The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/01/1995 B A K E R S F I E L D Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, May 1, 1995 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 MARCH 1, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION PROMOTING GOOD NEIGHBOR RELATIONS - Councilmember Smith B. MESA MARIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY STUDY - Hardisty C. MULTI-USE RECREATION STADIUM AT SAM LYNN -Tandy D. STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAYS - R. Rojas · Highway 178 Specific Plan E. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN LINES FOR MORNING DRIVE, PALADINO DRIVE AND AN "UNNAMED" COLLECTOR - R. Rojas F. STREET WIDTH AT SOUTH UNION AND PANAMA LANE - R. Rojas G. UNDERGROUND UTILITY COSTS - R. Rojas 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:ip FILE COPY NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Urban Development Committee of the City Council will hold a Special Meeting for the purpose of a Committee Meetinq on Monday, May 1, 1995, at 12:15 p.m., at City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider: 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MARCH 1, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION PROMOTING GOOD NEIGHBOR RELATIONS- Councilmember Smith B. MESA MARIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY STUDY - Hardisty C. MULTI-USE RECREATION STADIUM AT SAM LYNN - Tandy D. STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAYS- R. Rojas · Highway 178 Specific Plan E. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN LINES FOR MORNING DRIVE, PALADINO DRIVE AND AN "UNNAMED" COLLECTOR - R, Rojas F. STREET WIDTH AT SOUTH UNION AND PANAMA LANE - R. Rojas G. UNDERGROUND UTILITY COSTS- R. Rojas 7. ADJOURNMENT C~hil E. Waiters, Assistant City Manager GEW:jp KERN INDUSTRY COALITION, .... SeekingA Balanct 441 VineLand Roac Baket~fidd, CA 93307 (805) 3634463 F.~C((805) 3664251 December 8, L9~4 Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield Bakersfield City Council Bakersfield City Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: On September 12, 1994, at the request of three local organizations The Kern Industry Coalition. · The Bakersfield Association of Realtors~ and The Building Industry Association of Kern County. . the Kern County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution supporting the use of a Neighboring Business Activity Statement. 'It is the declared policy of Kern County to encourage business operations such as agriculture, oil. mining and manu/acturing within the County, and the Kern County General Plan establishes goals and policies which promote an orderly development pattern conducive to the successful development of residential and commercial activities .... ' (Please find enclosed a full copy of this resolution as well as a copy of the Neighboring Business Activity Statement currently being used by local Realtors.) At this time the Kern Industry Coalition is ~sl~ing the City of Bakemfield to pass a similar resolution promoting good neighbor relations by giving support to local industry and helping increase awareness that nearby business operations may have some effect on residential neighborhoods. Thank you Since~ BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the matter off Resolution No. 94-459 Reference No. 946273 ~£UUUU A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF KERN SUPPORTING USE OF A PROPOSED NEIGHBORING BUSINESS ACTIVITY STATEMENT I, SUE DAVIS, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California, do hereby certify that the following resolution, on motion of Supervisor Shell , seconded by Supervisor Larwood , was duly passed and adopted by said Board of SUpervisors at an official meeting hereof this 12thday of September , 1994, by the following vote, to AYES: Ashburn, Austin, Larwood, Peterson, Shell NOES: None ABSENT: None ~_~ SUE DAVIS · ' -°.' Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ~-~"~'""~'~/'~ County of Kern, State of California Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION Section 1. WHEREAS: (a) It is the declared policy of Kern County to encourage business operations such as agriculture, oil, mining and manufacturing with the County, and the Kern County General Plan establishes goals and policies which promote an orderly development pattern conducive to the successful development of residential and commercial activities; and 94-459 (b) The Kern County General Plan goals and policies also attempt to minimize conflicts between various land uses. On occasion business activity areas may find residential property within the proximity of it's operations; and (c) A group of concerned business owners, calling themselves the Kem Indust~ Coalition, the Bakersfield Association of Realtors and the Building Industry Association of Kern County, all interested in heightening the awareness of homeowners to any business activity that may be adjacent to their property, have collectively petitioned this Board to consider supporting the proposed use of a "Neighboring Business Activity Statement''; and (d) The Bakersfield Association of Realtors has informed this Board that it intends to add the proposed Neighboring Business Activity Statement to the standard Physical Inspection Checklist, and use good faith efforts to encourage its use in ali transactions involving their members. The Building Industry Association of Kern County has informed this Board that it will likewise encourage the use of the statement in real estate transactions involving new home construction by their membership; and (e) The use of the Neighboring Business Activity Statement will help promote good neighbor relations, assist property owners to better understand the effects of being near business operations and to more readily understand conditions that prevail in the neighborhood at the time they acquire their property; and (f) A public hearing was held today as part of a regularly scheduled meeting, at which hearing opportunity for giving oral and written presentations in support of or opposing the proposed resolution in support of the use of the Statement was afforded; and (g) It now being the time scheduled for consideration of this Resolution, this Board heard and considered the comments of all those desiring to address this Board on this matter; Section 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California, hereby finds, determines, declares, orders, and resolves as follows: 1. This Board finds that each of the facts recited hereinabove is true, and that this Board has jurisdiction to proceed and to make the determination hereinafter set forth. 2. This Board hereby finds and determines that the proposed use of the Neighboring Business Activity Statement, referred to above, will serve the public interest and welfare, and represents a consensus among the concemed citizen's group, the Bakersfield Association of Realtors and the Building Industry Association. 3. The Clerk of this Board shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the · following: (a) The Kern Industry Coalition (b) The Bakersfield Association of Realtors (c) The Kern County Building Industry Association (d) County Administrative Officer BD/wl/:i/ 94.2750 rt-tofrm.#2 2 ! PHYSICAL INSP :CTION CH "CKLIST us and w~ undemtand that we can pay for and r ~calve the folew~ InaPeedona and/or wan~ntM4 on prolxily located at: YEK,.L(VE~ , I. NEIGHBORING BUaBE88AO IVITYSTATEMENT: 8TA'TBJNT Msl, In qd~ulum. / <llmc~mfo~t m~ hm mu~h opem~kmm ~ ~ 2. HQtdEIWPECTIONCOMPANY ~Ms~W~dto NO. mO~TW~ , and U~t ~ comlNmy ~- evloned by YES]iOOWAHT I 3. STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL INSPEGTIOH ttmd~ll Itli~ly of Ihe ~DOW, MT I 6. $CXIJF. NQINEER We~mm~weemnhmveemokenl~m~ NO. IDONOTwN(r '1~ IW)ORT ~ Insl)e~ t~l propety mhd advise u~ I/the mc~i Im any IJl~ps~. mtvle~n& TH~ REFCKT NTU~LJ · sub~id~ M ~Y °IbM Pr°bim~ Ihat ml0ht mffKt stabity °l h )llh - ; th. dl~Wm m~tl, .. J J ~1:~ w~ ! e. BUILDING DEPARTMENT !mokmm dram on lhe ixopmty M ~ c:k~0 M the i~a~/. INmAL,S YES. IDOWMfl' ! B. 8GPTSCTANK itltmbMmtmq)le~lhdtMi'ej'eeeplk:tmk NO. IDONOTWANT. 'T~iIHSPE~tlON INITINJ L~)mpenles thlt we ioc4t~. ~nlyv~l gl~ m mpMt o~ the ceedW~ 111~ bm imq)lilnedl~m Y~iIDOW~4T ( g. WATERWELL ~hmmemex~mdl~mtmlvWwdmm~add NO. ~ DO NOT W~J4T ~Y)ndn~m d ~wdL Tlw hatdk~gtmnk~ e~ ~1 edlMnmg I~qmm emro M 4 line ~0. WATER POTABILITY Y~IOOWAHT . I ~dcJttest~wam'M~bmcimm/enec~MmMbvmlL TH~RFJ,OKt' INITMLI ~ AEPORT IN411~LS hazed to humlf~ er irdml~ We undl, IIJKI iud blc~Ae t~ ~ ~Mi. m~ YE&IDOWANT , 11. ROOFINSPECTION8 we Wg:IMIIM~ wi TH~ eLIPECTION G cens4d ~ng cQn(n~ ImtNd I~ ,roM. We may W t M T~ 148PEGIION ImliAL8 ~ thermal. We m~lem~nd I)M~mafl II~d e~l~eheuM ml elm ~m~IDOW~NT I 12. PLUMB~IO Wem~lemmadwej~nhlmelMnmedl~m~M~, leO, I DO NOT WaNT. ~Y~~ t .'t3. HEATIN~ANDCOOLI~ Wpunde,~ndw~h~~ NO, t DO NOT W, ANT , of tt~ I)n)pedy. HMting .hould b~ GhK,~ld Mn if W i~ h Y~S IDOWAJ(T . [ 14. ELECTI~CJM. We.nde'.tand~P4Qenhav~elIMmed( THIt INM'EGTI~N Y~SlDOWAm' / I$.P(X)I. SANDBPA8 W,~dm~and~ln~mpod',mm. NO. IDONOTWNfl' YES' IDOWANT ! lC. APPUANCE3 ~ ~Me~ ~rrl)~4j I'~k'~y~p4Ndenci~lrel~ll~eippll&WlUchIs ! dehumkllBel~ Y. IOQWAm / 17. U'1'LITy COMPANIES W. ~}dwltlnd in mod yMF the NO. i ~ NOT WANT I THI~ ~ ~ ~llty ~mpmmm wll (=~K=k cmnmk fel~ ~f h hmme mad hqgmmly FROg GI~KFD BO OF ~EgLTORS t2.g?.~.gt4 i4111 p. PHYSICAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST: Y~$.IOOWANT., ! 1L SECURITYSYSTEM8 Weufldent~dweesnfwvomMau. NO. 10ONO?WNCr, TIgIiNSI~011ON INITIALS fltysyMommcompeflyln~pec~hoperutJmoflhosgeufllyoyMgfluM TI~SmS~EC'nc~ this pm~gdy. Y~S, IOOWANI .,, ; lB. 8ATEIJ.ITEDIGH Wmumfem~d~mcenl~mMMIo NO. IDONOTWMT Y~S. IDOWANT .,. ,' 2O. 8OLARSYSTGM8 Wgufldmtmdvmeen~mv. msdmcofl. NO. IDONOTWAI~T I THIS R E.OOJqT NTKI ~ZBC~I ~ tho lOIs* lylMgttl OI t~td I)fa~lty. THIO K INt3MLI Y~S, IOOWAHT ! 21. 8PRI~ WlufldlrMlfldw~c~n hevlllladlolp~ NC).IOOflOTWAHT jydom should I)o checked gym If It b rakdng. . ~S. tOOWANT I 22. PROPERTYBOUNDARIE8 We~Munlm~l NO, IDONOTWAMT THIS REImCX%T IMTIAL~ lioeflm land sunmyo~ ~ the ptolmfly lo #llbhh b m ~ ~ 141TklLI boumla~l. or mmugMlng pn)pmty n I oodd iffid tho vekJe ot 9Jlwo ahgoge of ~$.lOOWA~ I 24. A~E$SMENTDISTRICTS We ~ ~ ~ un NQ. IOONOTWNIT TIIS Ib~'~aT ~ln'M~ c~eq~ w~h ~e epoflq~dte ogency (My m' courtly) lo dMm~ If IMs M RB~I~T propmty Is in ony si)ed,d mt&0~sme.t dI.Mal or Mego. Roal ~ wNch tomy t~cludo, M b ~ Ilmlled ~, meiMMmm~ W, M YEO, IDOWANT I 25. FIREPLACES AND CHIMNEYS Weundommd~'udue NO. IDONOTWAMY ?)11'= IMSPECTION INIT~LS cln chick o( hlYe i wofltmln mq)MMn(~d w~h firqdlMl IfldM '11~8 G ifllpgd coedlUMt Ifld oJ)MltJofl M lbo Filll~GI M~ ohb~ lltl~ g~l l ~s. Joow~un' / ~. ASflESTOSHAZARDOUSCHEQ( Wo~dMm dth~ NO. tOOW)TWAJk'T I EflWonmen~l Hygieals! iruped Ihi ~ ~ afly ~ y~s, lDOW~rr ~ 27. EARTHQUAKE SAFETY W~umwmadmmw,.-.idu~ NO, IOOJ~W/d~. Y~S,I[M3WANT I 28. FLO00~ Wi~ndemiMt~MY~Olflchedl~b NO. IOONOTWANT THIS REPg~T INIll~ appmpflgtB mgehcy (couflty IMJitdJng d~ plftlMM) to de(oqtlir4 ~ MMbiF THIS REPORT INnMI. S me pcog~,ty w~ go pumhasm0 Is Iocg Bd kl a Ik)od h&~id ~ol, i. Y~S.~OOW.WT ~ 29. ENVIRONMENTALHAZAR~ We unclemand met we cm NO.~OONOTVL~NT I T~IO REPORT ~ITLq. S hovo m ccm~MoM Co~flod Asbmlos C ~ M RNM E IMray. 'r~8 RF. PORT motodd, urme~round tanks end lb ~, ~ md, rudo~ huMdo~l wink4, o~ hOUSMMM M,m do~ ~ YEO, IDOWAm / 30. HOMEWAq.qANTY Thea(~ugeea~ddWJeesM NO, IDOIdOTWANT Y~S. I DO WANT I 31. NO, I DO NOTWAHT TI~S REPO~TI ~ ~ REJK3~rI NO~: MISC~LLANEO(JS INS; CTION~ f k w Wo undersUrd the thoro inspe~imu ond how Umy reJsto ~o Ute p ~pefly M in d~ch u~ Mm Inv~Jvgd. or its We undemand the knpoda.-~,~ or getting these repods Iff wn'tino a M to e~duate L~em c imfuly. We hM not feliod on repmsentaUoo by ' mboge~sastothe~/MmfootageM ~hb properly. Ii ~s undor~xi we Gan messu/o ~ho p(opefly or ched~w~h the )Corn Oo~q, s. sses~M~o de(enniae ooA~re We agree lo provide for t~e waer o~ tho above doscribecl pn)pe~ · ropy of Iny relMI1 ! ~ In · dedsion not to i / The maflagemem a~d ooems ~ I wunl ~u to be ~fe. n(X iOny. We Maowu~ou~olm Wed w~h ~ pun:base and hope y(w Mn us fo~ you~ nexl roof emme pufchaso. ' KERN INDUSTRY COALITION ".~~' ' ~ ~ -.'~'""- ' Seeking A Balance 441 Vineland Road Bakersfield, C_.~. 93307 (805) 363-8463 FAX (805) 3664251 Seeking A Balance The Kern Industry Coalition (K.I.C.) is a group of citizens representing agriculture, oil, mining, and manufacturing. They share concerns regarding the effects of urbanization on their respective industries. The goal of this coalition is to promote good neighbor relations by providing notice to prospective real property owners that the operations of the above businesses may have an effect on the immediate environment. They hope to find ways to avoid problems when residential development occurs adjacent to their businesses. It is also the purpose of this coalition to support and encourage these industries by defining their right to continue operations without undue interference. K.I.C. representatives and County Counsel have drafted a resolution and an ordinance whose mission seeks to make neighborhoods aware of local industry in the hope that land use conflicts can be resolved before they become a problem. By improving disclosure, the real estate industry will aid in the retention of industries and businesses that provide the jobs and revenues that make Kern County such a great place to live. This proposed resolution and ordinance will be discussed at a public hearing as part of the formal adoption process. ?,". INDUSTRY COALITION Seeking A Balance 441 Vineland Kaad Bakersfidd, CA 9_:307 (805) 3634463 FAX (805) 366-~251 KERN INDUSTRY COALITION FORMAL ENDORSEMENTS ALINA FARMS CORPORATION MIKE KRANYAK KEVIN ANDREW LEHR BROS. INC. ARB INC. DON MACPHERSON MICHAEL GEORGE BENDER MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY PETER AND GINA BELLUOMINI MCFARLAND ENERGY, INC. CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM NAHAMA & WEAGANT ENERGY COMPANY ASSOCIATION MICHAEL NEAL LES CLARK PETER AND MONA PANKEY DEBRA CAPPELLO GLENN E. PARKER GEORGE CAPPELLO PARKER FARMS CAPPELLO FARMS, INC. BR~AN L. PRATT MIKB CAUZZA PHILIP L. RYALL CAUZZA & CAUZZA FARM MANAGEMENT SAN JOAQUIN FACILITIES MGMT. INC. MICHAEL L. COUCHOT WILLIAM H. SLOCUMB JAMES A. CRETTOL JEFF SMITH DONALD DAVIS STEVE SMOOT THEODORE K. DAVIS SMOOT CATTLE RANCH STANFORD ESCHNER ROBERT STERLING EXCEL MINERAL COMPANY STOCKDALE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. JOHN GIUMARRA JR. STOCKDALE OIL & GAS, INC. GIUMARRA VINEYARDS GLEN AND TERRIE STOLLER INDEPENDENT OIL PRODUCERS' AGENCY STREAM ENERGY, INC. JAMES M. HAGOOD SUNRIDGE NURSERY, INC. KENNETH F. HERSH TRIO PETROLEUM INC. KERN COUNTY FARM BUREAU WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM KEY FARM ASSOCIATIOn' B A K E R S F I E L D Randy Rowles Patdcia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, March 1, 1995 12:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order 12:45 p.m. Present: Councilmembers: Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles, and Patricia M. Smith Planning Commissioners: Mathew Brady, Stephen Boyle, and Kenneth Hersh 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1, 1995 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Urban Development Committee Agenda Summary Report March 1, 1995 Page 2 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. TRAILS PLAN Staff has redrafted a plan since December 1994 to establish a nexus between the need for the trail and those who would be providing it. The redraft is based on a recent supreme court decision, and the City Attorney is now reviewing it to ensure that it is consistent with the new ruling. The Planning Commission will be developing a proposal that will show the specific plan line, and that will address all pertinent issues. The Committee asked that one of the issues be a mechanism for maintaining the trails. Staff will bring back a draft to the Committee within two months. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. SMALL LOT SIZES An ad hoc committee of the Planning Commission has been meeting over the last several months to address small lot sizes and different ways of handling the approval process. Their recommendation is to make standard in the R2 zone, a 4,200 square foot lot, 45 foot wide, with a 90 foot depth minimum. Subdividers with R2 property can now reduce all lots down to 4,200 square feet if they so choose. The BIA feels the proposal reaches a middle ground and they are in support of the compromise. This does constitute a change to the ordinance, and therefore, the proposal has been scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. R1 is more restrictive to single family development, while R2 is the easiest process for constructing the smaller lots. B. PLANNING COMMISSION EMERGING ISSUES No specific issues were discussed under this agenda item. C. WARD REAPPORTIONMENT Staff brought two issues to the Committee regarding ward reapportionment: reviewing the current policy, and addressing the current population estimates as noted in the December 1994 memo from the Planning Director. The Committee suggested that every 10 years staff prepare a comprehensive reapportionment plan. The plan will be based on guidelines that include a deviation of about 10 percent plus/minus for each ward, and will define a sphere around the precincts to determine the balance. Current ward boundaries should also be based on a 10 percent plus/minus, not to exceed 33,000. Urban Development Committee Agenda Summary Report March 1, 1995 Page 3 Staff would like to wait until the official population numbers are received from the state in May to start their work. It will take staff about three weeks to load the estimates and re-map the precincts to provide the information to the County Elections Clerk. Staff will begin preparing the matedal for reapportionment and will provide information to the Council as it becomes available, such as base maps and population estimates. The Committee asked staff to bdng the issue before the full Council this summer. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned 1:40 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council GE~N:jp B A K E R.$ F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director~//~~ DATE: May 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Highway 178 Specific Plan At their meeting of March 16, 1995, the Planning Commission of thc City of Bakersfield approved the Specific Plan Linc for State Route 178 from Mesa Matin to Rancheria Road. This Plan. Linc did not include any provision for interchanges; interchanges were deferred for further consideration, Interchanges are planned at "old' S.R. 178, Alfred Harrel Highway and Rancheria,Roa&,.. The City has requested that Kern COG provide information on predicted turning movem~n~from their traffic model. This information will be forthcoming in mid-May. However, thc:de~trat~. study of Northeast Bakersfield has been dropped from the Kern COG work plan dueto budget'cuts. This study is integral to the further development of the Northeast. Staff recommends the following:. 1. The Council act to adopt the State Route 178 Specific Plan Linc withogLthc interchanges as soon as possible, with the understanding that the Plan Line wiilbe modified later to include the interchanges. 2. The Council send a letter to the Kern COG Board protesting the removal-of the Northeast Bakersfield study from their work plan and requesting that. this study be placed first on the list of those projects to be reinstated if fundingis restored. C195:~$R 178~URBDEV.RI~ RMR:mI~ xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw MESA MARIN AND SURROUNDING ZONING R-1 A 17 16 R-1 STATE HIGHWAY 178 I 21 I ¢-2 I I RACE)FAY OS R-S-2.5A R- 1 R-1 R-H C~,4~ R-1 b~I R-~ // × ,/ 2.~ R-H ' T29S, R29£ 59501 MESA MARIN AND SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ ' /"~X HR] / x, I LR / MUC I .-/ 17 16 LMR ~ATE HIGHWAY178 ~ I HMR ~ MUC I ' / I ~ oc I LR OS LR ~ LR LR BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 1, 1995 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~/~/~~./ SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF MORNING DRIVE SPECIFIC PLAN LINE On January 5, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the establishment of the Morning Drive specific plan line and recommended it formally adopted by the City Council. On February 8, 1995, the City Council referred this item to the Urban Development Committee due to the potential effect this plan line may have on private property and oil field operations. The following will outline the history of this plan line establishment as well as how the actual line was developed. HISTORY On August 5, 1935, the existing alignment of Morning Drive was established (see exhibit "A"). Also shown is the freeway 178 interchange with Morning Drive which shows the interchange located on the section line. This alignment was established in the late 1960's and constructed in the early 1970's. When the 2010 General Plan was adopted, a Circulation Element for major transportation facilities (freeways, arterials, collectors) was also adopted. Morning Drive was shown as an arterial roadway on this Circulation Element (see exhibit "B"). This alignment foilow~ the section line until it diverges north of Paladino Drive. Since the diverging s%nnent of Morning Drive is undefined, a Specific Plan Line must be adopted. In 1990, proposed development activity at the northwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive (Tentative Tract 5301) prompted the Public Works Department to begin establishment, of the Morning Drive Specific Plan Line. A corridor study for this alignment was done by DKS and Associates through the Kern Council of Governments. The study recommended three alignments which generally following that which was shown in the Circulation Element. The study also indicated the actual alignment would have to be determined taking into account topographical and other features (see exhibit "C"). Public Works then developed the proposed alignment based primarily on topographic constraints coupled with minimum design standards such as minimum curve radii and maximum allowable grade (see exhibit "D"). CURRENT STATUS Prior to the Planning Commission action, the property owner who owns property at the intersection of Paladino Drive and the old alignment of Morning Drive objected to the specific plan line. His objection was due to the elimination of this arterial to arterial intersection m which he was going to develop in the furore. A second objection came from the company that operates the oil field northeast of the Morning Drive and Paladino Drive intersection. They indicate that this roadway will interfere with their operation and be very costly to the City if constructed. 3E LOOP IIII1111 · ,...' ', -/! oO ~iiIIII IIII~iii iiD~-I '°"~'"' '~ ; -' ; ,' 1 ; "" i "". ' '" I i iIIii ii I I · II ~ .... { / ·-"~:"',' =,,' l~',l' · T"B" ; ." ; · ~ .a -~, ,-, EXHIBI [_C__O_L__L_E_G__E_m____~ _.,~Z,F..._t____~, ; , .. i' .DK$ Assoc/ates' ' ~.., ".., t ~ ' _ ........ ' ~ ..': ~ ~ '/ ~ ~ ' .?. : ~ · ". -:~< ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ' · ~:~ ~':! ' - · I- -, . "....,~'~d ', .~ ,_ ~. ',' ~~'~ ' I "'~ z -~ .~ · ~' ~ · ~/~: ~ ;~,.'~' ..~'~ ,~ , . ~ . ~ '~ ~ - ~ - .... :.~ .. , - , NJ -- ..... -,~x:, (:: ~- - ~~'.__':~- , .,, -- --~/ ..... ~ '....,~~~ , ~.. .... / ..:' t---: .... ,"'" ~'"': '" '· ~- k / . · -.. '~'..- .; .' ' · ~..,,~ ~./' '~ "I - -..'?,..~,: ,,', ".. ..: ....... '~5..~.~.'.~',,,q.-,...'~.::...~ .~ ..... .~..~.:....::~ ~-',, ".:~~, ~ }.~/-: ,. ,'<.~.: ,.~-:. ;~ ;. .... '. ..,.~ "' · "~. ~ ',',,," · :i .... ~ - --~ Lh -"'".~, · ...... " ..--,7.... '~"% j ". :~ ?,' "' &~... '5 .-, ~ ~',,,-.) , ~ : ~-_ >,~ ',-.:;:' ~.~ - . ,. - .- . -~,....- ,..~:~ ..... .~,;" ~ '~ ....... ~ '".~' ', ,.. .......~ L ~,; · .: .- : '-, ~ ....... : "'.~.~ . ~.. ........... t~. ........ :,,~,.,~ .~ ..... ~,.:" .,.' '"-,.. ,' :.".. :~~. , ..~ ~ '*, ~ ".. ,.. .. / ~ . .... EXHIBIT "C ~ · ,~ t : · ] '--- ~ ......... :-~-~- .............. ~ ,~,,,, __.. ......... ~ ............ ~--~ ! SCALE LEGEND ~ ~/2 I AUGNM~T ,~ ILE X ;L~NA~ ~OS~B~ -- ~, MORNING DRIVE CORRIDOR S~DY POSSIBLE ADGNMENTS FOR MORNING DRI~ (S~rce: US Ge~o~c~ Su~ 17 · ' ":"~'~ " ' - ~ ~ ~" I '-~'~'~" .... ,.? ,::~ MORNING DRIVE : "'""" ' ~'~' ~ SPECIFIC PLAN LINE ,,'/:,,' ~ ENGINEERING ALIGNMENT ........ ~= ........ ~- ) MORNING DRIVE-PA~DINO DRIVE , ~ ~ 8PECIFD PLaN ~;c ~. ~ PROPOSED AL~NT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING SEGMENT VIII OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN (CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 4-94). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, DECEMBER 12 and THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994, and TUESDAY, JANUARY 3 and THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1995, on Segment VIII of a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty-one (21) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such Segment VIII of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: SEGMENT VIII: The City of Bakersfield has applied to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of Specific Plan Lines for Morning Drive, Paladino Drive and an "unnamed" collector; and WHEREAS, for the above-described Segment, an Initial Study was conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration with mitigation was prepared; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 3-95 on January 5, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of Segment VIII subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A" and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution: and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Sectibn 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on Wednesday, February 22 1995, on the above described Segment VIII of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CECA) have been followed. 3. The proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Mitigation measures attached to the project as Exhibit "A" are included in the project to mitigate impacts. 5. The proposed amendment of the General Plan is compatible with existing designations adjacent to the specific plan line and the general area of the specific plan line. 6. The specific plan lines are necessary for the future development of the surrounding area. 7. Adoption of the specific plan lines will not cause displacement of people, or petroleum extracting facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are.true and correct. 2. The Negative Declaration for Segment VIII is hereby approved and adopted. 3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted bv the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved. 4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts Segment VIII of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting of Specific Plan Lines for Morning Drive, Paladino Drive and an "unnamed" collector, as shown on the map marked Exhibit "B," more thoroughly described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located in northeast Bakersfield from approximately one mile north of State Highway 178 to Alfred Harrell Highway, subject to conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A". 5. That Segment VIII, approved herein, be combined with other approved segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Circulation Element Amendment, GPA 4-94. ......... O00 ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY BY: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney RI£D January 24. 1995 res\r494sS.cc 4 EXHIBIT "A" General Plan Amendment 4-94, Segment VIII Conditions of Approval 1. At the proper time of the year when moisture content of the soil is appropriate and as soon as possible after construction, cut and fill slopes shall be hydro- seeded. (Mitigation) p:494s8.ea EXHIBIT "B" GPA 4-94. SEGMENT VIII CIRCULATION ELEMENT SPECIFIC PLAN LINES #' MORNING--- ~,,~ DRIVE SPECIFIC PLAN LINE 12 7 / 8 UNNAM ED--~-. ,~' COLLECTOR :~ SPECIFIC .................. ~gA.N... g.~B.E.. ~.~.._ ........ ~A~0 "-PA~DINO DRIVE ~ SPECIFIC P~N ~ 09410 EXHIBIT Legal Descriptions GPA 4-94, Seg. VIII ll~CRi?Ti?~ - ~?ECZFiC ?t.~ Morn~n~ Drive £:¢tenslon - ~loue Easements ?arcei ': A 30-fooc scrlD coterminous w[ch :ne nor=nuesceriy ri~ac of ~av Oe~[nn[n~ 68.81 feec easc of ?oin~ 2 an~ concinu~n~ easceriT/nor=neasceriy i&50 feet. ~arcei 2: A ~O-fooc scrlp cocermlnous w[ch eke sou=neasceriy r~hc of way be~[nnln$ L317.87 feeC easceriy of Point & aion~ cne previously described cenceriine and concinu[n~ nor=neasceriy 500 faec. ?arcei ': i ~O-fooC S~rlD coEer~lnous w~cn [ne nor=n~esceriv riz~ cf way be~innln~ 1317.~7 feec eascari7 o~ Poin[ a~on~ [ne prevlousiv descrlbe~ cencarline an~ con=lnuinE nor=neas=eriv ~00 fee=. ?arcei A JO-foo= $=r1~ co=erzinous wi~n ~he easueriy righ= or wa~ beginning '9!7.$7 fee= nor:Reas~eri¥ of Poinu 4 aion~ ~ne prev~ousiy descrlbe~ cen~eriine an~ norrneri7 17~0 fee~. Parcei 5: A jO-foot s=rlP cocerzinous wl=n ~ne wesceri]! right or way be~lnnin~ [9!7.S7 feec norcneasceriy of Poin= ~ aion~ the 9reviousiy de$crlbe~ cenceriine ~onclnu:n~ nor:ner!v 'if0 fee~. ?~rcei -: A J0-foo= s=r:p coterminous w~cn t~e eas=eriv r~ga= c: ~av 0eginnin~ ~62.2! fee= norrneri7 o~ Poin~ ~ a~on~ ~ne ~rev~ausiv ~e~crl~e~ cen~eriine ant nortneriy ~50 feet. Parcel 3: k 30-foot scr~p cccerzlnous wi=h une wes{eriy rich= o wa~ be~lnnin~ 552.21 morrneriv of ?oin= % aion~ [ne urev~ousiv descrlbee cen=eriine anu norrneri',' f~O f~ec. ?arcei ~: A f0-fcc= $=rl= cu[er=~nou$ ~un ~ne '=e$ceriv rign= cr way ~e~inni~Z [~7.7~ fee= !{ornin~ Qrive £xtenslon COMIi~NCING ac :ne Northwest corner cf Secczon i3, iownsnim 29 SOUth, Range 29 Eas~. M.D.M., ~hence SOUgh 00°06'32.5" Wesc a ~is=ance o~ 129.783 fee~ ~2 a Do,nc an ~ne West ilne of sa~d SecTion !~ an~ :ne 7~UE POINT OF BEGINNING (?oinT i); THENCE (1) Norcneriy, an arc ¢iscance of [223.9384 feec :brough a ten=roi an~ia of aT°O7"~S.717'' along a curve concave co =~e sou=neas= ~i=h a radius of !500 fee=, u~ose bac~ =ariSen= bears Sou~n West, :o a po~n~ of intersection ~?oinc 2~ u~cn one cenceriine of a future ma]or cc/iacTor ~: one North an~ ~esT: T~ENCE (2) canc:nuzn~ NorTneasceri'! aiong [ne prevzousiy aescr::ea curve, an arc ~iscance of ~:9 . ...... 0338 ~eet ~nrou~n a cen~rai annie of 22°Al'29.683'' :o [ne en~ of curve (Poin~ 2) whose re,iai bears fouTn 00°03'98'' Eas~ :zerefram: THENCE (3) Notch 89°56'52'' 5asc a di$cance of S50.936 fee~ ~e~znn~n~ of $ 2800-foo~ radius curve concave ~); i'/ENCE (&) NortheasTerly 3!65.220 ~: ~.ec aion~ sazd curve central annie o~ LOO°&5'19'' ~ one end of curve (Point .~-?~--NCE (~) Nor:n 19°&8'27'' west a distance of ~90.246 fee~ ':e~lnnln~ of a £O00-fooT ra~lus curve i?oinc 6) concave T.H~NCE (6) Northerly !6i4.430 feec aionz sazd curve through a central annie of g6°lS'O0'' to cne en~ a~ curve (Point ?) waose ra~iai ~ears ~ou:n ~4°~'~v'' ~ ., Ease :~erefrom: .~NCE (7) Nor:n 25°26'22'' £asc a CisTance of 7&1.668 fseT :2 ':egznnzng cf 2 'C00-fco~ r~ius curve ~?cinT ,~3 concave c: :ne ~oucneas:; ..?~NCE ,rS) :7or:neasceri'; ~20.220 f=_ec aionm said curve ~_nr=umn _-=_nTrai an~±e cf ~:fS''~TM '2 ~ne en~ cf curve ~?oinT 9> '-'nose :ears Jcu~ -°l,~''~'' ..... Eas~ --=r=6~-~,- ?aiamino ~,~ze at Mcrn%n~ Dr%ye Rea~i=nmen~ ''~ ; ..... ?": '~ =~ each i~e o~ :ne ::iiow%ng ~escrzDe~ £as:. zn= £ec::zns 7 ~n~ i~. ?:wnsa~: £? ~oucn. lan~e 29 Ease: COMMENCING a: :he };or:neasc corner .of Section 12. Township 29 ~an~e 'S iasc. :~.D.:~., :hence South 89°57'16.i69'' Wes= a distance of 226.L~! faec t: a ~o~nc on one north lane of sa~d Sec:~on l] be~n~ the 7rue Poinc of Beginning; T~_NCK (I) EasceriT. an arc distance of I01.~2~ fee~ tnrou~, a cencrai angie of 3°28'08.012'' aion~ a curve concave ~o zne sou~n w~cn a radius ~f 1600 fee~ ~,ose :ShEen: bears Sou~n 89°~6'51.~88'' wes~ (a~ 'oe~lnnlng of curve;; 3e~lnnln~ a~ a i600 fooc ra¢ius curve concave co one nor:n: ~{ENCE (2) Eas~eri7 203.125 fee~ along said curve through a central annie of 7°16'26'' :o c~e en¢ cf curve WhOSe ra~iai bears T~NCE (&) Nor:n 86°18'24'' iasc a ~is~ance of 647.682 feec be~innln~ of a 1600-foo= radius curve concave ~o the South: ~NCE (5) Eas~eri7 50.818 feec aian~ said cur.ye through a snzle ,if 2°~8'17.~88'' '~ :ne eno af curve unose ra~iai bears £oucn 30~03'08.012 Zas~ an~ unlcn ~o~n: fails on nor:n ilne of 7:wnsnzm £? Soucn, lance £? las[. >[.D.H., bearzn~ Nor:n 89°~6'~!.788'' ias~. - END OF DESCRIPTION - ...... ~ ..... way , ~5 =eeo each side of ~he foilowing !escr~be~ cenuer!ine keing a Dorzlcn o~ Section 12, TownshiD 29 South, Range 23 East, ans Section 7, TownshiD 29 South, Range 29 East, i.[.D.i{., being a souuneriv and easuer!y extension of a ma]or coi!ecuor !ccated along one west ~ine of Section 7, TownshiD 29 £ouun, Range 29 Easu, COMMENCING au the Souuhwest corner of Section 7, Township 29 Souuh, Range 29 Eas~, M.D.M., thence North 0'0'41.26. Wesu a disuance of 2649.04 fee~ to the wes= 1/4 corner of said Section 7 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE (i) Sou~h 0'0'41.26" Eas~, along the wes~ line of said Secuicn 7, a disuance of 631.20 feet; THENCE /o) Southeasu~_l, ~93 ;08 fee~ along a !600-foo~ radius cu~ze concave ~o ~he northeast through a central angle of 42'44'47.418. to ~he end of curve whose radial bears North 47'14'31.$1. East therefrom; THENCE (2) Sou~h 42'45'28.68. Eas~ a distance of 83.037 feet ~o a ~oint on ~he centeriine of Morning Drive Extension. Right of way lines shall be foreshortened to intersecz wi~h Morning Drive right of way lines wi~h 20- foot fillets. Minutes. PC. 12/15/94 Page 11 5.7 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-94, SEGMENT VIII Commissioners Brady and Boyle abstained on these items because a client of their law firm owns property in the vicinity. Mr. LaRochelle responded to previous comment regarding alternate alignments being taken off the map saying when it was determined what the grade of the road would be with these alternates they were determined to be unfeasible. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Don Galey, 3408 Panorama Drive, said every map he has seen in the past showed the proposed Morning Drive extension would run through his property between Paladino and Morning Drive. He did not feel the current alignment shown would be feasible and hoped that the committee would research this further. Mr. LaRochelle said the old Morning Drive alignment cannot physically be connected to the existing interchange because of changes to the location of the interchange. Mr. Galey said there is basically no difference at this time to what existed in the past except that his property was excluded. Mr. LaRochelle clarified an alignment was chosen from a prepared study. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Galey said he purchased this property for investment. Mr. LaRochelle explained the portion of roadway that does not line up to the Morning Drive, 178 intersection. Commissioner Marino asked about bringing the alignment back as quickly as possible at the corner north of Thorner School. Mr. LaRochelle explained a tentative tract map at the northwest corner of Paladino and Morning Drive precipitated this alignment. Bob Engel spoke saying the original plan showed the alignment through Mr. Galey's property,. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to continue these items to the meetings of January 3, and January 5, 1995 asking staff to present the Commission with a preliminary alternative alignment option which crosses through Mr. Galev's property returning back to the section line south of Paladino if possible. Motion carried. XC: Stan im Movius Marc Gauthier m bel THE lNG ACTION WAS TAKEN ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS HEARD BI THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 5, 1995: 5. REQUEST :ECONSIDERATION - GPA 4-94, SEGMENT IV AND ZONE CHANGE Motion was made by Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to place these items on the a of January 17, and January 19, 1995. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers absent. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE 5700 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution to make all findings set forth in staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5700 subject to the outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5596 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commiss to continue this item to the next meetings of January 17, and January 19, Motion carried. $. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-94, SEGMENT VIII Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report recommending approval of the Negative Declaration with mitigation measures set forth on Exhibit "A," and approval of the amendment to the Circulation Element establishing specific plan lines, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Delgado? Andrew, Powers Minutes. PC. 12/12/94 Page 5 5.7 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4.-94. SEGMENT VIII -- REQUEST BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC PLAN LINES FOR MORNING DRIVE PALADINO DRIVE AND AN "UNNAMED COLLECTOR." IN NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD BETWEEN PALADINO DRIVE AND ALFRED [dARRELL HIGHWAY. Staff report recommending approval was given. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Marino said commissioners are required to do what is possible to become aware of possible conflicts of interest with 300 feet of a property in question. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Hardistv said a list of property owners within 300 feet of the alignment would be provided. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. LaRochelle said he would provide information regarding active wells within the proposed rights-of-way areas. Commissioner Marino also asked if idle wells exist what steps could the city take to abandon these wells. Commissioner Brady cited the study regarding alignment alternatives asking why "D" and "E" were eliminated. Mr. Hardisty said the traffic engineer would respond to this at the Thursday meeting. Hearing on this item was continued to the Thursday meeting. '~~ritten B) Verbal ~ Mr. HardisW said at the kal!.pwin~ Council meeting a recommendation would be forwarded for recia'~4fi~tion of Mr. Gradv as the Planning Director so he could better concen't~a~n his role of department head. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raui Rojas - Public Works Director " '~ DATE: May 1, 1995 ll:05am SUBJECT: Agenda item 6.~,~ - Street Width at So. Union and Panama Lant (Tentative Tract 5809) The City standard street right-of-way width is 60 feet for all local streets, except that cul-de-sacs or short streets under 500 feet in length that cannot be extended may have a right-of-way width of 52 feet. This portion of City Standard S-26 (see attached) has been in effect since 1979, and little information is available regarding its development. The Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan lists 40' wide streets in 60' wide right-of-ways as a goal. However, several years ago Assistant Director Fred Kloepper and the Traffic Division researched maintenance costs and traffic speeds for 36' wide streets and, as a result, this Department has generally been encouraging 36' wide streets within the standard 60' right-of-way.. In fact, in 1993, the traffic threshold where a 40 wide street would be required was raised. Regarding Tentative Tract 5809, it was initially proposed by the engineer and developer to be a tract that would fall under the provisions of Chapter 15.79 of the IVlunicipal Code, the section pertaining to Density Bonus developments. Paragraph 15.79.010.C.l.defines incentives for density bonus as including: "A reduction in site development standards...". Further, paragraph 15.79.050.E. states: "The planning commission may also waive or modify development and zoning standards which would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on the specific site. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of public works improvements." These Sections of the Municipal Code clearly specify that modifications to Public Works standards may be 'allowed and approved by the Planning Commission if they contribute to the project meeting the density bonus provisions. It was under this set of circumstances that 52 feet wide right-of-way streets were initially supported ay this Department for this tract. The Planning Department had reviewed the building set-back and driveway parking issues and found them adequate. Agenda Item 6.G. - TI' 5809 Page 2 Apparently, the project was unable to meet all the requirements to obtain the density bonus.' So the subdivider elected to pursue the use of smaller than standard lots through Paragraph 16.28.170.O.2.f. which states in part that "...the advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area, width, frontage and/or depth in a subdivision if it makes the findings set forth...". This Section of the Municipal Code only specifies lot size and configuration, and does not mention any provisions for modification to City Public Works standards. Therefore, this Department could no longer allow the 52' right-of-way streets not conforming to City Standard S-26. The Planning Department indicates the 60 feet wide right-of-way streets required by City standard will still work for this project, but that the backyards would be reduced 4 feet in depth. While this Department does not object to revising the standard to permit 52' right-of-ways wherever 36' wide streets are used, we believe there are other issues that should be reviewed in conjunction with this revision. These issues include the aesthetic value of the additional 8 feet of landscaped right-of-way (there would be 92 feet between facing garages across a street instead of 100 feet), and the clearance typically needed to allow a vehicle to park in a driveway without overhanging into the sidewalk. There is normally a 6' wide public utility easement beyond the right-of-way, so public utilities should not be an issue. The widths listed in the Circulation Element goals of the 2010 General Plan may also need to be reviewed. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager [MAJOR STREET SYSTEM :" :, 1 ;:' LOCAL COLLECTOR : LOCAL STREF'T SEE NOTE 3 ~.[E .lOT[ · ~:.:-:, __ LOCAL STREET LOCAL STREET GENERAL ~OT~S.~ orculohon element ~f the C;ly of ~ker~tield aa,sea ~alans ~1t ~ c~tructea ~ all mo~ 44 fool Ioco' :Oll''~l ~ ~ 'IqUl'~ ~e O~ O' ~O'' COMMERCIAL ALLEY ~ESIDENTIAL ALLEY '~n,cuio, .attic il ~Ncf~ to e~lld ~ ve~cl~ (41 ~e s~eet is ahlizea ~or scn~l access. ]'~Z'; ~ ,~, ~: ,,,,.,, ,. ~ ,~, .,~., 0, .,, ~, ~ ;~ z~. .7~ STANDARD ---' ~ l ~a}-, ~.g~ ~nail nave a ~' ,:::.r~re~e ~ g~ r,.~ CALIFORNIA I ',ler'~, I mm ST- I0 PHONE (805) 327-1486 2901 H STREET, J3 FAX (805) 327-1452 BAKERSFIELD. CA 9~01 JAMES K. DELMARTER .K:)SEPH A. RICKETT WAYNE A. OEIFEL Job NO. 12990 April 3, 1995 City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 ATTN: Jacques La Rochelle Gentlemen: Per our telephone conversation I am writing to ask you to take to the City Council on April 19, 1995 the situation regarding the 52 foot wide streets on Tentative Tract 5809. You will recall that we originally proposed this Tract as a density bonus project in which certain incentives are allowed by your department. When it was brought to our attention that the density bonus requires a minimum of 25% increase in allowed density, our proposed lot numbers and sizes didn't quality. We are now told the 52 foot wide streets you approved are now not allowable due to the City standards that state these street widths are only allowed on cul-de-sacs and short streets that cannot be extended. We ask that you refer this letter to the City Council so that they may determine if 52 foot wide streets can be used for this Tract intended for Iow and moderate income families. Very truly yours, RICKETT, DELMARTER & OEIFEL"'~'~/~ "/,,~ ~ cc~//.Ooug Wattenbarger Mark Salvaggio BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raui Rojas - Public Works Director DATE: May 1, 1995 ll:53am SUBJECT: Agenda item 61[.. - Underground Utility Costs (Tentative Tract 5768) In late 1993, an issue arose involving Section 16.32.060 of the Municipal Code which pertains to the undergrounding of utility distribution facilities. This section stated that ail distribution facilities were to be undergrounded regardless of whether or not they were pre-existing, or of where they were located. Historically, the Public Works Department had allowed existing overhead facilities located aiong major (arterial and collector) streets to remain overhead at the time development occurred adjacent to these major streets. The Urban Development Committee discussed this issue with staff and members of the building industry, and referred back to the full Council an ordinance amendment that basicaily confirmed the policy the Public Works Department had been following, which was that pre-existing utility distribution facilities on the periphery of a subdivision and located on an arterial or collector street may remain above ground. The amendment became effective in June of 1994. In October of 1993, Telstar Engineering, Inc. as agent for John Giumarra Jr. applied to amend the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan. This amendment was to eliminate the collector designation for Berkshire Road between South "H" Street and Wible Road. This amendment was approved by the City Council in May 'of 1993. Tentative Tract 5768 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1994. This tract abuts the portion of Berkshire Road that was down-graded from a collector street to a local street. There are existing overhead utility distribution facilities along Berkshire Road. In acc(~rdance with the Municipal Code, this Department has required the undergrounding of these facilities. cc: AAan Tandy, City Manager