Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/1999 BAKERSFIELD Randy Rowles, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, September 27, 1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. ' ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT AUGUST 30, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Bakersfield freeway status report - Shaw B. Staff report regarding transfer of development rights - Hardisty C. Staff report regarding Charrette Process- Hardisty 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding existing City ordinances relating to manufactured homes - Hardisty B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding standards for billboards bordering City/County areas - Hardisty C. Set next meeting 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT S:~John\UrbanDev~9sept27agen JWS:jp F LE DRAFT BAKERSFIELD -(~~~"~ Randy Rowles, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, August 30,1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 1:15 p.m.. Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT JULY 12, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERREDBUSlNESS A. Update on current status of Bakersfield area freeway projects - Rojas Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave an update on various freeway projects. He indicated the resurfacing of highway 178 would be finished in about a month according to Caltrans. There was a discussion about the Kern River Freeway environmental DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, August 30, 1999 Page -2- assessment continuing and possible acquisition of land for right-of-way by Caltrans. Councilmember'Couch requested a memo from Public Works regarding Caltrans freeing up funds for these purchases. Gene Bogart gave an update on the recharge test ponds. Councilmember Couch also requested Development Services staff prepare a report on the transfer of development rights, including a possible program for the protection of water recharge areas. Robyn Cady, representing the California Trucking Association expressed concerns regarding the safety and environmental impacts of the proposed Kern River Freeway. She cited recent problems with the Century Freeway in Los Angeles as an example of poor highway planning. Staff was asked to prepare a summary of issues involving the Century Freeway for background information. B. Discussion of possible incentives to encourage planting of trees in the downtown area - Stinson There was a discussion regarding the planting of trees in the downtown. Ruth Simonson from the Downtown Business and Property Owners Association (DBA) spoke regarding the need for an Urban Forestry Plan and an Urban Forestry Planner. Cathy Butler from the DBA commented that there needed to be a comprehensive and uniform process for planting and maintaining trees that ensures conformity in the downtown. She said it would be helpful to downtown businesses if there were a program, similar to the Unreinforced Masonry assistance program to provide funding for additional' tree improvements. Ms. Simonson provided the committee a brief memorandum regarding the Urban Forestry Plan and some publications regarding urban forestry. Staff provided the committee with cost information to provide a typical tree in the downtown including the cost of the tree, grate and irrigation. Rick Hewett of the Tree Foundation of Kern provided a "50 Year Strategic P/an for Kern Community Forests." Staff indicated that it was proceeding with expanding the landscaping of downtown beyond Chester Avenue to other adjacent streets such as 18t~ Street which is in the 1999-00 budget. Staff is also looking for grant funding to further expand the effort. A major concern is the need to have areas in maintenance districts to provide funding for ongoing maintenance of the trees. The city needs the support of property owners to be added to the maintenance district. It was suggested that staff investigate a program similar to the refuse program, which is done by agreement with the DB,& for the watering and maintenance of trees. The Committee requested that staff provide a summary of the 3r'~ party relationship with the DBA regarding providing refuse services, a 5 year plan for planting trees in the downtown, the cost of a maintenance DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, August 30, ~ 999 Page -3- district for the area, and to contact the DBA and Tree Foundation regarding their interest in participating in options for planting and/or maintaining trees in the downtown. This report is to be brought back to the Committee at their next meeting. C. Discussion of Transportation Sales Tax Measure - Rojas Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave a brief overview on the transportation sales tax survey done by the Kern Transportation Foundation. Preliminary results indicate insufficient countywide support for additional sales taxes for road maintenance or construction. The final report should be prepared within the next month and when it is available, it will be brought back to the Committee for further discussion. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Transportation Development Fund Projects - Rojas Marion Shaw gave a brief overview of the project list and reviewed the list with the Committee. Councilmember Couch asked about deferring the signal project at Hageman and Patton to a later time on the schedule. Staff will review the accident records for that intersection and make the change to delay it if appropriate. It was discussed that the list of projects must be mutually reviewed and approved by both the City and County. City and County staffs will be meeting to discuss projects directly affecting both agencies in the next week or so. The list of projects will be reviewed with the Building Industry Association and brought back at the next Committee meeting for review prior to recommendation to the City Council for approval. B. Discussion about Downtown Park and Square - Tandy The Committee had a discussion regarding the Council goal of developing a downtown park and square. Councilmember Rowles discussed the charrette process and suggested that it could be useful to identify the image the public woUld desire for the downtown. He requested that Mr. Hardisty explore the costs for such a process and bring back information at the next Committee meeting. Councilmember Couch requested information from staff on the use of transfer of development rights in the downtown, the process and forms of property acquisition in the identification of specific sites and that staff investigate the charrette process as recommended by Councilmember Rowles. City Manager Tandy discussed the complexities of attracting developers to a potential downtown project including potential site location and economic concerns. The Committee also discussed potential incentives to encourage downtown development. The Committee will continue discussion of this issue at future meetings. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday,'August 30, 1999 Page -4- C. Set Next Meeting Date The next meeting was set for September 27, 1999. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 4:05 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Water Resources Manager Gene Bogart; Start Ford, Parks and Recreation Director; Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; Water Resources Director Florn Core; Water Department Engineer Tera Entenman. Public: Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Michael Green, Reporter- The Bakersfield Californian; Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; Robyn Cady, Chairman, Kern Unit of the California Trucking Association; Ray Hewett, Tree Foundation of Kern; Cathy Butler and Ruth Simonson, Downtown Business Association; and Roger Mclntosh. s:John\UrbanDev\UD99aug30summary.wpd i SEP Iggg~ B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee ~,/Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director FROM: DATE: September 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Centennial Corridor Property Acquisition Update To date, the City has acquired nearly 45 acres of land within the City's adopted Specific Plan Line. Revenue for these purchases has come from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program. Another 40 acres of land has been reserved through the subdivision mapping process. This property has already been appraised in its pre-development condition consistent with State law and will be purchased at a later date. The City has also requested that CalTrans pursue an early purchase, of property which is outside the City's' currently adopted specific plan line but which will fall within the State's proposed plan line. The property at the southwest comer of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road was being processed through the City for a Site Plan Review for a large retail store. Because of the property's status of"immanent development", CalTrans may be able to utilize the provisions of the Eaves Bill to start the early acquisition of the property prior to construction of any improvements, thereby realizing a considerable savings. S:\MEMOS\I999\UDC KRF properej. WlXl RMR:mps xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ~~ DATE: September 27, 1999 SUBJECT: Century Freeway At the last Urban Development Committee meeting, a question was raised regarding the Century Freeway and some problems associated with it. Please find attached for your information a copy of the executive summary of the California State Auditor's report number 99113, "Department of Transportation: Disregarding Early Warnings Has Caused Millions of Dollars to Be Spent Correcting Century Freeway Design Flaws". The Century Freeway has had problems with rising groundwater in a segment of the freeway that was' constructed below ground level (about 15 - 20'). This segment crosses a water recharge area. This has caused some fairly serious problems with the pavement and the drainage system. CalTrans has spent $22 million in emergency repairs and plans to spend another $45 million for permanent repairs to the drainage system. Evidently, CalTrans agreed to extend the lowered section of the freeway across this water recharge area, but did not sufficiently design the freeway for those conditions. The State Auditor has made some recommendations for both this specific project and all future projects designed to prevent this from happening again. The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and CalTrans has agreed with the recommendations. Grades have not yet been set for the segment of the Kern River Freeway crossing the water recharge area. G:\GROUPDAT\Memo\ 1999\UrbDevCenturyFreeway.wlxl RMR:mps xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw 99112 ~C.~ummary ' httP: ':www.bsa.ca.to-v bsa:summaries, 99113sum.html California State Auditor/Bureau of State Audits Summary of Report Number 99113 - August 1999 Department of Transportation: Disregarding Early Warnings Has Caused Millions of Dollars to Be Spent Correcting Century Freeway Design Flaws RESULTS IN BRIEF After nearly 30 years of controversy, court injunctions, and delays, the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) opened the Century Freeway in Los Angeles County in October 1993. In March 1995, problems again arose for the freeway when, less than two years after the opening, CalTrans discovered cracking and sunken sections in the shoulder areas of the freeway that it had constructed below ground level. Although it originally thought the problems involved maintenance issues, by January 1996 CalTrans became aware that matters were far worse: it had not designed the lowered section of the freeway to compensate sufficiently for the effects of rising ~oundwater beneath the pavements_ During the planning, design, and construction phases for the Century Freeway, CalTrans disregarded warning signs that could have prevented design flaws in the freeway's 3.5-mile lowered section. Most significantly, CalTrans disregarded the 1968 recommendation of its staff to test extensively the soils and the groundwater levels in the area planned for the lowered section, even when it designed the modified storm-drain system for the freeway in 1973. Further, in late 1981, CalTrans agreed to extend the length of the lowered section of the freeway west toward the Los Angeles River, and the department apparently designed this extension without adequate research and consideration, such as additional testing of the soil and groundwater conditions in the area. If CalTrans had performed these tests, it could have realized the rising groundwater would threaten the freeway as designed, and it could have taken appropriate steps early in the project. CalTr~ms has documents from 1987 showing that groundwater levels had risen substantially between 1985 and 1987 in the area planned for the below ground level section of the freeway. However, because this analysis was for determining bridge foundations, it was not sent to the district unit designing the lowered section. During construction of the drain system for the lowered section in July 1990, CalTrans installed four dewatering wells because it was encountering a lot of water. The ground was so wet that CalTrans halted construction for more than six weeks. Another six years passed before CalTrans realized it had a serious groundwater problem. While CalTrans was struggling to move forward with the Century Freeway project, another agency was taking action that was to have important consequences for the freeway. The freeway crosses over t~vo groundwater basins. By the 1950s, the groundwater of these basins had been overpumped, reducing available groundwater supplies while demand for groundwater was increasing. As part of the effort to restore the health of the groundwater basins, a water replenishment district was established in 1959 to return water to the basins. By early 1997, the groundwater levels had increased over 30 feet. Although the groundwater replenishment involves all the geological layers, those layers closest to the surface. which are about 25 feet below grade, are the ones affecting the lowered section of the Century Freeway. CalTrans may have pushed ahead without further analyzing groundwater conditions because it was under some pressure to begin construction of the freeway after the 1981 lifting of a court injunction that had halted progress for many years. To qualify for federal highway funding for this project, CalTrans had to meet certain construction deadlines. In January 1996, once CalTrans acknowledged that the cracking and sinking were more than ongoing maintenance problems, it spent $22 million in emergency repairs and planned to use another $45 million for permanent repairs to the drainage system. CalTrans engaged both in-house engineers and outside consultants from academia and private practice to evaluate the underlying causes of the problems and develop options to resolve them. ~ 1 of 2 9:'20/99 12:49 PNI '/99113 Summarv. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/summaries/9911 o5.u~.b~.m, l' Although it is working to remedy the situation, CalTrans must still determine what it will do with the groundwater it pumps from beneath the freeway. As of May 1999, CalTrans had paid, under protest, more than $370,000 in taxes to pump out the groundwater. The department is currently diverting the water into the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers: thus the water is not available for other uses. CalTrans is, on the other hand, reviewing proposals with two local cities to find beneficial uses for the extracted water so that it does not waste the water or undermine the efforts of the local water replenishment district. Because CalTrans has not determined the best resolution to the groundwater disposal problem, it has no firm estimates of the costs related to the reuse of the extracted water. However, preliminary estimates suggest that the additional costs could be more than $50 million for initial costs and from $370,000 to $5 million in annual costs. In responding to concerns that CalTrans withheld information about the problems it was experiencing on the Century Freeway, CalTrans acknowledged it could have done more to inform the Legislature. However, CalTrans did include some information related to the Century Freeway problems in its normal communications with local legislators, the public, and the California Transportation Commission. Since the groundwater problems became apparent, CalTrans has reassessed some of its policies and procedures and convened an in-house review of the circumstances leading to the problems at the lowered section of the Century Freeway. The review panel made numerous recommendations for new or revised procedures and most units have responded appropriately. However, CalTrans has not monitored some units, which were slow to implement changes. RECOMMENDATIONS CalTrans should inform the Legislature, through its Senate and Assembly Transportation committees, as well as the Califomia Transportation Commission about the department's progress in determining an environmentally sound and cost-effective method for reusing the groundwater pumped from under the Century Freeway. CalTrans should continue working with the Water Replenishment District of Southern California to coordinate actions so that neither agency jeopardizes the other's efforts to fulfill its organizational mission. To ensure that it properly puts into practice the recommendations from special in-house staff reports, CalTrans should ensure that the unit designated to implement these recommendations periodically reports its progress to department management. AGENCY COMMENTS The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and CalTrans agreed with our recommendations. In addition, the department suggested several wording changes to the draft report. We have accepted some of the department's suggestions in developing our final report. · View this entire report in Adobe Portable Document Fore, at (PDF) Return to the hom~ page of the California State Auditor/Bureau of State Audits 2 of 2 9/20/99 12:49 PM MEMORANDUM September 24, 1999 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE O~~.~./~/ .. FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT . /~' RE: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM POTEN'~IAL WATER RECHARGE AREAS Dudng the Urban Development Committee's discussion of possible replacement of percolation areas anticipated by construction of Highway 58 in the Allen Road area, a memo on the application of Transfer of Development Rights to the recharge areas was requested. Having carefully reviewed the transfer of development rights program requirements and the scope of its proposed application it is my recommendation that other methods of preservation and acquisition already available to the city, water districts and state of California be used with respect to this property. These are the reasons for my recommendation: 1. The property is relatively small. 2. Acquisition of the property for percolation maybe by the state, city or special district. 3. Putting a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program in place is a complex, time-consuming process. 4.. Once established TDR has on-going administrative costs. 5. There are other ways to acquire or reserve the areas for percolation (and possibly open space, trail landscape,etc). They include purchase of options, easements or full fee title. It is also possible to amend the General Plan and zoning to accommodate the shifting about of land uses. 6. Regulations to stop legitimate development of property for a public purpose opens up issues of inverse condemnation. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney JH\pas S:\pat\memo,JH,sept24.wpd MEMORANDUM September 24, 1999 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ~- FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT~R~~ RE: CHARRETTE Councilman Rowles has expressed an interest in organizing a "Charrette" to put together a plan for a focal point or thematic element for downtown as a follow through of City Council goals. He has provided the attached booklets which come out of a very successful "Charrette" process conducted in Florida. The handbook is very informative about what is involved in putting on a "Charrette" and the other pamphlets summarize the products. We have had some preliminary discussions with architects who are familiar with the "Charrette" process and they have been very supportive and enthusiastic. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney JH~pas S:~pat~emo,JH,sept24b.wpd B~ILDI~G O~ $~CCE$$ Ice'port from Eastward Ho! PATTERNS OF 8USTAIN~LE DEVELOPMENT TOWNS, CITIES, VII J~AGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE Prepared by TREASURF, COAST RF~GIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL Suggested Strategy for the Sustainable Settlement of Florida Prepared by ~~/ Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 3228 SW Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205 ~. j Palm City, FL 34990 /',x ,~,,~ A~ b/ MEMORANDUM September 24, 1999 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE .~.~) ~' FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC~.--~' / RE: CITY ORDINANCE RELATED TO MANUFACTURED HOMES Councilwoman Demond has referred review of the city's ordinance regulating placement of mobile homes in residential zones to the Urban Development Committee to consider whether it is appropriate and consistent with state law. Excerpts from the Municipal Code and State Government Code are attached for your review. The two optional requirements not addressed by the city's code are underlined. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney JH~oas " S:~pat~nemo,JH,sept24c.wpd ~ 5.44.070-15.44.075 in a dilapidated, obsolete or deteriorated condi- to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code tion which in any manner may result in or tend shall be permitted on lots within R-I zones. to lessen the economic values of adjoining Upon application therefor pursuant to the provi- properties, or be a detriment to the neighbor- sions of Chapter 15.12 and payment of applicable hood in which the building is to be placed, and fees, the building director shall grant such the buildings shall be made to conform generally permit if, but only if, he makes the following to and be in harmony in appearance with the findings: buildings in the immediate neighborhood to 1. The lot upon which such mobile home is which the building is to be moved. (Prior code to be installed is determined to be compatible § 13.28.050). for such mobile home use (for purposes hereof, it shall be conclusively presumed that a lot is 15.44.070 Inspection ofbuildingsmoved compatible if the roof overhang, roofing from outside to inside the city or materials, and siding materials (and extent from one place to another within thereof) conform generally to and are in the city. harmony with dwellings in the immediate neigh- A. No permit shall be issued under this chap- borhood of the lot); and ter for the moving of a building from a site out- 2. The applicant accepts as conditions of side the city to a site inside the city unless and such permit conditions that the proposed until the building to be moved has been fully installation be made in full compliance with all inspected by a licensed civil or structural applicable provisions of state law, including, but engineer or licensed architect, who shall certify not limited to, the provisions of Health and that every component part of the building is Safety Code Section 18551, and that such structurally sound and meets the requirements installation be made in full compliance with of this chapter including repairs or corrections each development standard to which a conven- and that the building has been satisfactorily tional single-family residential dwelling on the braced to withstand stresses caused by moving, same lot would subject to, including, but not All of the buildings shall, however, be subject limited to, building setback standards, side and to the approval of the building official before rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, being placed on the new site. access, and vehicle parking. B. Buildings to be moved from one location B. Refusal of Permit - Appeal. Whenever the to another within the city, shall be first in- building director withholds or refuses to issue a spected and approved by the building official, permit required under this section, the applicant The fee for the inspection shall be twelve dollars, for the permit may, within ten days from the ' The inspection shall determine the condition of date of the building director's decision, appeal the building for compliance with this chapter such decision to the city council. The city clerk including repairs or corrections. (Prior code shall set the matter for public hearing before the § 13.28.060). city council and shall give notice of such hearing as prescribed in subdivisions I and 2 of subsec- 15.44.075 Mobile homes in R-1 zones, tion C of Section 16.16.060 of this code. Upon A. Permit Required. Upon the granting ora such hearing, the city council shall direct permit therefor by the city's building director, issuance of such permit if, but only if, it makes and notwithstanding any other provision of this the findings set forth in subsection A of this code, mobile homes certified under the National section. The decision of the city council shall Mobilehome Construction and Safety Standards be final. (Ord. 2652 § 1, 1981; Ord. 2648 § 1, Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401 et seq.) 1981: prior code § 15.44.075). and installed on a foundation system pursuant (S,~,~ri~qd ~-~;) 498-2 § 65852.3 GOVERNMENT CODE § 65852.3. Regulation of installation of manufactured homes; Exemptions (a) A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, shall allow the installation of manufactured homes certified under the Nati6nal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Secs. 5401 et seq.) on a foundation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code, on lots zoned for conventional single-family residential dwellings. Except with respect to architectural require- ments, a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, shall only subject the manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards to which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject, including, but not limited to, building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle parking, aesthetic requirements, and minimum square footage requirements. Any architectural requirements imposed on the manufactured home structure itself, exclusive of any requirement for any and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roof · overhang, roofing material, and siding material. These architectural requirements may be imposed on manufactured homes even if similar requirements are not imposed on conventional single-family residential dwellings. However, any architectural requirements for roofing and siding material shall not exceed those which would be required of conventional single-family dwellings constructed on the same lot. At the discre:_ tion of the local legislative body, the city or county may preclude installation of a manufactured home in zones: specified in this section if more than 10 years have elapsed between the date of manufacture of the_ manufactured home and the date of the application for the issuance of a ~rmit to install the man%t'aetured _ home in the affected, zone. In no case may a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, apply any development standards that will have the effect of precluding manufactured homes from being installed as permanent residences. _Co) At the discretion of the local legislative body, any place, building, structure, or other object having a s_t~x:iaJ character or special historical interest or value, and which is regulated by a legislative body pursuant to Sec- _ fi0n 37361, may be exempted from this section, provided the place, building, structure, or other object is ligte~ 0ti the National Register of Historic Places. Amended Stats 1988 ch 1571 § I; Stats 1994 ch 896 § 3 (AB 3735). Amendments: 1988 Amendment: (1) Added subdivision designation (a); (2) amended subd (a) by (a) substituting ", shall allow the instal- lation of manufactured homes certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974" for "shall not prohibit the installation of mobilehomes certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974" in the first sentence; (b) substituting "conventional single-family residential dwellings. Except with respect to architectural requirements" for "single-family dwellings. However" after "lots zoned for" in the first sentence; (c} substituting ", shall only subject the manufactured home and the lot on which it is placed to" for "~may designate lots zoned for single-family dwellings for mobilehomes as described in this section, which lots are determined to be compatible for such mobilehome use. A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may subject any such mobilehome and the lot on which it is placed to any or all of" in the second sentence; (d) deleting "and architectural" after "and vehicle parking" in the second sentence; (e) adding the third and fourth sentences; (f} substituting the fifth sentence for the former fifth sentence which read: "However, any architectural requirements imposed on the mobilehome structure itself, exclusive of any requirement for any and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roof overhang, roofing material, and siding mate- rial."; (g) adding the sixth sentence; (h) adding the comma after "city and county" in the last sentence; and (i) substituting "precluding manufactured homes" for "totally precluding mobilehomes" in the last sentence; and (3) added subd (b). 1994 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, substituted "manufactured home" for "mobilehome" in the sixth sentence of subd (a). Cross References: Mobilehome Parks Act: H & S C'§§ 18200 et seq. Collateral References: Witkin Summary (gth ed) Constitutional Law § 852. Miller & Start, Cai Real Estate 2d § 27:13. 1988 legislative summary. 7 Cai Real Prop J No. I p 1. § 65852.4. Application of local land use process or requirement to manufactured homes A city, including a charter city, a county, or a city and county, shall not subject an application to locate or install a manufactured home certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401 et seq.) on a foundation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code, on a lot zoned for a single-family residential dwelling, to any administrative permit, planning, or development process; or requirement, which is not identical to the administrative permit, planning, or development process or requirement which would be imposed on a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot. However, a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, . may require the application to comply with the city's, county's, or city and county's architectural requirements permitted by Section 65852.3 even if the architectural requirements are not required of conventional single-family residential dwellings. Added Stats 1988 ch 1572 § I. Collateral References: Miller & Start, Cai Real Estate 2d § 27:13. § 65852.5. Imposition of size requirements for roof overhang of manufactured home Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 65852.3, no city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, may impose size requirements for a roof ovi~rhang' of a manufactured home subject to the provisions of Sec- tion 65852.3, unless the same size requirements also would be imposed on a conventional single-family residential dwelling constructed on thc same lot. However, when there are no size requirements for roof overhangs foi' both manufactured homes and conventional single-family residential dwellings, a city, including a charter city, county, city and county, may impose a roof overhang on manufactured homes not to exceed 16 inches. Added Stats 1990 ~:h 426 § I (AB 3385). Amended Stats 1990 ch 1223 § I (AB 3114). Amendments: 1990 Amendment: Added the second sentence. § 65852.6. State policy regarding homing pigeons (a) It is the policy of the state to permit breeding and the maintaining of homing pigeons consistent with the preserva~i°n of public health and safety. (b) For purposes of this section,' a "homing pigeon," sometimes referred to as a racing pigeon' is a bird of the order Columbae. It does not fall in the category of "fowl" which includes chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and other domesticated birds other than pigeons. Added Stats 1990 ch 329 § I (AB 3109). Amended Stats 1991 ch 1091 § 63 (AB 1487). Amendments: 1991 Amendment: Routine code maintenance. § 65852,7, Mobilehome park as permitted land use Collateral References: Witkin Summary (9th ed) Constitutional Law § 852. § 65852.11, Restrictions on limiting duration of rental agreements or leases; Spaces contained in manufactured housing community and mobilehome parks as new construction (a) No city or county, including a charter city, county, or city and county, which has adopted or enacted a lo- cal rent control ordinance for mobilehome park spaces, shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, role, or regula- tion that prohibits or limits the duration of rental agreements or leases for any space contained within any manufactured housing community, as defined in Section 18801 of the Health and Safety Code, or within any mobilehome park, as defined in Section 18214 of the Health and Safety Code, that is new construction, if the enactment operates to circumvent the provisions of Section 798.7 of the Civil-Code. (b) As used in this section, "new construction" means: (1) For mobilehome parks, any newly constructed space, pursuant to Section 798.7 of the Civil Code. (2) For manufactured housing communities, any space initially held out for rent after January 1, 1993. (c) A mobilehome park that is considered "new construction" pursuantto this section, and that complies with Section ! 8801 of the Health and Safety Code, may be converted to a manufactured housing community without losing its "new construction" designation. Added Stats 1993 ch 858 §.2 (AB 2177). MEMORANDUM September 24, 1999 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT~/~ RE: CITY AND COUNTY BILLBOARD REGULATIONS The committee has scheduled a discussion of standards for billboards bordering City/County areas. The attached chart has been prepared to facilitate that discussion. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney JH\pas S:\pat\memo,JH,sept24a.wpd OUTDOOR/OFFSITE ADVERTISING SIGNS (BILLBOARDS) COMPARISON OF REGULATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN COUNTY Zones pe~iaed C-2, M-1, M-2, M-3 All co~ercial & industrial (~eir C-1 zone requires a conditional use pe~it) Maximin area 300 sf 700 sf (single bce) (si~ bce c~ot exceed a len~h of 50 ~ or a height of 16 ~ nor can it be taller th~ wide) Maximin height 35 ~ (C-2 zone) 35 ft 50 ft (M zones) Setbacks from: - O~er billbo~ds 1000 ft 1000 ft (measured in a radius; separation (meas~ed only along the sine side includes si~s in ~e co~) of the street) - BusMess ID si~s 100 ft 25 fl - Residential zone/use 300 fl 150 ft - S~eets 0 fl 0 ft (c~ot project or be m ~) (c~ot project or be in ~) - Side prope~ lines 25 ~ 0 ft Ohentation Multiple faces must be back-to- M~tiple faces must be back-to- back with no more th~ 2 foot back; V-~e ~gement allowed sep~ation; hces must be s~il~ if sep~ated no mom th~ 30 ~ size ~d shape Adve~ismg resections C~ot adve~ise the business C~ot adve~ise business if it is where the si~ is located wi~in 1,320 ft of si~ Lighting Pem~ed but must not affect Pe~itted but must not affect adjacent prope~ies or streets adjacent prope~ies of s~eets Vah~ces or exceptions? No Yes (or~n~ce specifically prohibits) (~y st~d~d such as height, separation, etc. c~ be vmed by ~e PI~Mg Director)