Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1998 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA Special Meeting URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, August 20,1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 17, 1998 MEETING MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE - Rojas B VESTING RIGHTS - Hardisty 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRAILS PLAN FOR BRIMHALL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Hardisty B. PARK FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE CARE FACILITIES - Hardisty C. POLICY FOR USE OF BANNER POLES - Wager D. STATUS OF LIBERTY PARK - Ford 7. ADJOURNMENT JWS:jp MEMORANDUM August 4, 1998 ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL #WF001795S KERN F. zQUESTRIANS FOR PRESERVATION OF TRAILS - REQUESTED TRAILS PLAN FOR THE BRIMHALL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT At the meeting of July 15, 1998, City Council referred a proposal to develop a horse trail along Jewetta Avenue and the future freeway for evaluation and recommendation. There is already some history on this which I feel should be brought to the City Council's attention. The subject proposal was considered during the March 1997 review and approval of the General Plan Amendment cycle for Castle & Cooke's property on Brimhall Road. The request was for a trail along Brimhall Road from Calloway Drive to Allen Road, connecting with a planned trail on Allen Road South of the Kern River Freeway. That trail would connect to Stockdale Highway and proceed East to a planned equestrian staging area (see attached Map #1 and letter from Carolyn Belli dated January 2, 1997). If the City had been in favor of the . action, it could have compelled Castle & Cooke to design and install the proposed trail as a condition of approval, not for environmental reasons but as a design element of the General Plan. However, in this case neither the Public Works Department nor the Planning Commission supported the action and the condition wasn't imposed on the project (see attached minutes from the 1997 General Plan Hearing on this matter. Also, see attached letter from Castle & Cooke dated January 14, 1997). Ms. Belli missed the City Council meeting where the trail's matter was heard and acted upon as recommended by the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the action on the General Plan, Ms. Belli developed a new proposal to locate the trail along Jewetta Avenue South of Brimhall to the Kern River Freeway alignment then westward to Allen (see Map #2). Several meetings occurred involving various combinations of attendees including Ms. Belli, representatives of Castle & Cooke, Roger Mclntosh and City staff. The closest we came to a solution was Castle & Cooke's willingness to include without commitment Ms. Belli's request for a trail in the design of future subdivisions. North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District is-cooperating with a trail along the western border of its twenty acre site at the southeast corner of Jewetta Avenue and Brimhall Road. However, the recently approved tentative tract map for Castle & Cooke's property doesn't include a connecting link south of the park and west to Allen Road. Alan Tandy, City Manager August 4, 1998 Page 2 A trails system connecting to the County's trails in Western Rosedale was adopted August, 1995(see attached Map #3). It does not go through this property. The trail's standard adopted for the Western Rosedale trails relies on its own twenty-four foot (24') right-of-way. The landscape right-of-way along Brimhall Road is ten feet (10'). The trail's standard for the Polo Grounds is thirty feet (30'). A trail cannot be accommodated within the ten foot (10') landscape area along Brimhall Road. Ms. Belli desires to have a trail through or_along the periphery of the Brimhall project area. She has not been successful in obtaining support from Public Works, the Planning Commission, the property owner or the City Council based on the record of the actions taken. SG:jo cc: Trudy Slater m\mat8-4 '~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0017925 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 8~07~98 CREW: REQUEST DATE: 7/15/98 SCHEDULE DATES START: '/~15~98 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 7/27/98 GEN. LOC: WARD4 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEFT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MCDERMOTT ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: PMCCARTHY WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: EQUESTRIAN TRAILS PLAN REQUEST COMMENTS **DUAL REFERRAL TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES*** MCDERMOTT REFERRED THE REVIEW OF THE EQUESTRIAN TRAILS PLAN IN THE VICINITY OF JEWETTA ROAD TO ALLEN ROAD. Job Order Description: EQUESTRIAN TRAILS PLAN Catggory: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COM TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COM START DATE /__/__ COMPLETION DATE / / MAP ~1 SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD PROJECT ^ ', ~ I ~--~.~ ~.~,/~ ~-,/~.~r~ ~-- , R-1 "~ E(14,000) ~z- -- -- I I~~ ~ '"".~1~" II ,~, ' ~ C-2PD ~C-1 ~ EiCHiR i (10) - ~ ~ BRIM~ I ~l I ~2 ~(~/~)~s ' ' ' ~ ~s L L___ I I I ~(~/~)~s ~/~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~-s D~/~D u~ I ~ HIGH SC~L I L__ R- 1 A-20A R-1 A-1 ~ R-1 PROPOS[O KERN R~R FRE~AY FP-S R-1 E ~RE~ OF P.U.D. r .... ] £1/2RS PREVIOUSLY I I FP-P APPROVED i ri?AlL ~ FP-S I R-2I \ E1 I I \ C-2 \ R27E X . · ~u~""~, R27[ FP-P  ~ ~ FP-P FP-S ~ ~ ~ C-2 ~ A -~ C-O c_ol ~ ~05 ~ :Ja,'~Jary 7, 1997 5:53~ -- From '805 3270646' -- Page 2! J~- 7-97 TUE 18!02 CiTY PLANNING F~ NO. 805 3270646 P. 02 K.E.P.T. Principal Planner City of Bakersfield JfiN 5 1997 1"/15 C~,t Avenue orr OF Bakersficld, CA 93301 - Pl-4NN!N~'' L'EPA:'t rMENT .Dear Mr. Coauthier: I am writing in reference to the South of Brimhall Road Project that will be heard before'the Planning Commission on January 16, 1997. - Ther~ are a number ofcqu~riaas who own rural properties in the area north of Bfimhall Road between Allen Road and Calloway Road. Tlx~y are outside the Western Rosedale Speci~c Plan and have become surrounded by development. They have traditionally ridden to the Kern River Wails by crossing Brimh~ and heading straight fur thc river. This proposed project will preclude them from having any safe access to the river ~'ross the canal. Tom Falgatter and I recently met with Bruce Freeman, Bruce Dav/s and Lm~ Hogle of Castle ~md Cooke to discuss the concerns oftbe homeowners in tim anm in effom to fred a fi:asibl¢ solution. Castle and Cooke l~ agreed to provide a trail along Allen Road from Brimhall Road to Goos~ Lake Slough to rnatct~ the already approved trail ~ ~ to build from Goose Lake Slough to Stockdale Highway. In addiilon they suggested/fthe c~ was in a~reement they would build an unpaved trail on fl~e somh side of Brimball Road wilhin the scopc of the dc'vdopmt~ instead of th: plannai sidc~s~alk_ This bas alre~ly been succesdully donc in lh~ Polo Groumts developmer~ and mak~ good scm,se ba~ ~Iso. I am r~lue~ing the City cons/der this allemative as/l would prov/de a safe, acslhet/c connection I~v~n equ~s~r/un propertim north of the proposal South of Brimhall Road projec~ and the Kern River. ! am enclosing a map showing the proposed trail. Thank you for your consideration. 863-.6606 .5025 ?anomma Drive Bakemfi~Id, CA 93301 Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 5 Michael Houlihan summarized the Analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Roger Mclntosh gave a summary of the traffic report for the project. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Lorna Brumfield stated she is a resident in the area and stated support for staff's recommendation and her feeling that it will resolve many concerns regarding the project. She stated she did not feel the EIR is a program EIR but a project EIR. She stated they are not against growth and stated their strong support for staff's recommendation that no commercial be placed in the area. She was concerned about a third corner being developed as commercial or with apartments saying if this is done it would be very difficult to develop the fourth corner as residential and they feel their neighborhood should remain residential. John Closs, 108 Capistrano Court, stated his concern regarding traffic. He stated his support for staff's conclusions and recommendations and urged the commission to support them. He felt the amount of commercial acreage is sufficient to support this area. Commissioner Brady asked staff for clarification of a commercial policy. Mr. Grady stated the policy is one-half mile separation and there is a policy against stringing commercial out along the arterials. Lynn Mihalyo stated her feeling that Commissioner Tkac has a conflict of interest due to the situation he stated at the beginning of this hearing and felt he should abstain from voting on this item. She gave information concerning meetings they had with the applicants concerning various possible proposals stating they tried very hard to work out a solution with them, however it was not possible. She stated their support for staff's recommendation. Greg Cronk, 109 Cortez Court, was concerned about lot sizes being proposed, stating he felt perhaps there could be a transition of larger lot sizes. *5-minute break was taken. Carolyn Belli represented Kern Equestrians for the Preservation of Trails, stating they are in favor of the project, however opposed to some of staff's recommendations. With development of this property the trails route currently used along Goose Lake Slough will no longer be available. The applicant has agreed to continue the trail northerly to Brimhall Road and along the south side of Brimhall Road to Jewetta to provide a connection to residences and the river. It would be possible by reducing the landscaping and making the multi-use trail a minimum acceptable width to provide space within the current easement with no additional cost incurred. Staff indicated Brimhall would not be the preferred route for equestrians, however in this case them is Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 6 no alternative. She expressed deep concerns regarding the change in zoning of the 100-foot buffer from open space to residential. Commissioner Tavorn felt less land would be necessary if an alternate route by the high school were taken. Ms. Belli stated the problem with this is that the routes need to have access at the interchange which is just above Goose Lake Slough. If this route were taken access across the freeway would be impossible once it was constructed. Commissioner Tavorn felt perhaps accommodations could be made when the freeway is constructed. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Belli if she understood that future property owners would not be allowed to keep horses. She stated she di~l, however felt those people would benefit because this is a multi-use trail. He asked if she had made contact with the county regarding placement of trails. She stated it is being worked on. Commissioner Brady asked who would pay for the maintenance of this trail. She stated it would be paid for the same way as landscaping and sidewalks are paid for. Commissioner Brady asked if she had obtained any cost estimates for maintaining the - trail versus sidewalks. She stated she did not have this information. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the cost of putting in these trails would be more than a normal landscape strip. Rob Cramer, City Parks Division, said the cost would be higher. Bill Cooper, Kern River Parkway Committee, stated they are not opposing the project, however requested that the 8 linear acres remain open space. He stated Castle and Cooke has offered to give buffers and property and felt it would be irresponsible not to take the actions to maintain it as open space. Larry Hogle represented Castle and Cooke. He stated it is very important to keep in mind that this is in an infill project. He stated the majority of the area north of the Kern River Freeway is designated in the general plan as LR and is not being proposed for change. Regarding lot size he stated development will occur as to the market demand. Regarding the question concerning 18,000 square foot lots he stated there is a 5-6 year supply of these lots in this area. Concerning the staff report he stated they had proposed removal of collectors and did not feel they were necessary since as they approach tentative map phases of the project they will provide adequate circulation. Responding to statements made by Mr. Hogle concerning an agreement on collectors, Mr. LaRochelle said a clarification was necessary that the Old Farm Road collector between Stockdale and Brimhall exists. Perhaps when the freeway goes through there will be a grade separatio_n of the collector. It was never the intent to have the freeway bisect that collector and prevent it from traversing north/south. He stated his agreement with this change and agreed with the applicant's assessment that the volumes do not support a four-lane collector. Mr. Hogle recommended the following language be inserted at the end of Condition #3: "or modified collector as approved by the City Engineer." Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 7 Concerning the property south of Stockdale Highway Mr. Hogle stated they recommended it be removed from the Kern River Plan Element in light of the fact that the county stated they had no objection to this removal. This area is separated from the Kern River by the Cross Valley Canal, there is no direct access to the river and is not actually part of the Kern River Element. He stated the applicant feels very strongly that if the staff recommendation is followed allowing no commercial they would like to have the commercial designation left where it exists. Regarding the multi-family designation he did not feel that it will have the problems that some of the residents perceive. He stated their disagreement with staff's recommendation to divide it into 10 acre parcels. A 20-acre parcel is necessary so that it can contain its own recreational facilities. He stated they have agreed to provide a 16-foot right-of-way that would accommodate a multi-use trail and sidewalk. Craig Carver stated he and his partner own the property south of Stockdale Highway and Allen Road and they support this project. He felt there is flexibility in working with the KEPT and Kern River Parkway Committees to relocate the buffer if. it is a problem. Mr. Gauthier responded to comment regarding this being a program EIR as opposed to a project EIR, clarifying the difference between the two. Lynn Mihalyo stated regarding the comment by the applicant's representative that they should be allowed commercial designated property because they have it at the present time, that if this logic is used they should continue to have an Estate Residential designation. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle said regarding payment of trails, parks and easement it was his understanding the applicant can be asked to create an assessment district, and that then the homeowners can bring an initiative with 5 percent of the voters and undo the assessment district leaving the burden on the city. Ms. Marino said it was her understanding this was a possible effect of Proposition 218. Commissioner Boyle asked if the collector streets are kept would it make more sense to bring the trails down the collectors rather than taking them south on Allen Road to Stockdale Highway. Mr. LaRochelle said this would be more appropriate. Commissioner Boyle asked if the applicant would be willing to move the trails to the collector streets. Commissioner Hersh asked if the 16 feet proposed for the trail would be adequate. Mr. LaRochelle felt it would be inappropriate to locate the trails on an artedai and he was concerned that the sidewalk and trail were squeezed too close together. He stated he was uncomfortable with the proposed trail from a safety standpoint. Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 8 Mr. Mclntosh answered Commissioner Boyle's previous question stating the collectors are not necessarily designed to have the same type of wall and landscape treatment along them. He outlined conflicts that will arise with placing the trails on collector streets. Commissioner Boyle recalled the existing trail plan adopted by the city uses collector streets. Regarding certifying an EIR, he asked if maintenance of parks should be considered as part of mitigation. Ms. Marino said the city is responsible for park maintenance. Mr. Grady stated this area is within the jurisdiction of the North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District. Commissioner Boyle stated his agreement that this is where development should occur. He stated his concerns about the commercial property asking if the commercial properties around it are owned by the applicant. Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, stated they own one parcel of 11.5 acres. Commissioner Boyle said regarding the transition of larger lots north of Brimhall to smaller lots south of Brimhall, this property was already zoned for Iow density residential under the general plan. He stated he supported the EIR and the project. Commissioner Brady stated he had a problem with people living in the county wanting to - continue a recreational activity at city expense and he felt this is a county problem because of their lack of provision of trails. He did not see a benefit to city residents and did not feel they should be responsible for paying for them. He stated he saw no effort of those using the trail to come up with an alternative funding source. He stated he would not be opposed to placement of the apartments at the proposed intersection. He stated he would support some flexibility regarding the location of collectors, however would not agree to elimination of them. Regarding the general commercial issue he felt it appeared to be sufficient for the area; however he may support as an alternative an office building or some other type site as opposed to a shopping center. He asked if the applicant had met with city residents north of Brimhall concerning this project and if there were issues raised at these meetings which were not resolved. Larry Hogle stated they held community meetings in which the surrounding property owners were invited of which residents of Brimhall Estate attended. He stated the questions of multi-family and commercial arose at these meetings and have not been resolved. Commissioner Tavorn asked about funding in the event future traffic problems arise. Mr. LaRochelle said within the current traffic impact fee program is a requirement for review every 3 years to review such things as growth rate and where development is occurring. It allows for necessary adjustments. Discussion continued regarding traffic issues. Commissioner Tavorn stated his concerns about existing traffic situations. Commissioner Delgado complimented the applicant on completing projects as proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Brady that there must be another funding method for trails. He felt the core of staff's recommendation seems to be acceptable to more people than not. He stated his support for staff's position with regard to the location of the multi-family projects on the interior of this property. He stated his support. for staff's recommendation with the exception of deletion of open space along the canal. Minutes, PC, 3120197 Page 9 Commissioner Boyle asked what thought has been given to provision of access from the senior citizen development immediately to the east in the event the commercial remains as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Freeman said it would be a great distance for anyone to walk and did not feel that the Rio Bravo canal would give another crossing. Commissioner Boyle agreed that the lO0-foot access along the river should remain and stated his support for retaining the collectors or as approved by the city engineer. He also stated he was in agreement with the multi-family housing being on the interior of the area. Regarding commercial area he felt there was an advantage to having it in a location accessible especially to the senior citizen community. He was also in favor of trying to tie commercial property in with the Kern River Parkway. Mr. Hogle said as proposed the commercial area surrounds the staging area wh ch provides a direct access to the Kern River. Chairman Hersh asked if the Buena Vista project was Considered within the summary of traffic impacts. Mr. Mclntosh said the transportation impact fee program assumes a growth rate of 2.8 percent per year. Chairman Hersh said this is a general growth rate and does not pinpoint where the concentration of the growth effects are going to come - from. He stated his feeling that the traffic impact fees are not adequate, stating he had a problem with projections of impact, remedies and levels of significant improvement after the fact. Regarding open space he agreed with previous comments that it should remain. Concerning trails he felt there is a lack of continuity between developments. He stated he would support the collectors and staff's recommendations on land use designations. He said he did not see the need for commercial especially with the 11.5 acres that already exist. He was concerned that the Kern River Plan Element is being chipped away. He stated he would support staffs recommendation with the exception that he thought the open space should be maintained. He said although he would support the EIR, however he was concerned that an all-comprehensive evaluation was not prepared. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady cited the developments which could occur on the proposed commercial property. He felt allowing the commercial as proposed may allow for river access as suggested by Commissioner Boyle. He asked for further comment from commissioners on placement of a trail north to Brimhall and along Brimhall. He stated he had significant concerns about it with respect to potentially burdening city residents for maintenance of a trail and the fact that it may not lead anywhere because the county is not involved. Carolyn Belli said the trail goes south to the river and connects with the existing trail provided by this applicant. She stated at this time they are working with the county on a trail that goes up Jewetta. Commissioner Boyle asked if the trails could be approved with language that provides that some type of funding mechanism be put in place for their maintenance. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 10 Commissioner Delgado asked if a PCD zoning could be placed on the commercial property so that some of Commissioner Boyle's suggestions could be placed on the property. Mr. Grady said this could be done. Commissioner Delgado felt if this were to be done it needed to be done to the same standards as other trails and in the same traffic pattern area. Chairman Hersh asked if there would be a problem with the curve of the road with respect to commercial zoning being placed there. Mr. LaRochelle said the radius of the curve is over 3,000 feet which is-twice as fiat as required therefore there should be no problem. Larry Hogle gave an alternative to the PCD zoning such ihat upon approval of the commercial zoning a condition be placed so that prior to construction a conditional use permit would be necessary. Mr. Grady felt if the commission is looking to exercise control of design of the project the PCD zoning would be the appropriate method. Commissioner Brady stated he would support a PCD. Chairman Hersh recognized Ms. Brumfield. She asked about the size of the PCD zoning. She stated her opposition to anything other than a PCD. Mr. Grady cited page 4 of the staff report which shows the commercial property to be a total of 23.46 gross acres. Ms. Brumfield raised the question of whether any commercial is necessary and stated she did not feel simply moving it resolves the issue. She recommended that perhaps it should be down-sized. Commissi.oner Brady cited an alternative description which showed reduction in acreage to 17 acres. He felt almost any kind of commercial center could be developed on this size parcel. Roger Mclntosh said there is a requirement with the mineral right holder to provide drilling islands within this area. One idea was to make the commercial area large enough t-o include a drilling island. Commissioner Brady stated he could accept the larger size commercial lot based on this requirement. Discussion continued regarding the trail issue. Mr. Grady said it is up to the commission to decide where the trail will be placed and whether the developer will be required to install the additional right-of-way that will accommodate both pedestrians and equestrians. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to make CEQA findings (Section 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines) and certify the Environmental Impact Report. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, TaVorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Castle&Cooke ~ALI?ORNIA, INC. Bruce Davis Vice Pr~id~lt Janua~ 14, 1997 Carolyn Beili, President Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails 5025 Panorama Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 Dear Carolyn: I read the article on the Bdmhall Project in today's Bakersfield Californian, and your letter with interest and some concern. The purpose of my concern is the implication that you thought there might be access for horses from the north end of this project to the Kern River. As you are aware, the proposed Westside Freeway, when built, will create a permanent barrier for those wishing to go from the Brimhall area to the Kern River. We. are concerned that should Castle & Cooke install a horse trail in lieu of sidewalks along Allen Road, north of the Freeway, it will eventually be blocked by the construction of the Westside Freeway. The project might then have the appearance of a development with a confused theme. If the Freeway route can be modified such that direct access to the river area can be provided for horse riders from Brimhall Road, Castle & Cooke would be more positiye about the I~roposal. We are still willing to install, the trail in lieu of a sidewalk, we just feel that the Freeway may frustrate our efforts to accommodate you. Sincerely, Bruce Davis Vice President, Operations BD/kn COl3¥: Planning Commission Members Marc Gauthier MAP ~2 SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD PROJEOT ^ ~ ', ,j<...,~o,, ~..._., ,, , , ,,,, .F,~- - ~ -T ~ __aE(1/2)J J E(2-1/2)RS r~m I- .JlJ I C-2PD - R-1 E(14.000) I ~ I :.-~--- l m IRll ~11 RS II ;~', I E J;J I O .-- ~ '~" RS C2 R-1 [] A-20A I E(1/2)RS FRAIl A1 I'ERNA FIVE -, c~s~ ~ coo. A-, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll' / PROPOSEO KERN RIVER FREEWAY ' FP-S R-1 E1 ~ AREA OF P.U.D. E1/2RS PREVIOUSLY I I FP-P APPROVED i FRAIL ~ FP-S I R-2 J \ E1/2RS I I \ - -- T30S, R27E FP-P ~ ~ FP-P FP-S ~ ~ C-O / ~ C_01 FP-P A-20A / C-2 I R- 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-95, SEGMENT VII ADOPT WESTERN ROSEDALE SPECIFIC PLAN MULII-USE AND EOUESIRIAN TRAILS SYSTEM ' ' I I , I I ~ I ! - I I I 'T' I % I ! ! U I I I I , , , I -II- , , , ., I I ii ,-i~ I I I I : .......... ] ............ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i L£G£HD I I I I I II I I MIJLT1-USr TRAIL WITHOUT STRIrL'"r I I I PROI)QSIo ~ I ARIT. RIAL I , II COLLECTOR BAKERSFIELD ~.~~ Kevin McDermott, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles Staff: Dolores B. Teubner Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:25 p.m. Present: C°uncilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and Patricia M. Smith 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw gave an update. The landscaping and irrigation project on State Route 99 is near completion and the seismic retrofit of 12 bridges in the metropolitan area has been completed. The CTC has authorized $175 million for the Kern River Freeway project, so that project is moving forward. Federal demonstration funds for the Crosstown Freeway/Centennial Corridor have been authorized in TEA-21 in the amount of $15.75 million for planning the project to provide construction for a link to downtown. The second administrative draft of the EIR has just been received for the South Beltway, so the environmental process is moving forward. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, June 17, 1998 Page -2- Committee Chair McDermott pointed out that the Kern River Freeway project is the largest project in the state to be funded by the CTC. The $15.75 million authorized for the Crosstown Freeway is very good news, and there may be additional funds through BESTEA which would allow earlier completion of the project. Chair McDermott expressed concern about the condition of the on- and off-ramps on Freeways 99, 58 and 178, although he has contacted CalTrans and they have indicated work has started, he with committee agreement requested staff to ask Mayor Price to write a letter to CalTrans. B. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Police Chief Brummer expressed public safety concerns about enforcement and pedestrian traffic moving safely in areas where encroachment permits may be authorized especially where alcohol will be served and the safety of downtown businesses in an encroachment area where alcohol is being served. A video prepared by the Police Department was played showing the heavy amount of typical pedestrian traffic at night in the downtown area around some of the existing businesses showing particularly at closing time that it takes many officers and the canine unit to disburse the crowds. Police administration is recommending in the encroachment areas that are serving alcohol that there be minimum of eight feet between the curb and the structure to accommodate pedestrian access; serving alcohol beverages discontinue at 10:00 p.m.; no glass containers such as bottles or pitchers be allowed; a requirement that an employee of the establishment be present to oversee who is consuming alcohol; and patrons of the encroachment area be required to enter through the main entrance of the establishment to ensure that underage individuals are not being served alcohol. The chair gave an update from the last meeting. It was decided that businesses be required to get an annual permit and provide evidence of insurance; and if needed, for example to repair sidewalks, etc., could be given a 90-day notice to take the structure down. Regarding the encroachment areas, the Committee discussed that patrons should enter through the front entrance if alcohol is being served; pertaining to emergency exits, businesses to comply with fire codes; the height of temporary fencing/structures be a minimum of four to five feet with a grandfather clause for existing structures; the distance from curb to the structure should be a minimum of six feet; an employee of the business be present to oversee areas serving alcohol from 10:00 p.m to 12:00 midnight; serving alcohol in the encroachment area be discontinued at 12:00 midnight; and this ordinance be limited to food and beverage businesses at this time. The new ABC requirements regarding serving in plastic containers addresses the glass container issue. Staff to prepare ordinance and forward to Council. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, June 17, 1998 Page -3- C. VESTING RIGHTS With existing ordinance, developers get one year from the date the map is recorded to exercising their vested rights. The Development Services Director after meeting with the Planning Commission, is recommending keeping the existing one-year and adopting a policy for one-year extensions upon request. The Committee requested staff to bring to the next meeting a flowchart showing time frames from when the developer first comes in and the date the permit is issued. D. CLEANUP LEGISLATION A request had been made to change the ordinance regulating C-1 Zones to prohibit outdoor activities. After research, the Planning Department has withdrawn the request. The Committee took no action. E. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Planning Director Stan Grady gave an overview of the work done by the Planning Commission Subdivision and Public Services Committee in response to questions from their last meeting with the Urban Development Committee. Their recommendations address mechanisms for encouraging amenities, promoting clustering, limiting numbers of projects at one location, architectural and site design and lot size proposals that support more open space. A copy of the memo is attached. The Committee agreed that the ordinance be prepared for a public hearing to be held at the Planning Commission for public input. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 2:25 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council DBT:jp BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas; Public Works Director / ~ ~____.~ DATE: June 17, 1998 SUBJECT: Freeway Status Update Please find attached the Freeway Status Update for June 17. 1998. Pg, MEMOFORM.WPD RMR:mps xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw June 17, 1998 STATUS OF FREEWAY AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA Public Works Department Jacques R. LaRochelle. Engineering Services Manager State Route 99 All landscaping in the landscape and irrigation project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive has been completed. This project is now in the plant establishment period with completion due in about 4 weeks. Seismic Retrofit Project Work on the seismic retrofit of 12 bridges in the metropolitan area was completed on March 4, 1998. Kern River Freeway IS.R. 58 Adoption Study) The Kem River Freeway preferred ali~munent extends from S.R. 99 at Truxtun and extends westward, roughly paralleling the Kern River, to Interstate 5. The first phase of this project would consist of building a full freeway facilitv from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway past Renfro Road, and improving Stockdale Highway (two lanes with shoulders) from that point to Interstate 5. There would be no direct connection to S.R. 99. Any traffic on the Kern River Freeway which needed to get onto S.R. 99 would have to exit at Mohawk Street and get onto S.R. 99 from Rosedale/Pierce Road. The Local Agencies are to fund the Mohawk Street portion between Truxtun Avenue and Rosedale Highway excluding the "freeway portion". It is anticipated that the portion of Mohawk Street to be funded by the Locals will cost approximately $20,000,000. In addition, the City., County. and KernCOG is looking into constructing the Mohawk Street portion earlier than the actual freeway itself. If this could by done, a portion of the overall freeway project would begin early and an additional arterial/river crossing would be completed. The CTC authorized $175 million for this project at their June 2, 1998 meeting. The Route adoption EIR is nearly complete. It is anticipated that the final EIR will be entirely complete in late summer, 1998. Other significant dates are as follows: Route Adopted by CTC ,lune 1998 Feds Adopt STIP November 1998 It is anticipated that right-or:way acquisition will take approximately I to 3 years. Construction should take approximately 2 .','ears to complete. The connection to S.R, 99 will be a future phase and will be connected to the Citv's proposed crosstown i"reewav described below. S.R. 58 Southern Alternative {Crosstown Freeway) After construction of the Kern River Freeway. the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield. and the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown F'reewav. To~ether these two freewav segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a ~tirect ~'onnection of State Rout~ 58 with Interstate 5. Planning tbr the Crosstown Freewav is in its inl'hncy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However. for the process to move forward, th~ route must be adopted bv the CTC and FHWA-. Federal demonstration funds in the amount of $15.75 miilion were authorized in TEA-21. These funds will be used to finalize planning fbr this project and to provide construction for a link to downtown. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350 million. This ti'eeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation from downtown Bakersfield to nearbv residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5. South Beltwav The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan show's a "South Belt~vav" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R. 58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment~starts at Interstate 5 at Tati Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately the alignment of Hosking Avenue. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline ~oad or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. A public scoping meeting was held at the regular Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 1998. Minimum comments were received at that meeting. This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no right-o/r: way acquisition ma.,,' yet proceed. The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The draft EIR should be out tbr public review by late Julv. Notice of preparation has been filed with the State. Once the EIR has been certified, the specific plan line will be adopted and protection of the right-of-way using local funds may begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020-. S:'.Pro. iccts'~Freeways~Fn~To-98 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING PLANNING FAX # 805-327-0646 1715 Chester Avenue Phone # 805-326-3733 Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 Date: June 10, 1998 TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Stanley Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Council Referral Part II to Planning Commission: Fourplex Apartments Amenities and Open Space The Subdivision and Public Services Committee of the Planning Commission completed its work in December or 1997. Presentation of their results was delayed due to canceled meetings and agenda scheduling conflicts. They met one time during the scheduling conflicts in April and reviewed theJr recommendations. The committee recommendations are contained in the table in this memorandum. Their recommendations address mechanisms for encouraging amenities, promoting clustering, limiting numbers of projects at one location, architectural and site design and lot size proposals that support more open space. The basic element involves raising the minimum lot size using a floor area ratio (FAR)and allowing reductions from the new minimum in favor of amenities. An FAR is simple the ratio of the amount of building square footage to land. The lower the FAR the more land required per total building square foo',age. . Page: 1 of 2 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CORRESPONDING RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Bold italic is Staff Recommendation) MECHANISM FOR AMENITY LIMIT ON NUMBER AT ONE PROMOTE CLUSTERING MINIMUM SIZE IN THE PROJECT LOCATION Increase Floor Area Ratio Regulate the number 1. No more than two adjacent Floor Area Ratio of.25 for (FAR) if recreational amenity through zoning. Set units shall be perpendicular to two to four units. Rather provided with 4 plex. (See maximum acreage for 4- the street. The unit on either than a set square feet of example no. 2). plexes within a given area. side of the two must be land per unit, the land Control the designation of parallel to the street, requirement is based on the R.2 to control the number size of the building. This andlocation of potential 2. Alternate between one will provide more open fourplexes, story and two story structures, space for each complex. (Sea example no. 1) ADDITIONAL RESPONSE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SITE DESIGN 1. Utility meters & AC units not 1. Average'setback 20' or to be visible from street every third lot 2. Elevations for adjacent units 2. Street end unit entry and sttall not be the same windows must face street except on arterials. 3. Wall & landscaping is required along arterial streets 4. No more than two adjacent units shall be perpendicular to the street. The unit on either side of the two must be parallel to the street. 5. Alternate between one story and two story structures. EXAMPLE NUMBER 2" - AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS 4 PLEX STRUCTURE EXCLUSIVE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AT 2.500 ADDITIONAL LAND NOT AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS OF GARAGES SQUARE FEET PER REQUIRED IF AMENITY PROVIDED Lanai for an open ~ amenity COuld ~ set at a pmcamage of the 3,432 . 10,000 3,728 additional lan;I Ulat,a~ould have been refluimd at the FAR of .25 4,320 '~0,000 7,280 Criteria: Active recmaticnal amenities such es court sports, Tot 3,890 10,000 5,560 Lots, Playground apparatus per city c~le. Public amenities such as outdoor public court yarcls, cover~l group picnic areas with BBQ facilities. EXAMPLE NUMBER 1" - MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO A(~COMMODATE FOUR UNITS 4 PLEX STRUCTURE EXCLUSIVE MINIUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED CURRENT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ADDITIONAL LAND REQUIRED OF GARAGES USING AN FAR OF 25 AT 2.500 SQUARE FEET PER USING FAR UNIT 3,432 13,728 10.000 3,728 4.320 17.280 10,000 7.280 3,890 15,560 10.000 5,560 Page: 2 of 2 August 20, 1998 STATUS OF FREEWAY AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA Public Works Department Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager State Route 99 The landscape project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is continuing. Seismic Retrofit Project Work on State facilities are complete. Design on City facilities are in progress by outside consultants. All costs associated with these improvements are paid by the State. Kern River Freeway (S.R. 58 Adoption Study) Phase I of the Kern River freeway was funded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on June 3, 1998. The approved funding level for this project is $175 million which made it the single largest project in the entire State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Route Adoption EIR is still not complete but is making progress. Apparently, the Federal review has taken longer than expected and has resulted in a delay of approximately 2 months. Preliminary work is also continuing on right of way and design. It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 years. Construction should take approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be connected to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below. S.R. 58 Southern Alternative {Crosstown Freeway) After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two freeway segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of State Route 58 with State Route 5. The cross town freeway, dubbed the "Centennial Transportation Corridor", has received Federal funding -. in the form of a demonstration project. Funding level for this demonstration project is $15,750,000. This funding amount should pay for all necessary studies through route adoption (approximately $7 million) with the rest utilized for right of way preservation. City staff will be attending a kick-off meeting on August 20, 1998 with CalTrans to discuss the project scope. South Beltway The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R. 58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at Interstate 5 at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately the alignment of Hosking Road. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline Road or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no right-of-way acquisition may yet proceed. The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The EIR will be available for review September 1, 1998. The Specific Plan Line will be placed before the Planning Commission in December 1998. Following the Planning Commission, the City Council will hear the matter in January and February of 1999. The County is scheduled to hold their hearings in March, i999. Once the hearings are complete, the Specific Plan Line should be adopted. Highway 178 @ Commanche Drive/Alfred Harrell Hwy The City, County and Caltrans met regarding a project to realign Commanche Drive to line up with Alfred Harrell Hwy. The initial meeting went well with Caltrans. They are interested in participating in a project. Subsequent meetings with the County have resulted in a non-committal response. We are currently trying to schedule another meeting with the County but as of this date have been unsuccessful. The City has budgeted funds in the 1998-99 Capital Improvement Program for this project. We are merely waiting for the County to contribute their share for the project to move forward. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP LIFE (DOES NOT INCLUDE LEGISLATIVE EXTENSIONS) TYPICAL MAP LIFE- PHASED VESTING MAP 16.16.080A ORIG 2yrs. 0 -2 7 MAP ACT LIFE = 2 YEARS TOTAL LIFE WITH CITY EXTENSIONS = 7 years MAP WITH $125,000+ OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS- PHASED VESTING MAp 16.16.080E PH. 1 REC;3yrs PH. 2 REC. 3yrs PH;.3 REC. 2yrs.~, 66452(e) :: ' :: ....... ii' ... .... lii~i~ii~iiii!ili~i~iiiiiiiil :':':': ................. :::::: 5::::::::::::::::::: :,,.:::::::: ::::5::::: 0 2 5 8 10 15 MAP ACT LIFE -- 10 YEARS TOTAL LIFE WITH CITY EXTENSIONS = 15 YEARS NOTES: 1.) G.C. 66452.6 allows up to 3 years original approval life tfprescribed by local ordinance. City of Bakersfield subdivision ordinance (I 6.16.080A) allows 2 years. 2.) Each final map recorded on a tentative subdivision required to expend $125,00 (adjusted for inflation-S161,250) in public improvements outside the tract boundary extends the life of the map_.,3 years to a maximum oflOyears from the original approval date. 3.) Recent change in G.C. 66452.6 allows 5 years of extensions. Previously 3 years were allowed. 4.) At any time during the life of the tentative map the subdivider can record some or all of the phases of the map. The vesting rights for the recorded phase continue without city action from I to 2 years after recordation, as prescribed by local ordinance. The city's local subdivision ordinance (sec. 16.24.090C) adopted 1 year. A one year extension to this time frame may be requested and approved by the city. TRACT LIFE HISTORICAL LOOK / FEE IMPLEMENTATION (example of major fees) FEE ADJUSTMENTS OVER LIFE OF TYPICAL MAP year/fee 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 aah 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 i 998 MAP LIFE = 7 YEARS (includes legislative extensions) OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO CITY FOR EXTENDING MAP LIFE AND/OR VESTED RIGHTS MAP LIFE A). Map act (66452.6(a)) allows up to 3 years original map life. City ordinance (16.16.080A.) could be amended to allow 3 years initial life instead of 2 years. Kern County allows 3 years initial map life. VESTING RIGHTS B). Map Act (66452.6(g)) allows up to up to 2 years vesting rights beyond recordation of final map. City ordinance (16 24 090C.) Could be amended to allow 2 years instead of 1 year. Kern County allows 2 years currently but is in the process of amending there ordinance to allow I year because of the transportation impact fee. TO: Colon Bywater, Planning and Construction Director FROM: Kathy Gibbs, Director of Senior Services DATE: August 19, 1998 SUBJECT: Senior Services Overview Congregate Nutrition Program (Grant Funds) (Donation Based Program) 49,464 Meals served to seniors sixty years of age or older at four sites: Rasmussen Senior Center, Greenacres Senior Center, Bakersfield Community House and Adult Day Care Center. Congregate meals are served 248 days a year. This program does not have geographic limitations. Service area includes Metropolitan Bakersfield. Of those 49,464 meals, 6,551 were served at the Greenacres Senior Center Approximately 215 meals per day served to seniors 8,852 Meals served to participants under 60 years of age. 7,373 to day care centers (Willow I and Willow II) 1,499 meals were served to individuals that were under 60 attending the various center. Under 60 meals cost $$4.50 per meal Approximately 36 meals a day served to participants under 60. Home Delivered Meal Program (Grant Program) (Donation Based Program) 44,701 Meals were prepared and delivered to seniors 60 years of age ~md older that were/are homebound by reason of an illness or disability. This program is geographically limited. We deliver meals in the Rosedale area, Southwest Bakersfield, Central Bakersfield, portions of East Bakersfield and Oildale. Homemaker Services (Grant Program) (Donation Based Program) 12,170 Hours of In-Home services such as light housekeeping, grocery, shopping, meal preparation, laundry and limited personal care were provided to seniors 60 and older who are at risk of loosing their independence and being institutionalized in a nursing home. Service area is Metropolitan Bakersfield, Arvin and Lamont. Respite Services (Fee for Service $8.50 per hour) Respite Care Services provide relief to care providers of loved ones who need 24 hour care. This program, for lack of a better explanation, provides adult babysitting. Through this service, care providers can get the respite or break they need from giving the continuous care to their loved one. This program also provides the same services as the homemaker service. Service area is Metropolitan Bakersfield. CTSA (Consolidated Transportation Service Agency) Senior and Disabled Transit Services (Grant Program) (Donation Based Program. We Must Meet a 10% Fare Box Match Through Donations or This Will Become a Fee Based Program). Service area is Metropolitan Bakersfield. 1,957 Seniors and/or disabled persons registered in the CTSA database 45,714 Rides were provided during last fiscal year. Rides are provided to various locations in Metropolitan Bakersfield from doctor's offices, to libraries, grocery stores, hair salons, senior centers for lunch, post office - you name it, we'll take you there once a reservation is made. Senior Social Activities at Rasmussen Senior Center: Low impact exercise classes, three times a week, 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. M.S. respite group, every Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Senior softball, twice a week. Craft classes, two times a week, 12:30 - 2:30 p.m. Quilting class, once a week, 12:30 p.m. Crochet class, Monday afternoons, 12:30 p.m. Pinochle card games, Wednesday, a.m. and p.m. Oil painting class, once a week, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Dancing to a different live senior bank, five days a week 10:30 a.m. Pool Hall open, daily (three tables) very popular activity. Ladies eight ball, Thursday afternoons, 1:30 p.m. Line dancing classes, Thursday afternoons, 1:30 p.m. Arthritis workshop, Thursday afternoons, 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. Bingo, Tuesday and Friday afternoons. Model a club on the first Monday of each month. Jazzercise, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Ballroom dancing, Tuesday and Friday evenings, 7:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. Square dancing, Thursday evenings, 7:00 p.m. Penny Bingo, Wednesday, 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Ballroom dancing, first and fourth Saturday of the month. Old Time Fiddlers, second and fourth Sunday of the month. Penny Bingo, on the third Sunday of each month. Sign Language classes, on Tuesday evenings, 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. SENIOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AT GREENACRES Fitness Class M/W/F 9:30 - 10:30 a.m. Crafts T/Th 9:00 a.m.- 2:00 p.m. Oil Painting T 12:30 - 3:30 p.m. Western Line Dancing W 1:30 - 2:30 p.m. Penny Bingo Th 7:00 p.m. Pool and Cards M-F 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Birthday Party 3ra Wed 10:30 a.m. Special Parties: Hawaiian Luau Party Wednesday, August 26 Western Day Party Wednesday, September 2 Octoberfest Party Wednesday, October 7 Halloween Costume Party Friday, October 30 Thanksgiving Party Wednesday, November 25 Christmas Party Wednesday, December 23 New Year's Party Thursday, December 31 August 1998- RasmusSen Senior Adult Center Pl~one~ 392-2030 ~m P~ny B~go -" ' - ' ' :- : .... .- '~:'{:'.'~,.'. '.,' :::- '-'7:... ,. . .. ' ' .... ' : .... ": ' "',';". , ; ' ':~, ' '; ' "', "i ~'}~i:'"'- ' ' "- ': "'-' ".'' ~'' ' '.' ' : ' .' ' -'t.'.':: August 1998 Greenacres Senior Center Phone: 392-2011 Monday Tuesday :. Wednesday Thursday Friday .. ":_ 3 4 5 6 7 8:00 am.-2:00 p.m. ~I $.'00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (~aJd~,~ool 8:00 a.m..9-00 p.m.Gam~siPo~l 8:00 ~.m.-2.-00 p.m G~n~JPoo! 8.'00 n.m..2:00 p.m. 9.30 :tm. ~ f~r Fun 9.~O-'*m. Crafty GA's 9.30 ~m. Filmm~ for Fun 9 O0 tm. Ca-aft Social 9:3{} a.n~ Fire !]:45 n.m. Lurch I I:a5 ~xn~ L.~mch 10:.30 a.m_ Music by T~ Pals 11:45 ~.m. ~ ]1:~5 n.m. Lu~ch  ! 1:4.5 am. t,~nch ?:00 p.m Bing~ +50 - .. 10 '11 12 13 14 8~0 a rn.-2.~O p Jrt. G~n~x)l 8:00 :tm.~.4)0 p.m. ~ 8:00 am.-2.~O p.m. GnmctdP~)ol ~.4]0 ~m-2.~) p.~ G~lSCSlfl~ol g:0O a~Tt-2:OO p. nt C~ 9:3D am. F~ f~ F~ ~1]0 ~m. Cr~ly GA's 9:30 ~m. Ft~ f~ Fun 9.~0 &m. Croft ~ 9:3D ~m. F~lnc~ f~ 9:45~m. W~k f~ l~m~s 1~.30 ~m B~k~F~ldCounlO- ~m~o~ ~.45 tm_W~k for/Sm 11:45 ~m Lm~h 9:45 ~tm. Walk [mFil~ ! 1:45 ~m. Lunch I [ :45 tm. Lunch 10:30 tm. Mu~c ~ry Thc ~ J:O0 p.m Bi~go +50 ! 1'.45 &m. L~h I 1:45 ~m. Lm~h 17 18 19 20 21 11:45-~n~ ;_- ~ :'; 11':45~m. Lumh' . .' ' '. 'll:45am.'Lu~h .... ~.'.q '/1l:45~m.~ . .. : - , !.!:45~.~h-..' .... ' ~ ~. ' ' . ......... ~: .~:mp.~i~o-~'. -" ..- . 24 ' . 25 26' 27 28:"' i 9:~.~m.~rFun ~m. Cm~'s ~30~. ~f~F~ ~ ~m-~fl~ ~m.~f~Fun L. ., ' ',' I' , , ' '~ ' ' ,'. .~_'."~'~::;~'~':',' "; " ' ... ".'.'.':' . -'.:: ,'"-.~: '~'.' ._.- ."..