rule of CEQA (Section 15061); and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing(s), support the findings contained in this resolution; and WHEREAS, at the above mentioned public hearing(s), the proposal was heard and all facts, testimony and evidence was considered by the Planning Commission, and they made the. following findings regarding the proposed project: 1. The ameHdment is necessary and desirable as proper use of the city's zoning authority for the protection of the general health, safety, visual aesthetics, and welfare of the community. 2.The amendments are consistent With the goals, objeCtives, and policies of the General Plan. 3. Hearing notices regarding the proposed project were published as a 1/8th display advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 4. The proVisions of CEQA and City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation ' Procedures have been followed.. Staff determined that the proposed activity is a project and is exempt in accordance with the general rule of CEQA (Section 15061). The amendment adds specific requirements that regulate the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no_ possibility that adoption of this ordinance will have , a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the attaChed ordinance (Exhibit A) be forwarded to the City'Councii for adoption. On a motion by Commissioner Gay, and seconded by Commissioner Lomas, the Planning Commission approved this resolution by the following roll call vote: AYES: BIockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, NOES: None ABSENT: Traguish I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was Passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of November 2004. CI,TY OF BAK'ERSFIELD /Pt_ANN~G COM~llS~ION Murray Tra'guish, Chairman//) · planning Commission- Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. AN oRDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.59 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS 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 r'hinimizes 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:~;)RD_C_,EQA~Wiretess Telecommunication Ord PC approval.doc Noven~be~ 18, 2004 -- Page 1 of 8 Pages -- · · Planning Commission- Exhibit A 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 privatel 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. Ar~tennas mounted on a building or rooftop and that are screened from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent r~esidentially 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, field lighting and . signs (excluding outdoor advertising structures), 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 P:~ORD_CEOA\Wkeiess Telecommunication Ord PC ap~xoval.cloc Novemt3~' 18, 2004 -- Page 2 of 8 Pages -- . . Planning Commission - Exhibit A features so that it is indistinguishable from the main structure. These antennas may be permitted in any zone district. 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 equipr~ent 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-alon~ 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 distan_ce 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 mee: the requirements of Section 17.59.020 B. or the development standards in Section 17.59.030. 2. New uncamouflaged monopoles. 3. All other wireless communication facilities, including lattice towers. 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 residentiall~ 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\Wireless Telecommunication Ord PC approval.doc November 18. 2004 -- Page 3 of 8 Pages -- Planning Commission - Exhibit A 17.59,030 Development and Design Standards. A. Minimum setbacks of any antenna or tower, including eqUipment and equipment buildings, shall be as fOllows: 1. · Fifty (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 zone 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. Sixty-five (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. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, signs, utility poles/towers, or other telecommunication towers. 2. One-hundred twenty-five (125) feet or no more than 20% above the existing height of adjacent natural obje(~ts, whichever is less, for stand- alone monopoles on property.zoned or designated commercial Or industrial. Natural objects do not include fabricated structures such as buildings, signs, utility'poles/towers,' or other telecommunication towers. 3. If the antenna or tower is mounted on a roof, no taller than 15 feet above the roof or 20% of the building height, whichever is less. 4. If the antenna is architecturally integrated within a building or structure, or concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as a clock, tower, carillon tower, and steeple, its height is limited by the height of that building or structure. 5. EqUipment buildings shall not exceed a height of 12 feet and an area of 750 square feet. P:~ORO_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord PC apl~oval.doc November 18, 2004 -- Page 4 of 8 Pages -- Planning Commission - Exhibit A 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 Use of barbed or razor wire is prohibited. TreeS may be required by the approving authOrity when deemed necessary to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 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. E. Signs and' advertisement are prohibited, except required informational signs for public safety in accordance with the area limitations of Section 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 monopoles, slim-lined monopoles, and lattice structures shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet apart. Camouflaged monopoles shall be located no closer than 300 feet apart. Co-location is encouraged to minimize the number of antennas and towers in an area. P:~ORD_CEQA~Wirelesa Telecommunication Oral PC apfxoval.doc Novemt)er 18, 2004 ' - Page 5 of 8 Pages -- Planning Commission - Exhibit A 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 regarding their original approval such as painting, material screening, . camouflage, landscaping, or anything, deemed to the appearance of the overall facility. M. Landscaping may be required to further screen, aesthetically enhance, or blend the facility with adjacent natural features or development when deemed necessary by the approving authority to ensure compatibility with the Surrounding area. 17,59.040 Abandonment and removal. Any wireless telecommunication facility, including antennas, t°wers 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. SECTION 2. Section 17.04.045 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: "Antenna" means any exterior transmittir~g or receiving device mounted on the ground, tower, building, or structure and used in communications that radiate or capture electrom'agnetic 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. P:~)RD_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication ~ PC a,Ol~oval.doc November 18, 2004 - Page 6 of 8 Pages -- Planning Commission - Exhibit A 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 !elephone 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 installed in accordance with Chapter 17.59. 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_CEOA\Wireless Te~'~munication Ord PC approval.doc Novefllber 18, 2004. -; Page 7 of 8 Pages -- Planning commission - Exhibit I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted bY the Council of the City .of Bakersfield at a regular . meeting thereof" held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MACGARD, cOUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the . . · Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED HARVEY L. HALL Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: P:~::)RO_CEQA\Wireless Telecommunication Ord PC approval.doc November 18, 2004 -- Page 8 of 8 Pages -- PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT w*tw. cl.t)alMrtj~ld, ca. ltt TO:' ·Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:. Stanley Grady, Planning Director ,~,~P~,~o~vv.D._"~"~"- DATE: November 18.2004 . /_/~;,~.~.~,~ ,~/~.~..,,___.7. SUBJECT: Amendment to the text of.Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, adding regulations relating t° wireless telecommunication facilities. OWNER/ APPLICANT: City of Bakersfield 1501 ~Truxtun AvenUe Bakersfield, CA 93301 LOCATION: Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution with all findings APPROVING the proposed ordinance amendment and recommend same to the City Councili I'R()J ECT ANALYSIS: The city currently has no specific design criteria in Which to evaluate telecommunication antennas and towers. They are presently permilted in only commercial and industrial zone districts as accessory structures. Setbacks are based on what is used for accessory structures (usually none fi'om adjacenl commercial and industrial, properties and 20 feet from residential properties), antenna heights can range fi'om 90 feet to 240 feet depending on the zonc, and no provisions exist concerning aesthetics or encouragement of co-location by multiple carriers. The new ordinance encourages companies to configure their wireless COlnmunication antenna and tower facilities in a way that minimizes thc visual effects upon the skyline of the community. It emphasi×es improving design and overall aesthetics of antenna monopoles. Antennas that are camouflaged as trees, architecturally incorporated into existing buildings, or completely concealed inside building structures such as steeples, will be permitted through an administrative review by the Planning Director. BZA Staff Rcp.rt Prelmred by: jge P:XORI)_CE()a\Wircte.~'s PC Staff Report. dtw Page 1 Antennas that do not incorporate any concealment, such as the typical silver monopole with a large array on top or lattice towers, will be required to be reviewed through a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The ordinance, therefore, rewards those companies that blend their ' antennas into the surrounding landscape by fast tracking their.permit verses the longer public hearing process for those antennas that are not concealed. The Board's hearing would require the provider to prove their uncamouflaged antenna is appropriate for the area and not affect nearby uses 'or vieTM sheds.'~ The ordinance specifically addresses setbaCks from' property lines and other'antennas and towers, establishes a consistent height limit sensitive to the surrounding natural setting, encourages CO- location of faCilities (through greater separation of antennas), screening of associated equipment, and the use of "best-technology" stealth designs. Enforcement provisions will exist for removal of antennas and towers that are abandoned. Exemptions are Provided for satellite dish, television, and radio antennas in residential areas that are for the private use of homeowners. Existing facilities will only be affected by the new ordinance if apparatus is being added that is over 25% the size of the original permit. Given the initial cost of installation, staff believes that retrofitting existing facilities would be cost prohibitive to the carriers and difficult to enforce. Instead; as older facilities are replaced or'significantly reconfigured, the new antennas will comply with the new regulations. Staff will also continue to encourage voluntary concealment of existing facilities as much as possible. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION: Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in a 1/8th page display advertisement in the Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the { City of Bakersfield Development Services Building; 1715 Chester Avenue: Bakersfield, California.' Copies of the draft were also provided to carriers requesting the document, building industry and real estate groups, and Kern County. This project has been found to.be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thc City oi' Bakcrsfield's CEQA Implementation l'rocedures. Under the general rule of CEQA in accord:tnce with Section 15061 ~.b) (3), it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption o~' thc proposed ordinance will have a significant affect on the environ ment. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution 2. Draft ordinance BZA Stoff Report Prepared by: jge P:~)RD_ CEQA\Wireles$ PC Staff Report. den' Page 2 B A K E R S F I E L D Development services Department - Planning Division ,MEMORANDUM November 18, 2004 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:.,~_...~STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 7- WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE Staff has received CorrespOndence from tWo wireless carriers with comments concerning the Proposed wireless communication ordinance. Attached are these letters with comments regarding each issue'addressed below: 1. No chanqe recommended. The intent of the ordinance is to blend the antennas with the building or structure they are mounted. Larger projections will call more attention to the antenna. The 18-inch projection is a standard that is consistent with a number of other ordinances statewide that staff used to draft the proposal. Additionally, the same projection was used by Kern County in their new ordinance concerning use of slim-line Poles. 2. No chanqe recommended. Any antenna on top of the building is also subject to the ordinance concerning height and screening. They will just be shorter due to the height Of the building. 3. No chanqe recommended. Provisions are already in the section (2n~ sentence) that would permit equipment outside a building. 4. A,qreel chan.qe as'noted. 5. Agree, chan.qe as noted. 6. No chanqe recommended. The intent of this section is to ensure the antenna does not significantly stand out from the natural landscape around it. Staff understands that the antenna may need to be free of obstructions and that is why it can extend above the canopy 20%. APplicants will be required to provide photographs of the area with renderings to show how the proposed antenna blends into the area. If no natural landscape exists, then the antenna would be allowed at the maximum height in the ordinance. 7. No chan,qe recommended. By ordinance, the height is measured to the top of the roof- or parapet. Therefore, the antenna height would be based on that figure. The reason the 20% is proposed is to keep the antenna in sCale with the building. 8. No chan,qe recommended. Since the ordinance will allow antennas in' districts other than commemial and industrial zones, they must be completely enclosed and concealed. This section clarifies that the antenna Cannot be higher than the building concealing it or imply that the building can exceed the maximum height of the zone district just because some portion of it contains an antenna. 9. No chan,qe recommended. Yes, this type of fencing can be considered. It is likely to be used in a residential setting were such fencing would match a typical residential fenCe. 10.A.qree, chan,qe as noted. R I D G' E COM M U N ICATION $. Inc. ~wireless November :[2, 2004 Jim Eggert, PrinciPal Planner City of Bakersfield Planning Department · 1715 Chester Avenue .Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 326-3754 Fax: '(661) 852-2135 Emaih Jeqqert~bakersfieldcity. us Dear Mr. Eggert, Thank you for giving Verizon Wireless the opportunity to comment on your proposed · Wireless Telec'ommunications Ordinance. In order to assist the City of Bakersfield in · .fulfilling its objective-- namely, the promotion of collocation, the City's code must have leeway to allow for the specific equipment requirements of a wireless carrier. More specifically, [ would like to recommend the following changes or clarifications: I ('~ · Under Review Process, 17.59.0201 in sections B. number 3 and 8: The x.._....- projection from the structure does not allow [bt sufficient room for the antennas, mounts, brackets, and any antenna down-tilt. A change to 32" would be more appropriaie and in-line with the antenna installation requirements of Verizon ~. Wireless and other 800 MGHZ providers (cellular). ~ · Under I)cvelopment and Design Standards, l 7.59.020, in Section B, number 5' Verizon Wireless will often mount 2 GPS .antcnmis (approx 8" in diameter) on thc top or'its equipment shelters. The antennas are usually installed on pipe mounts. Thc 12' height limit should only apply to thc equipment.shelter (building) and not to any accessory structures mounted to the top of the equipment shelters. ~. Development and Design Standards, 17.59.020, Point C: Many times Under wireless telecommunication eaglets will use outdoor equipment mounted on a concrete slab. The equipment is otten enclosed bv a fence so that· it is sut'ficiently screened. Point C should be modified to alloxv [~)r outdoor equipment screened bv a lbnce or, if placed on a roo~op, by some type ,~f screening material. Thank you fi,r uiving us thc opportunity to comment on your Ordinance. Please call inc with any questions or clarifications. Sincerely, Andrew Rattner, 925-200-6332 NEXl'EE Communications. Inc. 1255 Treat Boulevard,.Suite 800 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925-279-2300 ' Fax: 925-279-2683 November I l, 2004 Jim Eggert Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance - Bakerafield Dear Mr. Eggert: Nextel's goal is t© provide the highest quality, seamless service to its customers in the. Bakersfield area. We are continuing to upgrade and expand our'-network, and deploy new technologies to meet the ri'sing demand for Nextel service. Given this, we have a great interest in the City's proposed wireless code and appreciate the opportunity to provide comment. Overall We are very pleased With the Ordinance and its flexibility. We Would enc~ourage tim City to maintain this flexibility and to keep the process for sites that the City wants to encourage as simple as possible. Some minor comments follow for your review. . I!' you need any further information or clarification, [)lease do not hesitate to call .at your convenience. I can be reach at 925-570-4755, rcbccca.huntcr(~'!)ncxtel.com. We look !',)rward t(~ workin-., . = with you. Sincerely, Rebecca t. tunter representing Nextel Communications City of Bakersfield 1 of 2 Proposed Wireless Telecom Ord City of Bakersfield Proposed Wireless TelecommuniCation Facilities Ordinance (~) - 17.59.020 C(I) ....the development standards in Section 17.59.030. Currently says 17.59.040, should be .030 ' ' 17.59.030 DevelOpment and Design Standards Currently is listed as 17.59.020 Development Standards _ should be 17.59.030 · F'"'X , 17.59.030 B(I) and (2) . . These sections need further clarification. It is not clear the City's definition' of "natural objects" or when these would be applied. If there were no trees in the area the monopoles would.be allowed up to the height limit of 65-feet or 125-feet? How many "natural objects'' would have to be present before the 20% rule would apply? .,~ o 17.59.030 B(3) · This standard will be difficult to meet on low-rise commercial buildingsl especially if trying to meet the City's screening requirements for the Planning Director Review process. For example, for an average 3 story building (45-feet tall) the cartier would only be allowed to go 9-feet.' This would be especially challenging if the roof had a parapet and the total height is measured from the roof floor, not the top of the parapet.. The antenna needs to have'some clearance from the roof'line in order to properly function. when you add this requirement plus the height of the antenna plus the additional height necessary for the screening, one could easily exceed this height limitation. Nextel would like to encourage the City to apply thc 15-feet above the roof across the board. As an alternative, add a minimum allowed height of 10-feet above the roof. This would further encourage carriers to locate on buildings and screen their facilities without' forcing the application into a Board of Zoning Adjustment' review. ~", o 17.59.030 13(4) .._... If the antenna structure could be fully integrated bx' .:dding a steeple, carillon tower, et,.'. why would the City limit th,: height allowed by the height of the building or structure'? At a minimum it shouldbe no less than the standard in 17.59.030 B(3) above. Or was the intent of the paragraph to address only existing features of buildings and not adding the feature? ° 17.59.030 C · · Could a cedar' t'ence be considered ". .... orother cam~mflaging completely screening equipment'.'" Similarly would a cedar t'cnce meet thc ~ntent of"....or similar decorati,.e material," in relation to type of fencing? · 17.59.040 Abandonment and Removal Currently is listed as ·17.59.030 - should be 17.59.040 City of Bakersfield 2 of 2 Proposed Wireless Telecom Ord