HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/1993 BAKERSFIELD
Randy Rowles, Chair
Kevin McDermott
Patricia M. Smith
Staff: Jack Hardisty'
AGENDA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMFITEE
Wednesday, November 24, 1993
12:00 noon
Development Services Building
Second Floor Conference Room
Planning Commissioners:'
Jeff Andrew
Steve Messner
Darren Powers
1. Public Statements - (Limited to one minute each)
2. Less than 6,000 square-foot Residential Lots
3. Status of Alternate Planning Commissioner
4. General Plan Amendments West of the City
5. School Impact Fees '
6. Pending Ordinances
7. Trails Planning
8. Set Next Meeting Date
9. Adjourn
JH:jp
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATiO
OF KERN COUNTY
6901 McDIVI't-T DRIVE. SUITE C '" .,.)'
/
October 25, 1993
Dr. Kelly Blanton
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
5801Sundale Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93309-2900
Dear Kelly:
Enclosed is a copy of the resolution approved by the Board of
Directors of the Building Industry Association of Kern County
relating to the Model Agreement for Mitigation of Public School
Impacts. This resolution confirms the BIA's commitment to pro-
viding a mechanism in which to resolve the issue of mitigation of
impacts from new development on school districts.
It also defines the BIA understanding that this agreement is
intended to remain in effec: regardless' of the outcome of the
vote on Proposition lY0 appearinc on the November 2, 1993 state-
wide ballot. - '
Along wi:h this resolution comes a request, from the BIA Board of
DirecTors, that you, in turn, provide similar resolutions from
affected Kern County school distric:s. It is extremely important,
from the BIA perspective, that we be given assurances as to the
commitment of school districts as well.
Th~n,, ',-~u for your assistance in ~- ~-~
Sincerely,
Barbara Don Carlos
Executive Vice President
BDC'bs
Enclosure
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION e
OF KERN COUNTY
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 - 2047 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 805/832-0258'
Resolution By
Building Industry Association of Kern County
In Support Of
"Model Agreement For Mitigation Of Public School Impacts"
The Building Industry Association of Kern County (the "BIA"),
in consultation and negotiation with the Kern County Superintendent of
Schools and representatives of numerous school districts, has agreed
upon a proposed "Model Agreement for Mitigation of Public School
Impacts" which the BIA hereby endorses for use by its membership and
the building/development community at large.
By this agreement, drafts of which have been in circulation
since April, 1993, parties which initially held widely differing views
have reached an accord intended to resolve the issue of mitigation of
impacts of new development on school districts. The understanding of
the parties, as embodied in the "Model Agreement," provides a standard
by which developer impact fees are to be calculated, permits deferral
of payment of those fees to a point in time subsequent to the issuance
of a building permit, and assesses no new fees against commercial
development.
The "Model Agreement" is intended by the parties to remain in
effect regardless of the outcome of the vote on Proposition 170 which
.will appear on the November 2, 1993 statewide ballot. It is the inten-
tion of the BIA to provide a vehicle by which its membership and others
in the building/development community may achieve certainty regarding
The school impact fees which may be imposed against a project in an
uncertain legal climate.
The "Model Agreement" represents a true compromise between
The positions of the school districts and the building/development
community, and was achieved in recognition of the common understand-
ing of both sets of participants that the cost of schools o=~not be
borne exclusively by new development. -
The Building Industry Association of Kern County appreciates
The good-faith efforts of the many school districts of Kern County,
and The leadership of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, in
achieving the understanding that is contained within the "Model
AgreemenT."
The Building Industry Association of Kern County urges our
elected officials to recognize the effort required to reach this agree-
men~, and to accept the "Model Agreement" as a reasonable solution to
the problem of mitigating new development impacts on schools.
Approved Friday, September 24, 1993
B!A Board of Directors
The Kern County Plan for
Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing
The Kern County Plan for Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing is the result of studies
conducted by the school funding task force established by the City of Bakersfield and the
County of Kern as well as significant negotiations among representatives of Kern County
school districts, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, residential and
commercial/industrial builders and developers. The Plan was developed to ensure that the
community's needs for adequate schools and affordable housing are better met in the face of
legal and financial uncertainties.
Because the focus of legal uncertainties is on SB 1287 which became effective on January
1, 1993, the Plan divides residential development into two categories based on whether the
project had received all required legislative land use decisions (i.e., adoption or amendment
of a specific plan; adoption or amendment of a general plan, including a community plan;
change of zoning; or annexation into a city) prior to January 1, 1993
1. Residential development which received all required legislative land use decisions prior
to January 1, 1993.
For most projects in this category, the Plan provides that mitigation of public school impacts
will be limited to payment of school facilities fees of $2.65 per square foot. These fees may
be paid as late as close of escrow rather than prior to building permit issuance if the builder
makes certain arrangements.
Per current law, $1.65 of this amount will be subject to periodic adjustments for inflation,
however, if and when the voters fail to approve ACA 6, the other $1.00 of this amount will
no longer have to be paid. In addition, if state law is changed to expressly permit or require
higher or lower school facilities fees, the amount of $2.65 may or will be adjusted
accordingly.
Of course, development projects whose legislative approvals require mitigation at higher
levels, which are already in Mello-Roos districts, or which are covered by existing agreements
with school districts may have to pay more or less than this amount depending on individual --
circumstances.
2. Residential development for which any legislative land use decisions were or will be
made on or after January 1, 1993.
For most projects in this category, the Plan provides that mitigation of public school impacts
will be limited to payment of $3.65 per square foot of residential construction. Payment of
this amount will exempt residential construction project from payment of statutory school
facilities fees, however property in the project will remain subject to any applicable taxes. No
mitigation beyond statutory school facilities fees (currently $0.27 per square foot) will be
required on commercial or industrial development.
The amount required under the Plan may be paid as late as close of escrow rather than prior
to building permit issuance if the builder makes certain arrangements. That amount is subject
to periodic adjustment for inflation in the same manner and amount as statutory school
facilities fees. In addition, if state law is changed to expressly permit or require higher school
facilities fees that amount will be adjusted accordingly. However, it will not be otherwise
adjusted upward or downward regardless of the continuing efficacy of the amendment of
Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 by SB 1287.
Under the Plan, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, and other Kern County cities, in
cooperation with both the building industry and the county's public schools, would establish
procedures providing generally that:
· School districts would notify appropriate County and/or city officials when they
have determined that new residential development will have a significant adverse
effect on its facilities.
· In this notice, school districts would either indicate that they agree to enter into
the "Model Agreement for Mitigation of Public School Impacts" ("Model Agreement")
which implements the Plan or describe what different mitigation measures they
consider necessary and appropriate.
· In evaluating any proposed legislative land use decision the County and/or city
would determine whether it would authorize the construction of residential units in
excess of any currently authorized within one or more of the school districts which has
given the notice described above.
· If not, each of the school district(s) in which the development will occur will be
notified that it has been determined that the development will not have any significant
environmental impact in the area of school facilities.
· If so, the applicant and/or beneficiary will be notified that unless the Model
Agreement is entered into with the affected school districts(s), or some other
agreement is reached with the district(s), an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") will
be required to assess the development's impacts on public schools and identify what
measures would adequately mitigate those impacts.
· If the applicant and/or beneficiary and each affected school district enter into
the Model Agreement, or some other agreement which mitigates the development's
impacts on the public schools, compliance with that agreement will be included as a
condition of any legislative land use decision regarding that development proposal.
In addition, the school district(s) will not object to, or demand additional mitigation as
a condition of any subsequent legislative land use decision for the proposed
development (unless that decision would authorize the construction of additional
residential units).
The Plan recognizes that, prior to January 1,1993, the Norris, Rio Bravo-Greely, and Rosedale
School Districts established a Mello-Roos community facilities district ("CFD") designed to
meet the community's need for elementary school facilities associated with new residential
development. Based on this, projects in those three districts would either annex into the
existing CFD or pay those amounts established by the CFD to prepay the taxes which would
otherwise be levied if they were annexed into the CFD. In those three districts, the payment
required to be made to the Kern High School District will be limited to that portion of the
$3.65 it received in other elementary districts.
ITEM #5--,4
School Fees
° Currently $2.65 at building permit
o $3.65 on ZCC and GPA's
per School Task Force
since January 1, 1993
° Voter denial - Prop. 170 (November 2, 1993)
30 days to certify vote
effective December 2, 1993
School fee at building permit - $1.65
o ZCC/GPA fee now jeopardized
° .Staff is continuing usage of $3.65
However, individual school districts may not accept $3.65 ($4 - $7)
Developers may refuse to agree
- In either case,.~EIR will be necessitated
p:ol
.~::!.~,~~ ·.ITEM 2
November 23, 1993
To: Jack Hardisty, Planning Director
From:h~ Stanley Grady, Assistant Planning Director
Subject: Background information for Urban Development Committee agenda item
No. 2: Less than 6000 square foot Residential Lots'
Standards for lots in residential subdivisions are contained in the Subdivision .Ordinance
(Title 16) and the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17). The general plan does not contain
policies that would regulate lot size.
The zoning ordinance establishes 6000 square feet as the minimum lot size for R-I, R-2
R-3 and R-4 zones. The subdivision ordinance references these requirements and
establishes further regulations for reduction of minimum standards for frontage, depth
and width (section 16.28.170).
The Board of Zoning Adjustment has the authority to grant modifications to lot area
regulations if it makes the required findings in section 17.64.070 (C). The Planning
Commission has the authority to grant modifications of yard and lot area regulations
(section 17.64.035) in the course of its review of tentative maps.
The rules governing the Planning Commissions authority is contained in the subdivision
ordinance in section 16.28.170 (O). A modification to lot area, width, frontage and/or
depth could be granted depending upon which criteria the applicant was submitting
its map under for consideration of a modification. There are five sets of criteria under
which an applicant could request modification of minimum standards. They are as
follows:
16.28.170 (O). Reduction of Minilnum Standards.
I. The advisory agency may permit a reduction in minimum standards
PHYSICAL including lot area, width, frontage and/or depth pursuant to the
CONSTRAINTS, provisions in either Chapter 16.36 (physical constraints or
EXTRA AMENITIES, extraordinary amenities), 17.52 (PUD Zone) or density bonus
PUD ZONE. provisions of the Municipal Code. Reduction of minimum
DENSITY BONUS standards may also be allowed as follows:
II. The advisory agency may permit a 5 percent reduction of lot area,
5% REDU£~ION width, frontage and/or depth for not more than 5 percent of the lots
_< 5% OF LOTS in a sUbdivision if it makes the findings set forth in Section
WITtt FINDINGS 17.64.070 C (Findings Required For Modifications) of the Municipal
Code, along with the following additional findings.
1. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted
for the property in the general plan.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the purposes and
intent of the subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance.
3. The applicant has provided justification for the proposed
reduction' based on sound engineering practices and
subdivision design features.
III. Additionally, the advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot
IF 80% OF area, width, frontage and/or depth in a subdivision if it makes the
LOTS OR TRACT findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 C (Findings Required For
PHASE, NO Modifications) of the Municipal Code, along with the following
SETBACK MODS, additional findings:
ELEMENTS OF
PUBLIC BENEFIT 1. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted
WITH FINDINGS for the property in the general plan.
2. The subdivision is planned to provide a balanced housing
stock within a defined area.
3. The subdivision does not result in an unjustified
concentration of substandard lots within a defined area.
4. The reduction of the minimum lot area is for a minimum of
80 percent of the lots in a subdivision or all lots within a
phase of the tract.
5. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will
not require a modification for the reduction of the required
front, rear, or side-yard setbacks on any lot within the
subdivision.
6. The proposed development offers elements of public benefit
that justify the reduction in lot area standards such as but not
limited to one or more of the following:
° Recreational open space and/or facilities unique to the
project.
2
Park land dedication or in-lieu fees at 3 acres per
1,000 popUlation.
Home prices at 80 percent of the area median sales
price or less for new and resale homes in metropolitan
Bakersfield.
IV. Further, if the'project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings, the
ZONED MULTI advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area in a subdivision
FAMILY WITH if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 C (findings
FINDINGS required for. modifications) of the Municipal Code and makes
findings 1, 4 and 5 above (seed below).
1. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted
for the property in the general plan.
4. The reduction of the minimum lot area is for a minimum of
80 percent of the l°ts in a subdivision or all lots within a
phase of the tract.
5. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will
not require a modification for the reduction of the required
front, rear, or side-yard setbacks on any lot within the
subdivision.
V. A reduction in lot width and frontage in a subdivision may be
80% OF LOTS permitted by the advisory agency if it makes the findings set forth in
OR TRACT Section 17.64.070 C (findings required for modifications) of the
PHASE WITH Municipal Code, along with the following findings:
FINDINGS &
6000 SQFT 1. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet.
LOTS MINIMUM,
NO SETBACK 2. The reduction in the minimum lot width/frontage is for a
MODS minimum of 80 percent of the lots in a tract or all the lots in
a phase of the tract.
3. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will
not require a modification for the reduction of the required
front, rear, or side yard setbacks on any lot within the
subdivision.
ITEM #4
GPA's west of City_
A. Location (refer to site map)
1. McAlister Ranch
o 3.5 sq. miles
° 9,000 +dwelling units
° Population - 27,000
° Approved by Board of SuperVisors - November 15, 1993
2. Pacificana
o 6.5 sq. miles
° 19,000 + dwelling units
o Population - 58,000
o DEIR review period ends December 17, 1993
o Hearing date - February 7, 1993tq
3. Western Rosedale Specific Plan ° 58 sq. miles
° Population - over 200,000
° 10% larger than existing city
° DEIR review period has not started
B. Cumulative
° 68 sq. miles
° Population - 285,000
° Impacts
° Traffic
° Public SerVices (sewer, fire, police)
o Urban sprawl
° City will inherit problems and has little input
ITEM 6
1993 ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Chapter Description Status/Adoption
17.68 Drive-thru development standards Died at PC
(3-13-93)
Title 16. Subdivision Ord. -- rewrite to add new provisions of 4-14-93
state law and revise'mineral rights sections to (eft 5-14-93)
better define how mineral rights are protected
17.08 Addition to special setbacks requiring dwellings to be 4-28-93
setback 30 ft from freeway and railroad rights-of-way (eft 5-28-93)
17.10 RePeal CUP for model homes in R-1 and allow a max. of 6 4-28-93
as permitted uses along, with sales office (eft 5-28-93)
17.10-18 Amendment to front/side yard setbacks (R zones) so that 6-9-93
driveways are a min. 20 ft long' on direct approaches (eft 7-9-93)
17.19 R-H Zone -- added intent, more permitted uses, and 10-6-93
20 acre minimum lot size (eft 11:6-93)
10.32 Amendment to prohibit commercial truCk parking in 11-10-93
residential areas (earlier amendment 8-25-93) (eft 12-10-93)
17.08 Addition to nonconforming structures section to permit 1st reading
URM buildings that are adjacent, to consolidate scheduled for
as one and increase the sq.ff, to 150% of their Dec. 15, 1993
original size before consolidation
17.60 Sign Ordinance (comprehensive update).. Scheduled for
--Summary of changes attached-- 12-2-93 PC Mtg
17.64 Conditional use process -- addl-yr interval to reapply Staff working with
for the same project if denied BINBoR as directed ·
by Urban Der Com
Title 16 Subdivision Ord -- clarification to mineral rights Approved by
regarding undivided interest Sub.Committee
for hearing
Title 16 Subdivision Ord -- addition of minimum lot depth requirement Pending at
of 140 ft for lots adjacent to agricultural lands staff level
(to ensure that 50 ft. setback from ag land can be met)
17.10 Addition of administrative approval for 2nd dwelling units Pending at
per state standards (removes CUP req'mt) Staff level
7.08/09 Non-conforming use section - rewrite to better delineate Pending az
between structures and uses; move to separate chapter Staff level
7.14-18 Amendment to increase side and rear yards in R-2,3,4 zones Pending at
to 10 ft (single stow) and 25 ft (2nd and above Staff level
stories) for multiple housing adjacent to single family
7.08/ Definition amendments of side and rear yards to be measured Pending at
2.40 from r/w or parkway; update parkway definition Staff level
7.52/ PUD/PCD sections -- streamline to be similar to site plan Pending at
17.54 process (eliminates double review by PC) Staff level
Makes the schedule and requirements.to perform work
consistent
17.26/ Proposed downtown zoning (CC and CB zones) Pending at
17.27 (working in conjunction with CBDG Advisory Corem) Staff level
..... Hillside Development Ordinance (new) Pending at
Staff level
Title 17 Add administrative approval for mobile recycling reception Pending at
centers and delete CUP requirement staff level
Title 17 Ordinance Organization -- reorganize, consolidation of Pending at
various sections, make it more user friendly Staff level
(draft outline prepared of proposed organization)
SUMMARY OF SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES
(for version date 9-24-93)
PURPOSE
· Added reference regarding the Uniform Sign Code (deals with structural & electrical
components of signs; used by the Building Dept.) in order to note the relationship
between it and the Zoning Ordinance.
· Removed reference to comprehensive zoning plan .since it is unnecessary.and stated
sign control is citywide.
PERMITS _
A. No change -- from existing Sections 17.60.020 & 17.60.070.
B. New -- repeats some of the seCtion regarding permits from the Uniform Sign Code;
however, the'intent of this section is to clearly identify what types of signs either will Or
will not require a sign permit.
C. New -- notes that signs may also be regulated by the approval of other permits (ie.
CUP, zone change). From existing Section 17.60.110 I.
D. From existing Sections 17.60.255 1-3, & 17.60.110 F.4.(4). Added items 3-5 which
allow the Building Director discretion in permitting some types of signs additional
area.
E. New -- although it is implied in the current ordinance that modifications to the sign
ordinance are not permitted, the addition of this section confirms in writing that
exceptions to the sign.standards are prohibited.
F. From exiSting Section 17.60.020. Wording changed to be consistent with other
sections in the Municipal Code regarding fees.
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (CSP)
(From existing CSP Section 17.60.250)
· Added a statement that defines the intent of a CSP and how these plans should be
utilized. Clarified that an application for this type of permit is voluntary. It also noted
that a CSP is not to be used solely as a variance mechanism to lessen or waive sign
requirements.
A. Regaraing CSP's for specific projects, deleted the section that references businesses
having frontage along both sides of a street along a block (other items will cover this
section). 'Items 5-6 are new.
B. New -- notes that a CSP can be a condition of approval due to some other action (ie.
conditional use permit, zone change, GPA).
Rewritten to refer to a for~mat as aes~rea by the Debar~menz. ThereTore, if information
needs to be added or deleteq, it wouid not necessitate a change To the ordinance.
D. Clarifies the review authority, and processing of a CSP.
E-I. New items -- establishes basic procedures.
SIGN COMPUTATIONS
· A-B from existing Section 17.60.030 4. (area of signs definition). This computation is
slightly changed for better clarity. Added sign height measurement (item D) from
grade consistent with other grade measurements in the code. Structural support area'
(item C) added to assist in determining how much structural support is allowed before
it becomes counted as measurable sign area.
LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
A. From existing SectiOn 17.60.070 C. -- added signs prohibited within landscaped
parkways (Sign Committee feels that these areas Should not be cluttered with signs).
B. From existing Section 17.60.070 D.
C. From existing Section 17.60.080 N. 1-5 (#1 slightly revised to better define the area
along Truxtun Ave. between Coffee and Hwy 99).
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. From existing Sections 17.60.070 F-H, O. Item #3 consolidates requirements for
illuminated signs.
The matrix format in that follows in Subsection B is proposed to make it easier to find
specific requirements for the various signs permitted by the city, replacing the otd
paragraph format which was difficult to interpret and was not consistent in its
application from zone to zone. Staff hope this new format will clarity and consolidate
the majority of basic sign regulations for each type of sign.
B1. Residential/Agricultural Zones:
· Nameplate.-- increased area from 1/2 to 1 sq.ft.; allow sign to be illuminated (since
some of these Signs indicate the occupant and address where illumination is desired);
removed occupation reference since it is not consistent with the home occupation
section of the ordinance prohibiting advertising the residential address.
· Apartment ID -- added height limit, setbacks, and remarks section; changed
illumination to non-internal instead of internal (do not want them to look like
commercial area signs).
· Neighborhood ID (subdivision names) -- new section (existing signs are currentJy
permitted by the Building Director) since the Planning Commission has had a desire
to ciarifl/, the number and location of these signs. Parks Department will be reduirea
to approve any materials for appropriate replacement and maintenance (avoid use of
styrofoam signs).
· . Residential ID (onsite) -- moved section that permits Bldg. Director to approve up to 2
additional signs and placed in new section 17.60.020 D.; removed additional onsite
directional and instead allow the onsite signs to both direct and advertise: changed
removal of signs within 18 mos. to completion of initial sales or 2 years after final map
recordation with options for extensions of. time.
· Residential Directional (offsite) -- regulations moved to Specialized Signs section.
· Real Estate -- increased overall area to 6 sq.ft, and removed tag sign reference,
therefore sign area can include whatever combination desired; removed, larger signs
being permitted on parcels of 10,000 sq.ft, or more.
· Open House -- reduced number permitted from 10 to 6; increased height from 3 to 6
ft.; added use of A-frames since they can be used without affecting landscaping and
are easy for agents to use; clarified that signs permitted 3 consecutive days PER '~
WEEK instead of just 3 consecutive days'.
· Garage Sale -- new, timing coincides with municipal code requirements for number of
such sales per year.
· Construction -- no change.
· Future Use- only allow 1 sign instead of 1 per every 300 ft. of frontage. Multiple ..
signs on the site indicating the same use do not appear to be necessary.
· Models -- Maximum tied to number of models; flags allowed to be placed anywhere
· on the site to give developers maximum option of how they wish to draw attention to
their tracts. Also makes for easier enforcement by the c.i~ty.
· Agricultural Uses -- reduced height limit from 16 to 8 ff.; expands sign location to RS
zones since farm products are permitted in those zones.
B2-4. Commercial Zones (C-O, C-1, 'C-2):
· Wall (business tD) -- increase height from 20 to 25 ft. in C-0, from 25 to 30 ft. in C-1
and C,2: for C-0 and C-1, added max area (none existing); reference removed
regarding total bldg. frontage max. since it is not enforced and appears to not be
necessary; added max horizontal length so that sign is at a proper scate with the
business' wall elevation.
· Monument/Pylon (business ID) -- C-O, pylon and monument are same area and
height: clarifies that business has choice between either a pylon or monument, and if
a center name is used on a pylon then monuments may also be used.
· Window (business ID) -- new, better defined. Added to permit business name on
window (does not include promotional signs).
· ReaaerPoard/Menu. -- reduce numPer from 4 to 2: reduce height from 15 to 12 ft.:
better defined.
· Shingle (business ID) -- name defined from sign publications that identif~ those signs
that t~ang under awnings .and canopies to distinguish them from those attached to or
painted on tl~e outside awnings and canopies; added that they must be oriented for
pedestrians.
· Nameplate -- new, limited to loading areas so that business can be found at the rear
of a building.
· Building ID -- new. Would only apply if there were multiple buildings on site such as
- an office complex.
· Real Estate - limit to 1 per property instead of 1 per 100 ft.of frontage; added larger
sq.ft, sign allowed for unimproved and vacant Properties.
· Construction -- reduced height consistent with real estate signs.
· Future Use - permit only 1 sign instead of 1 per 300 ft. of frontage.
· Promotional -- takes definition from existing temporary signs definition but rules more
definite; limits all to 25% coverage based upon total sq.ft of ground floor window area
or $2 sq. ft.; limit to 2 elevations; removes requirement for sign permit.
BS. Manufacturing Zones:
· Similar to commercial zones, however, area limits reduced to between the C-1 and 0-
2 zones (as directed, by the Sign Committee). The Sign Committee felt that the C-2
zone should allow the largest sign area thereby encouraging commercial businesses
in a commercial zone. Under the existing sign code, the M districts permit the most
signage even though a survey of industrial businesses confirmed that the utilize very
little area (generally 64 sq.ft.or less).
B6. New -- deleted old Section 17.60.200 (CC zone) that required Planning Commission
approval for all signs. This section may be eventually changed in the future due to
work being conducted regarding downtown zoning.
BT. Oveday Zones-- consolidated and clarified what regulations are applicable when
there is an overlay zone in place.
BB. PUD/PCD -- require CSP so that sign changes would not require a revision of the
entire development plan (CSP revision would be less costly and take less time).'
Commercial signage also changed to be based on'the C-1 zone exclusively,
consistent with past projects.
SPECIALIZED SIGNS
· New section -- pulls out signage that is unique; makes reference to such signs easier
for puPlic and staff to determine requirements in a consiStent fashion.
A. Residential Subdivision/Project Directional (off-site) -- basic rec~uiremenm uncnangeci:
adds 25 ft. separation of such signs to avoid clutter at intersections.
B. . Special Event -- from temp sign definition (17.60.040 #43.). The intent is to
distinguish between a business' promotion of specific goods (such as sales, weekly
specials) -vs- a unique event (grand opening, closeout, remote radio broadcast,, etc.)
where special banners, balloons, etc. are desired for a temporary period of time.
C. Political Election -- expanded to guide how these 'signs should be placed.
D. Freeway Oriented -- consolidated into one section, no change to requirements.
E. · Outdoor Advertising (billboards) -- consolidated into one section, no change to
requirements.
F. Skyline -- definition changed to apply to bUildings 3 or more stories; signs permitted
on all elevations instead oF2; letter heights increased to be even foot measurements;
created table showing letter heights, capital letters, and Iogos for easier reference;
permits comprehensive sign plan to modify requirements.
EXEMPT SIGNS
· Section generally the same from existing Section 17.60.060. Flag reference better
defined; added city promotional signs (ie. Ail-America, etc.), holiday decorations,
public bulletin boards, non-commercial messages and no trespassing/solicitation.
PROHIBITED SIGNS
· Section generally the same from existing Sections 17.60,070/080.
NONCONFORMING SIGNS
· Removed sections pertaining to dates that have already passed. Basic regulations
have not changed. Existing ord. Section 17.60.260 B. (definition) has been moved to
the sign definitions.
INVENTORY OF ILLEGAL/ABANDONED DISPLAYS
· Existing Section i 7.60.265 -- this was removed as it is no longer utilized or necessary.
VIOLATION AND ABANDONMENT
Consolidated from existing ord. Sections 17,60.040. 17.60.270, & 17.60,280. Slight
wording changes to clarify.
!NTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT
From existing ord. Section 17.60.040. Slight woraing changes maae to ciarify intent.
DEFINITIONS
· All sign definitions were removed from the sign section and integrated into the zoning
ordinance definitions section. Specific sign definitions were placed under the main
sign ctefinition.
· Main Zoning definitions added/changed are as follows:
· eaveline (new)
· nonprofit organization (new)
· parcel of property' (changed)
· shopping/business center (changed)
· Definitions under sign definition added/changed are as follows:
· abandoned (from abandoned section)
· awning or canopy (changed in that calculated with a wall sign)
· building tD (new)
· business ID (new)
· center identification (new)
· copy, (new)
· electronic message board (new)
· freestanding (changed)
· future facility (new)
· garage sale (new)
· logo (new)
· menuboard (new)
· mural (new)
· nameplate (new)
· neighborhood/subdivision ID (new)
· nonconforming (from nonconforming section)
· on-premise (new)
· political election (hew)
· promotional (new)
· pylon (new)
· real estate (changed from "for sale")
· residential directional (changed from subdiVision, directional)
· shingle (new - also some from old awning/canopy)
· special event (new)
· temporary (changed)
· wall (changed, includes those on canopies and awnings)
TRAILs
· EqUestrian Trails
° County has incorporated equestrian system in Western Rosedale.
- includes standards
alignments
ties into existing equestrian areas
will connect to Kern River via Castle and Cooke
° GPA currently under consideration
o Local equestrians
- form action group
o resulted from bike path east of Manor
- in formulating trail plan
° from Manor to Rio Bravo
o acknowledging historical equestrian trails
o plans to submit to City in time
· Bike Path
o East of Manor
- completed in spring
"ribbon cutting ceremony planned"
o 'Connecting from Quailwood to river bike path
Public Works project
o currently on hold
o exploring public interest in the area
p:trails