Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2007 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: Christine Butterfield Assistant City Manager City Council members: Zack Scrivner, Chair Harold Hanson Ken Weir MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council -City of Bakersfield Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor -City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT APRIL 5, 2007 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Highway Funding Proposal -Tandy, Rojas (30 minutes) 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding electronic message signs -Grady, Gennaro (15 minutes) B. Discussion regarding temporary signs -Grady, Gennaro (15 minutes) 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:\Council Committees\2007\07 Planning&Development\May 3\07 May 03 agenda.doc B A K E R S F I E L D DRAFT Zack Scrivner, Chair Harold Hanson Ken Weir or: Alan Tandy, City Manager MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, April 5, 2007 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Council member Zack Scrivner; Chair Council members Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy Assistant City Managers John W. Stinson and Christine Butterfield Management Assistant Rick Kirkwood City Attorney Virginia Gennaro Assistant City Attorney Janice Scanlan Associate Attorney Michael Richards Development Services Director Stan Grady Planning Director Jim Movius Building Director Phil Burns Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle Operations Manager. Brad Underwood Traffic Engineer Stephen Walker Civil Engineering III Jim Holladay Maintenance Craftworker Jess Ayala Police Lt. Jay Borton Others present: Darrel Hildebrand and Becky Napier, Kern COG Katrina Nelson, Borton Petrini & Conron Cassie Daniel, Homebuilders Association Stephen Montgomery, ABATE Terry Maxwell, Maxwell's Various members of the media 2. ADOPT MARCH 1, 2007 MINUTES Motion to adopt: Weir. All ayes. Planning and Development Committee April 5, 2007 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ®~~~ None. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Central Valley Blueprint Process -Kern COG Darrel Hildebrand, Assistant Director of Kern COG, gave an overview of the project. Kern County is part of a coalition of seven counties, north to San Joaquin County. This is a three-year program funded by the State. With matching funds, the project total is $5,000,000. Kern's share of the matching funds over the three-year period is approximately $715,000. The purpose of the program is to develop a blueprint that Kern COG will use to create a regional transportation plan and regional transportation improvement program. The process first involves gathering input from citizen groups into their visions and values. Further, they will be asked about what they perceive to be major issues confronting their area, how that area fits into the region, how the region fits within Central California, and how Central California relates to the State. Vision 2020 will be coordinating the community meetings. That information will be used to generate visual development scenarios to recognize those values. Finally, a regional summit will be held to give everyone an opportunity to vote and endorse a preferred growth scenario. The visioning process is designed to create a preferred scenario on a strategic level, not a land use plan. Principles and goals will be developed for growth that can be used to complement General Plan updates. There will be more consistency between jurisdictions. Kern COG, City and County staffs are working together to provide a unfirom source of information for the public and aid in General Plan updates. More information can be found at www.kerncog.org. Kern COG maintains the only Cal Trans' certified transportation model and they are working with TRIP staff to recalibrate it. Related policies include a federal service transportation law, the President's Executive Order creating an interagency task force in the Valley, California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) program that started the Blueprint process in 2001, and the California Business Transportation Housing Agency. Additionally, Governor Schwarzenegger created the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and Assembly member Parra introduced AB 27, which is potentially the precursor of Central California's regional planning entity. Furthermore, major funding is provided in three propositions passed by voters last November that contained a number of incentives related to blueprints under transportation, housing, park and water bonds. B. Discussion reaardina electronic message signs -Grady. Gennaro Development Services Director Grady asked the Committee for direction on whether or not to allow electronic signs. Electronic signs are becoming more prevalent, but they are inconsistent with the existing sign ordinance. The City prohibits flashing signs and animated messages that advertise other businesses, products or services. Staff receives initial cooperation when they contact the business and write citations; however, in a short DRAFT Planning and Development Committee April 5, 2007 Page 3 period of time, animated sign owners can change the character generated elements and the violations begin again. Mr. Grady played a video showing several examples. Some of these replace paper billboard signs as a way of changing messages and providing options for multiple tenants on one sign. City Attorney Gennaro contacted six cities to compare ordinances, four of which have similar ordinances to Bakersfield. Fresno does allow animated signs, but tries to regulate them in order to address traffic safety concerns. Stockton attempts to address the issue through zoning ordinances. From a legal perspective, there are two issues: safety/driver distraction; and First Amendment. She asked for an "all or nothing" direction on the issue. The signs cannot be regulated by content. Traffic Engineer Walker stated that he has not seen any studies indicating that animated signs are a safety hazard, although there is a potential for problems. Committee Chair Scrivner asked if it could be regulated with zoning. These signs could be utilized in commercial zones, but not near residential zones, perhaps by street. City Attorney Gennaro responded that if these types of signs are allowed, anything goes in regard to content and the City cannot regulate by content. It would also be more difficult to prosecute the cases if they were selective. Committee member Hanson voiced concern that inappropriate material could potentially be broadcast. Committee Chair Scrivner asked for input from local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce and that the matter be brought back for discussion at the next meeting. 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion resardins motorcycle parkins - Roias Traffic Engineer Walker distributed an illustrative map. Staff worked with Stephen Montgomery to identify potential locations, primarily in the downtown. Staff believes that Mr. Montgomery's request to designate some parking places for motorcycle parking is reasonable and a good utilization of space. City Manager Tandy stated that his preference would be for a painted sign on the pavement rather than a posted sign. Much work has been done to beautify the area; posted signs would detract from the aesthetics. Mr. Montgomery contacted the Downtown Business Association (DBA). Terry Maxwell, spoke on behalf of the DBA. As long as this does not take away from existing parking, the DBA does not object. Additional parking would be welcome; however, the long-term effects need to be reviewed. The ultimate goal is to move motorcycles out of car spaces, which would provide for more parking downtown. The idea is make use of remainder spaces. Committee Chair Scrivner said the main concern is cost. Staff estimates $200 for labor and materials per space. Staff was directed to work with Mr. Montgomery to narrow down the number of spaces to ten or fewer and report back to the Committee in three months. Motion: Weir. All ayes. DRAFT Planning and Development Committee April 5, 2007 Page 4 6. Update on status of City department move to Borton, Petrini & Conron building - Roias City Manager Tandy gave an overview of the proposed location of each department and the timing of relocation. Some departments have already moved in. Staff anticipates approximately three more years before the process is complete. The first floor requires some remodeling, after which Human Resources will move there. A public services counter will also be constructed to better assist citizens with minor requests and services. Anything complex will be referred to a more appropriate authority. There are also easily accessible conference rooms for committee meetings or other Council uses. A staff member will be stationed in the lobby to provide directions to the public. The second floor will be dedicated to the Finance Department. The third floor is currently occupied with City staff. Economic and Community Development is on the west side and a portion of Information Technology (IT) is on the east side. These IT employees will relocate to the existing City Hall at the appropriate time. A portion of the Recreation and Parks Department will move into that side of the floor. The fourth floor will be used by the remainder of the Recreation and Parks staff and the City Attorney's staff. This floor is currently occupied by an engineering firm that wishes to honor the full term of their existing lease, so it could be the slowest one to turn over. The fifth floor will be used by the City Manager, City Clerk, Risk Management and Mayor's staffs. There will also be an office available for Council use. A large conference room also exists on the floor. There is a plan to divide George Martin's office in two, with one part being the City Manager's office and the remainder will be used as a small conference room. Staff that will be located in the existing City Hall will be Fire Prevention, Public Works land the consolidation of the IT staff. The Mayor's current office would be used as a conference room during the day, and for Closed Session and meals during meetings. A moving schedule was distributed. Committee Chair Scrivner directed staff to include this information in the General Information memo. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. ADOPTED ~OrTE 14, 2007 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM April 5, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Cou it -----' FRAM: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: Staff Recommendations on Highway Funding d Planning Issues; . At the joint City/County .meeting of March. 19, 2007, a number. of questions arose about .Alternate 15, .highway funding, -the County's actions to freeze: EIR`s in western Rosedale, and related. The City and :County .have different circumstances and 'may have; different viewpoints on certain issues. Despite that, all can agree that greater efforts to solve highway needs are in order. At the. regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors on March. 27, 2007,, Supervisor Maggard proposed formation of a team consisting of electetl officials from both the City and County. Staff. will notify the. City Council when the County forwards the :details of this proposal. City staff .proposes. adoption of a positive action plan to address issues raised, as follows: 1. Continue advancement of the TRIP projects and $727 million through the intergovernmental team that is in place. Thus team includes'members from he City, County, Caltrans and Kern COG. $727 million is available and will be .used to make significant. improvements. including: • The portion of Rosedale Highway primarily in. Kern County which is universally recognized as-the most in need'of repairs and congested highway, in the metropolitan area; • Highway 178 to Miramonte; • North Beltway - 7"' .Standard Road; • West Beltway - a north/south. highway-going from Taft .Highway to State Route 58, and eventually to 7t" Standard .Road;. Honorable Mayor and City Council April 5, 2007 Page 2 • The grade separation at the intersection of 24th and Oak Streets; • The Hageman Flyover and Highway 204 to move traffic from the Northwest to Downtown and out of the mix of congested arterial streets; • The improvement of 24th Street; • Phase I of the Centennial Corridor south to eventually connect the Westside Parkway to Highway 178; and • Initiation of planning efforts on the South Beltway. These projects are funded and moving forward with an intergovernmental team that will turn them into asphalt and concrete as quickly as environmental law and federal processes allow. Funds. available: $727 million 2. Immediately combine efforts of the City, County, Kern COG, Chamber of Commerce, and State and Federal Legislators to lobby the CTC for approval of the list of local projects for STIP Augmentation that Kern COG- approved. That includes 5170 million to complete full .funding for the Westside Parkway. We must be very assertive in our efforts to secure additional funding. This does not mean simply sending a representative to the hearing on April 25, 2007 or the plan adoption meeting scheduled for June 6-7, 2007. Staff- and local elected officials need to send letters, make calls, send large delegations to meet with CTC officials, solicit help from persons of influence, and make this a major community effort. As noted at the. meeting of March 19, 2007, a project like this would benefit with the support of a professional lobbyist. The Westside Parkway received environmental .and design approvals. ,With STIP Augmentation funding, it can advance in short order to .relieve conges#ion on Rosedale Highway, Truxtun Avenue, Brimhall Road,. Calloway Drive, Stockdale Avenue,;, and the intersection of Truxtun and Coffee, for example. The solution to a big piece of the puzzle can be short term with. the proper effort. Funds available: $208 million Additional Potential Funds Available:. $114 million Total: $322 million Honorable Mayor and .City Council Apcil 5, 2007 Page 3 3. Immediately alter mitigation requirements for GPA's and EIR's and even single lot development on or near the West Beltway, Highway 178, 7a' Standard Road, South Beltway, Rosedale Highway, and all TRIP funded. projects and locations. The City requires right-of--way dedication from any developer. The same dedication requirement by the .County would facilitate more-roadway construction. In addition, the developers should provide to the City or County right-of--way. or fund the purchase `of it, and should fund construction of the beltways if they are within two miles on each side of the road alignment. Castle and Cooke already.agreed to this_in regard to the West Ming project, and the City of Bakersfield notified others with pending development agreements and .proposals of the need to comply with the same requirement. The requirement needs to be an adopted policy of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, and City of Shaffer for the north side of 7cn Standard Road.. This change has massive potential to impact costs and .provide needed right-of: way in a more cost efficient and timely manner - at the benefited developers' cost. Here again is a relatively :prompt action with substantial iascal potential! Attached is a map showing potential locations for such. mitigation based on known plans in progress. Funds potentially available depend: on the pace of development, but can easily be in the e tens of millions. 4. The City and County need to work with Kern COG to` expeditiously process revisions to the :Transportation 'Development Fee m4de1 so that the appropriate revised fees can be in place in a timely manner... If more resources are needed to support City and .County staff time and/or Kern C4G staff ime,` it is an investment well spent. . A 25% increase in fees would generate $450 million over 20 years, and a 50% increase in fees, generates $550 million over 20 years. With added resources, he new money-could be generated within a year. Potential. funding of $450 million to $550 million over 20 years. 5. STIP Allocations- 20 Years This is the. projected `urban amount after the STIP Augmentation advance is paid back for the. Westside Parkway. Potentialfunding: $314 million.: Honorable Mayor and City Council Apri15, 2007 Page 4 6. Continue to aggressively pursue other non-County/non-City sources, such as "pots of money" from the State bond issue with the same community .effort referenced in 1), above, iregardng the STIP Augmentation. Potentlals include: State -Local Partnership - $31 million for a new interchange at the Hosking Road overcrossing of State Route. 99. Trade Corridor Improvement - $22 million for the widening of 7~' Standard Road (North Beltway). from Coffee R©ad to Santa Fe Way. Public lands. Highway Discretionary Program - $13 million for the widening of State Highway 178 between Masterson and Alfred ..Harrell Highway. Potential funding: $66 million 7. Renew and increase the effort to obtain voter approval for the '/:¢ sales tax issue with regard to the ballot measure on November 2008. With refined cost estimates arad increased developer and community awareness.: of the need for this source of funds,: a major community effort has potential for success.. This would require: a) A plan to clearly outline the improvements and costs; b) Full .support of the County Board of Supervisors, City Council -and Kern COG; and c) A clear and concise'plan to communicate the link between costs andproposed sales tax: increase. ..Potential funding over 20 years: $550 million (for capacity) 8. Devise a plan to access interregional State funds-for the South Beltway to connect Highway 58 to Interstate 5. Alternate 15 should be amended to reflect a change from the Washington Street alignment to the South Beltway as the future route of Highway 58. Seed money is contained within TRIP funding to begin-this process. Long Germ community _advocacy with Caltrans and the CTC will be critical to this goal. Finalizing the specific-plan line .for the South Beltway without delay is also critical or the alignment costs will accelerate sharply. That has been pending before Kem County since 2002. Again, City and County agreement and universal-support will define project`success. Potential funding: $950 million Honorable. Mayor and City Council April 5, 2007 Page 5 9. Long .term improved lobbying efforts with the CTC need to be established so that our region's position is improved when future sources of money are identified. Hiring a professional lobbyist and establishing ongoing local contact with the CTC and its staff are. necessary, Such efforts:: can also improve potentisF results in obtaining additional federal earmarked projects. Total revenue potential far sll nine action i#ems: $3.479 billion, plus other opportuinities from developer mitigation. and enhanced lobbying efforts. Summary Many of the revenue estimates and costs used are "order of magnitude" or very preliminary. All costs are shown at today's dollars, so they will escalate with time. Appendix: A, attached, shows that the complete build out of -all the' TRIP projects, as well as the South Beltway,- would cost $2.39 biAion The<purpose of identifying these sources. and costs is not to show a "balanced budget" thaf guarantees all needs will be met. There are far too many contingent circumstances for that to be possible... We must be`realistic and flexible in our viewpoint of "meeting.: all needs", because that is a goal that'we will continue to adjust. as our community evolves. Just `as the:community's goal should always be to get:.better, we mustcontinue to evaluate how to make improvements to our transportation .system in the future. What the Action Plan items do show is that $.1.913+ billion from TRIP, the STIP Augmentation, and the regular STIP pr~ram, along: wi#h the potential Transportation Development Fee increases will allow for substantial improvements that are-very achievable.. Changes in mitigation requirements can also add significantly to that total in the short term. -That amount of money will significantly..address the worst congestion problems in the earlier years. Other alternatives, such as added grants, a half cent sales tax, and interregional funds are challenging, but well worth a #ocused effort. Cumulatively, the total funds potentially available are in the $3.479 billion range. It is `:all possible and hould constitute a very realistic work plan. We should enthusiastically agree to focus our combined efforts immediately to malca" it happen! 'Attachments: Map of potential locations for development mitigation Appendix A -proposed budgetary. needs cc. Kem County Board of Supervisors Ron Errea, Kern County Administrative Officer Craig Pope, Kem County Roads Director Ron Brummett, Kem -COG Executive Director Vince Fong, Field Representative for Congressman Kevin McCarthy r. a~ A ~~ x ri c. 1~ ' ~t ~ rs ~i ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ as '~~ , ~\Ytl .~ ~ ..-. _ ._ .< ~ °~ w 4 '~ Appendix A Full Build-out of TRIP Projects Beltway System North Beltway West Beltway South Beltway $1,430 Centennial Corridor $575 South Corridor North Corridor, including Hageman Flyover State Route 178 Improvements Widening Existing SR 178 Interchanges $160 Rosedale Highway and 24th Street (SR178) $225 Total Estimate (current $) $2,390 Backup for Appendix A (Costs in millions of $) Constr & Engineering Right of Project Cost Way Total Cost Comments North Beltway $57 $9 $66 Based on recent LAN estimates West Beltway $402 $12 $414 With interchanges South Beltway $744 $206 $950 Centennial Corridor South $291 $162 $452 Includes Truxtun Tie in Centennial Corridor North $109 $10 $119 Upgrade existing along Union Ave SR 178 $155 $9 $164 With Vineland I/C , no new alignment Rosedale + 24th St $191 $33 $224 Widen Rosedale to SR 43. Extend Oak St Across River Total $2,390 Kern County Administrative Office County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor • Bakersfield, CA 93301-4639 Telephone 661-868-3198 • FAX 661-868-3190 • TTY Relay 800-735-2929 n ~ RONALD M. ERREA ~" i`s U • ~unty Administrative Officer -,„ Apri124, 2007 Board of Supervisors Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RESPONSE TO BOARD REFERRAL ON FORMATION OF EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING TASK FORCE FiscalImpact: None On March 27, 2007, your Board considered the matter of forming an Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force and requested that the County Administrative Office report back to the Board with recommend options concerning the above referenced Task Force involving the City of Bakersfield and the County. Planning and Roads department and Resource Management Agency staffmet on this issue to discuss the pros and cons of forming such a task force and in consultation with the County Administrative Office have formulated the following recommendations for Task Force composition. At the time of agenda posting, the City of Bakersfield had not yet commented on the task force proposal. Should the Board choose to move forward with the formation of the group, the following proposes an outline of the formation, purpose, functions, membership and other factors related to a task force. FORMATION Pros: 1. Formalization of a task force could serve to better focus interested parties' attention to the issue, definitively evaluate data to achieve broad and shared understanding of the facts, and bring better directed effort to bear to find solutions. t7istributed to: 2. A task force may help to establish additional momentum to address regionaltransportation issues so / that these issues are given and maintain a high priority in the minds of participants and does not suffer Mayor Y/ from becoming a "lower priority". Councit_ ~ participants are active and representative of their constituent groups, aready-made, cross section of City Mgr ~ •w~ community will be mobilized to move to the next level and seek support for broad based solutions City Atty such as a local safe roads transportation measure. Other + By City Clerk Date ~f -Z3~`~~ Board of Supervisors Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force Apri124, 2007 Page 2 Cons: 1. Misunderstanding about the role of a task force could result in the creation of "another layer" of review and could create confusion on the part of the public and delay progress in addressing the fundamental issues. 2. The larger the cross-section of participants in order to be inclusive, the greater the problem of inertia due to diversity of viewpoints unless there is an overriding desire for reaching solutions. 3. Such high profile exposure to our transportation funding deficiencies prior to the development of feasible solutions may result in attracting litigation. Recognizing that there is general support from the Board of Supervisors for directed and focused effort to address this situation as quickly as possible, the formation of a task force would appear to be the preferred alternative. Efforts should be undertaken to address the potential impediments to success that are noted above. PURPOSE The proposed purpose of the Task Force would be: "To deliver a plan that identifies and updates the necessary metropolitan Bakersfield transportation projects required to meet the needs of current and projected new development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area. " The Purpose would be achieved through the following scope of work: 1. Identify the current and future project list required to meet the level of service standard 2. Identify current and future funding sources during the same time frame as # 1 above 3. Identify any funding gaps 4. Identify future funding sources to address shortfalls 5. .Identify other traffic mitigating solutions 6. Identify project cost cutting options, such as downscaling, redesign, or rerouting 7. Identify strategies to initiate immediate construction of projects PARTICIPANTS It is proposed that there be three categories of participants in the process-Task Force members, Advisory Committee members, and the general public, as follows: Task Force membership Two Members of the Board of Supervisors Two Members of the Bakersfield City Council Board of Supervisors Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force April 24, 2007 Page 3 AdvisorYCommittee membership (one representative each) California Department of Transportation, Region 6 County Resource Management Agency County Planning Department County Roads Department City Development Services Department City Planning Department City Public Works Department Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of CA (CELSOC) Home Builders Association of Kern County Kern Council of Governments Kern County Citizens for Quality Transportation Kern Transportation Foundation TRIP -Parsons Group Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County These fourteen staff and community representatives would provide technical and policy related information to the four Task Force members. General Public Input from the general public and interested parties, such as project proponents, would form this important aspect of public participation in the process. Based on technical information and public comments, important issues would be identified and addressed by staff. Reports to the Task Force and related recommendations would be received publicly with an opportunity for public comment on all matters at the noticed meetings. OPERATING PROCEDURES The following would be general operational procedures: Meetings would be open to the public and publicized consistent with "Brown Act" meeting requirements. 2. The Task Force would meet at least monthly to review data, share information, and to offer input into the plan development process. 3. The meetings would be noticed and agendas created by the City Manager's Office and County Administrative Office. Staff will distribute any materials related to the Task Force's activities. 4. Meetings would occur in either the Board of Supervisors' Chambers or the City Council's Chambers and be televised on KGOV. Board of Supervisors Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force Apri124, 2007 Page 4 Information would be provided to the group based on the efforts of aCity-County-Caltrans-Parsons Team that would focus on the scope of work outlined above and comments received at the meetings. These efforts would occur during separate working sessions scheduled between meetings. After discussion by the full group, the Task Force members may make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board approve the formation of an Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force; approve the proposed Task Force and Advisory Committee membership; and appoint two members of the Board of Supervisors to serve on the Task Force. Sinter. %~ Ro ald M. Eirea/ County Administrative Officer RM F/AClVPOLGENTRANSPORTATION.doc CF 600.65 cc: City of Bakersfield Resource Management Agency Roads Department Planning Department County Counsel TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY April 20, 2007 ,,,......_,_a _...,... a...,~_. ~..a, 9 k §' 1 APR 2 0 2007 __..~ , .. _ m_....,...~,.d._. _. ~._.,~.,~. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Zack Scrivner, Chair Ken Weir Harold Hanson ~ 11~~ VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORN MICHAEL RICHARDS, ASSOCIATE C ATTORNEY~~~~ SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC SIGN ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION This memorandum is a follow-up to the previous meeting concerning. electronic signs and enforcement of the City's sign ordinance. Pursuant to the Committee's request, the City Attorney's office contacted the City of Stockton to see how its ordinance works and we did some additional research related to the regulation and prohibition of certain types of signs. CITY OF STOCKTON Our contact with the City of Stockton was not particularly productive. In summary, the representative indicated that they were not aware of any specific enforcement problems, but that directing certain signs to certain areas of town simply displaces the enforcement problem. For example, if electronic signs that change are allowed in a certain part of a city, then enforcing regulations regarding animated signs is still problematic in other areas of the city. Alternatively, an outright ban of all electronic signs in an area would be easier to enforce. REGULATION OF SIGNS During the Committee meeting, the practical problem of enforcing our ordinance was discussed and one concept mentioned was to respond and enforce only when staff receives a complaint for a particular sign. In essence, this is selective enforcement, and from a legal perspective is problematic in that it subjects the City to potential First Amendment litigation Local regulation of signs must be consistent with the constitutionally protected First Amendment right to free speech. The Courts have held that "time, place and manner" restrictions must be content neutral; "regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of its content presumptively violate the First Amendment." (City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47.) Planning and Development Committee April 20, 2007 Page 2 Therefore, the City should regulate signs based on size, heigh#, number, location and physical attributes-not content. Finally, enforcement of the ordinance should be as uniform as possible. M R:Isc cc: Alan. Tandy, City Manager Stanley Grady, Development Services Director Phil Burns, Building Director S:\COUN C I L\Committee\PLNB~DEV\060TEIectronicSignOrdlnanca.alac _ ~..... . _r , ~.F 4 ~ ': APR 2 5 2007 ~~,, ~ :_. B A K E R S F I E L D .~_.. ~~~ Development Services Department Stanley C. Grady, Director M E M O R A N D U M Apri125, 2007 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM~i~"Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Sign Enforcement -Temporary Signs Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer has provided a memo explaining current sign enforcement efforts. It provides an overview of the issues related to correction notices given to businesses for signs along major roadways and the auto mall area that are not in compliance with the sign ordinance. SG\dlc cc: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer TO: STANLEY GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM: RANDY FIDLER, CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ~'F SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY SIGN ENFORCEMENT In an attempt to provide comprehensive enforcement of the sign ordinance, City of Bakersfield Code Enforcement Officers and Building Inspectors have been systematically patrolling major transportation corridors of the city and addressing violations of the sign ordinance. Wide spread pro-active enforcement activity commenced in early March. This is partially due to complaints from property owners given correction notices stating that they were being unfairly "picked on" and many other violations existed just down the street. Any business (auto dealer, fast food, car wash, convenience store, etc.) in areas patrolled that had a violation received a correction notice. Auto dealerships have not been singled out as all types. of businesses have been issued correction notices for violation of the City of Bakersfield sign ordinance. To date the following traffic comdors have been patrolled or partially patrolled: White Lane, Oak Street, Brundage Lane, Auto Mall area, Downtown area and portions of California Avenue, Ming Avenue and Wible Road. Our primary focus has been on the signs specifically identified as prohibited without permit or strictly prohibited signs in Bakersfield Municipal Code section 17.060.090 (see attached exhibit "A"). The prohibited signs most specifically cited regarding the auto dealerships included animated, moving, revolving and rotating signs (BMC 17.60.0908.) and portable signs including A-Frame signs (BMC 17.60.0901.). The prohibited signs without permit most specifically cited regarding the auto dealerships included banners, flags, pennants and balloons (BMC 17.60.090C.). Bakersfield Municipal Code section 17.60.070(6)(3) (see attached exhibit "B") recognizes balloons and inflated devices (not to exceed 100 feet), .search lights, beacons, pennants, flags, banners and streamers as special event signs which may be allowed subject to approval by the Building Director. The special event signs area is limited to a total of 45 days per calendar year, five special events per year, with no single event exceeding a duration of 15 consecutive days. A permit is required for special event signs. Code Enforcement Activity Sign Enforcement April 18, 2007 Page 2 There were no records of permits being obtained for any special event sign by any of the auto dealerships, prior to the correction notices that were issued by Code Enforcement. Vehicle signs are prohibited, however, the prohibition does not apply to placards identifying the vehicle itself as being for sale, or to window stickers or placards on any vehicles in any vehicle sales lot. S:ICODE ENFORCEMEN71Memos\Code EM.Signs -Auto Dealerships.doc Title 17 ZONING Cha t r 7.60 IGN 17.60.090 Prohibited signs. The following signs are specifically prohibited: A. Advertising statuary larger than life-size. B. Animated, moving, revolving and rotating signs. C. Banners, flags, pennants and balloons, except as permitted in this chapter. D. Bench signs. E. Electronic message boards with moving print messages except those that depict noncommercial information such as public events, time of day and temperature. F. Flashing, blinking, and reflecting signs, except as specified in this chapter. G. Outdoor advertising signs, except as specified in this chapter. H. Permanent for sale signs. I. Portable signs including A-Frame signs, except as specified in this chapter. J. Projecting signs except as specified in this chapter. K. Roof signs. L. Signs which simulate in color or design a traffic sign or signal, or which make use of words, symbols or characters in such a manner to interfere with, mislead, or confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic, as determined by the building director. M. Vehicle signs. Vehicles including trailers, wagons and similar utility vehicles, shall not be utilized as support for any mobile, portable or stationary signs, or conspicuously parked or left standing so as to constitute a device or sign. There shall not be maintained on any vehicle or trailer parked in a public right-of--way, or on public or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way, which is attached to, located on or leaning against such vehicle or trailer, any sign for the purpose of providing advertisement of a business, service or products, directing people to a business activity located on the same or other property for any purpose. This prohibition shall not apply to standard advertising or identification practices where such signs or advertising devices are painted on or permanently attached to a commercial or business vehicle used in the conduct of such business provided it is not parked on the site being advertised abutting public right-of-way, to bumper stickers, to placards identifying the vehicle itself as being for sale, or to window stickers or placards on vehicles in any vehicle sales lot. (Ord. 3586 § 2 (part), 1994) Exhibit "A" Title 17 ZONING Ch ter 17.b0 INS 17.60.070 Specialized signs. B. Special event signs: Special event signs may be approved by the building director as a means of publicizing events such as grand openings, carnivals, parades, charitable events, community holiday activities, and other such events. This section does not include events promoted by the city of Bakersfield pursuant to Section 17.60.0800. Special event signs shall be limited to the following provisions: 1. Special event signs within windows shall be limited to covering no more than twenty-five percent of the window area per building elevation of the ground floor only. 2. Signs shall be limited per business to forty-five days per calendar year. This time may be utilized in any combination of durations: however, the number of special events shall not exceed five per calendar year, and no single event shall exceed a duration of fifteen consecutive days. 3. Balloons and inflated devices provided they do not exceed a height of one hundred feet, search lights, beacons, pennants, flags, banners and streamers may be allowed..subject to approval by the building director.. Flags fat model homes~tract sales offices are naE subject to this subsection. 4. Copy shall not exceed a total area of one hundred square feet, and may include the name, symbol or logo of the business or sponsor, but in no event shall such name or logo exceed one-fourth of the total permitted copy area. 5. Signs may be illuminated upon approval by the building director provided the illumination does not adversely affect neighboring properties or streets. 6. Nonprofit organizations, as defined in this title, shall be permitted to advertise a maximum of five charitable events per calendar year in accordance with the following: Signs shall not exceed an area of thirty-two square feet, and a height of six feet. b. Off-site signs may be permitted by the building director not to exceed a total of eight locations within the city for each event. No off-site sign shall be allowed within any residential zone district or project of a residential nature. c. Signs shall not be erected sooner than fourteen days before the event being advertised, and shall be removed within three days after the event has ended. d. The building director may grant no more than two additional signs or events if it has been demonstrated that the limits in this subsection place an unnecessary hardship on the nonprofit organization inconsistent with the intent of this chapter. e. No fee shall be assessed for permitting such signs. Exhibit "B" Ms's, ~` C ~ ~ }~. ~_t~ G ~ F r. ~r Y' ~ ~ M ~ ~..~,~ '' ~'i ~ ~ ~~~ YSitY~ ~ f ~ '1 ~ ~ F ~~~ ~,. 1 j ~ 1 >: ,~, a ~ ; y _ I ~ : _.,.~,_, ~ „ _ _ A y. e ~ ° L s - Developme it Project Areas __ ,+++- , . ~ TR P~mprovemen~ - ~~= <- - sublecl~o tleveloPmeni men 300 200 100 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Cumulative STIP Allocations 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, May 3, 2007 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail - 1. ~ s~.; ~~ ~~~- ~ ~cln~, d s -~ ~~~, P ;~ ~G,P~~ ,°e~~ ~a~~~ 3~~- yya ~ ,~ G~~~ s Gt~~2~ i ~ i P /PA I~So N S 32 ~ - 347 sS~ 2 'I I U, o~ . n/ ~i~~ ~ ~fL~Pi~S~z~~~ 326-3vc(C? ~~~~ Q ~~~~~'~ ~~ ~r~~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~a ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ 3~ ~ m U,+~NU5b u r C(au~ ESC ~~€?~n S7-~'UJ/ Cr GC O c{ ~!/C_ ~~ ~ - ~ 0 to S ~~ ~~. ~ ~~~~ ~,~ ~~ ~~je ~zZ-~~ `` v ~ C ~ s l ~ Q -r c~~- v s ~- ~ ~ ~-- oo3Z ~ h ~ ~ ~~-- 1 ~ l C~vl GL C ,~55 aC .~iil VOS{~I ~ 2•vt ~xH ~os~-1 ~I~/~cSN~os~t,~s5< ~ ~ ~5 -~.r i cu ~,~t ~ L~~ ~ L 3 ~3-- 31.E v ~ ~~~ ~~ G~.~ c ~~ ;~ ~z~ _ ~ ~ z, ~~rr 13 ~ a ~~ ~sT~ ~- C~r~ ~ ~- - ~ v ~,d' ECG( . fan ~c . ~m