ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Deferred Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: July 28, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider Appeal and Planning Commission’s Approval of Director Review No. 25-0002 and Modification No. 25-0007
and its Notice of Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act. Scout Services requested a Director’s Review and Approval No. 25-0002 to installation of a lattice tower to accommodate the City’s public safety radio system and related installation of new equipment shelter and generator equipment, and Zone Modification No. 25 -0007 to permit a tower height of 150-feet and located within 300 -feet of residentially zoned property located at 1000 Buena Vista Road. Bo Koenig submitted an appeal t o Planning Commission’s approval. The Public Appeal Hearing was heard by City Council on June 24, 2026. City Council to act today. (Ward 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Director’s Review and Approval No. 25-0002 and Zone Modification No. 25-0007, and adopt the Notice of Exemption.
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2026, the City Council held a pu blic hearing to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Director Review No. 25 -0002 and Modification No. 25 -0007 to allow a 150 -foot radio communications tower located at 1000 Buena Vista Road. The appeal was submitted by Bo Koenig. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff to provide additional information and return this item to the Council on the August 5, 2026 agenda. City staff will provide comments to the requested information at the meeting.
Responses to Comments Submitted by Appellant at the June 24, 2026 Public Appeal Hearing.
On June 24, 2026, the City Council reviewed the appeal hearing that was filed by Bo Koenig, pertaining to the Planning Commission’s approval. Mr. Koenig’s objections to the installat ion of the tower are summarized follows:
1. CEQA Section 15300.2 (c) Exception forecloses the Class 2 , Section 15302 Exemption. That the unusual circumstances exception in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (c) forecloses using Class 2 exemption, Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Appellant argues a 150 foot tower 130 feet away from residentially zoned property and immediately adjacent to Ronald Reagan Elementary School is an unusual circumstance that forecloses the CEQA, Section 15302 exemption.
o Response: It is a known fact that there has been an elementary school and a residential neighborhood from the inception of the radio tower project. In fact, the existing tower has been at the Water Department location since at least 2003. While the City does not believe
that unusual circumstances arise from the location of the proposed radio tower, the City’s Consultant hired an independent third party to conduct Electromagnetic Emissions testing which concluded that the maximum ground le vel exposure is within federal guidelines.
Therefore, CEQA exemption, Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) applies to the proposed radio tower and no CEQA exception forecloses said conclusion.
2. Staff cited the wrong noticing subsection in the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC). That City is incorrect in relying on BMC Section 17.64.050 (a) for purposes of noticing the radio tower and should have instead relied on BMC Section 17.64.050 (b).
o Response: Appellant’s reliance on BMC Section 17.64.05 0(b) is incorrect since that noticing requirement section is specifically for conditional use permits and zone changes . City followed public noticing requirements as it pertains to a zone modification , pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64. 050 (a) which requires a 10 day notice to owners and/or occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the radio tower project. While not required, City also published the notice in the Bakersfield Californian for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. As such, City met all noticing requirements and went above and beyond what the BMC requires.
3. Findings are conclusory and will not survive Writ Review. That the findings of approval under BMC Section 17.64.060(B) are conclusory and will not survive writ review.
o Response: Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.060 (B). requires the following findings to be made for approval of a project based on the whole of the record which could include the applicant’s plans, statement of operation, ju stification, staff’s analysis, testimony and correspondence.
1. The granting of such director review and approval permit would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located; and
2. The granting of the director review and approval permit is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or lots, including, but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero-lot -line or other atypical subdivision development; and
3. The granting of the director review and approval permit would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of this code.
4. Staff briefed the wrong legal standard on Property -Value Impact . Staff analyzed inverse condemnation however it is the wrong legal framework for the findings on the radio tower project since the focus should be on whether “granting the [zone] modification would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity.” (BMC Section 17.64.060 (B)(1).
o Response: The only reason staff analyzed inverse condemnation is because Appellant made such argument in its appeal letter. In terms of the framework for materially detrimental (BMC Section 17.64.060(B)(1), see response to #3 above. As stated in #2 above, City met all noticing requirements.
5. The Alternative Sites Analysis was Post -Hoc. Staff reviewed the alternative site of the Park at Riverwalk after the appeal was filed and had no alternative analysis.
o Response: After the appeal was filed, the City reviewed alternative locations as requested.
The Park at River Walk appeared as a potential alternative, although the exact location is still unknown since fully evaluating the site would require an additional taxpayer cost of between $500,000-1.5 million for purposes of designating a location, additional design, construction, consulting costs, and environmental review, none of which has been budgeted. Construction costs would also be higher because the City entered into its current agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the proposed site more than a year ago, and construction and material costs have increased since that time. Relocating the facility would also significantly affect the radio tower project schedule and have a direct effect on updating critical infrastructure that is relied upon every single day. The proposed site has taken nearly three years to reach its current stage, and bringing an alternative location to the same point is expected to take approximately 1-2 years. For these reasons, moving the radio tower project to an alternative site is not a practical or fiscally responsible approach. o From an engineering and operational standpoint, the existing location remains the most suitable site for the proposed public safety communications facility. It provides the required coverage and connectivity, avoids the need to develop a new wireless communications facility at another location , and is the most cost -effective option for the City. Planning practices generally favor continued use of existing communications sites when they can meet radio tower project requirements, rather than shifting to new locations that would increase cost, delay, and uncertainty.
o New environmental analysis, including an initial study will be required on an alternative site since the current proposed site relied on a CEQA exemption.
6. The EME Study does not answer the Public Health Question. That the radio tower’s emissions of being less than 1% of the FCC permitted level is not the entire inquiry since City Council has the authority to deny or relocate the radio tower on independent zoning grounds.
o Response: Based on the independent Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Emissions study (attached), the site below the General Population Maximum Radio Exposure (MPE) limits are following FCC regulations. Therefore, there is no public health issue related to the tower’s electromagnetic emissions.
City’s Need for Updating Critical Infrastructure.
Bakersfield Fire Department Statement: Reliable communication is one of the most critical components of firefighter and public safety operations. Firefighters routinely op erate in hazardous and rapidly changing environments where the ability to communicate with one another, incident commanders, dispatchers, and other responding agencies can mean the difference between a successful outcome and a tragedy.
When firefighters enter a burning structure, respond to a rescue, or operate at a large -scale emergency, they rely on their radios to report changing conditions, request resources, call for assistance, and communicate emergency situations. If communications are unreliable or unavailable, firefighters may be unable to receive critical information or alert others to imminent dangers. This creates a significant safety risk for both emergency responders and the public they serve.
The Bakersfield Fire Department has experienced radio communication challenges in portions of
southwest Bakersfield, particularly when firefighters are operating inside large commercial buildings. In these situations, building construction, distance from radio infrastructure, and other factors can interfere with radio transmissions, making it more difficult for firefighters to communicate with one another and with incident command. These communication gaps create operational challenges and can impact firefighter safety during critical incidents.
The pro posed radio system upgrades, including the placement of additional radio infrastructure, are intended to address these known coverage issues and improve the overall reliability of the system. The goal is to ensure that first responders can communicate effe ctively regardless of their location. Additionally, reliable communication enhances operational effectiveness. Clear and dependable radio communications allow emergency resources to be deployed more efficiently, improve coordination among responding agencies, reduce delays in decision -making, and support a faster and more effective emergency response.
As our community continues to grow and technology evolves, maintaining a modern and reliable radio system is essential to ensuring that first responders hav e the tools they need to protect lives, property, and the overall safety of our residents. When a firefighter calls for help, we must be confident that the call will be heard.
Bakersfield Police Department Statement: The City of Bakersfield, in conjunction with the County of Kern, has continued to make progress toward the overhaul of our aging public safety radio system. This project involves the complete replacement and modernization of our radio system to ensure first responders can effectively communica te during emergency and non -emergency needs. Radio communication is the foundation for our personnel to communicate with one another as well as receive transmissions from dispatchers.
Bakersfield Police Department’s frontline sworn and civilian personnel rely on radio communications as a lifeline to perform their duties and serve our community. Last year alone, the Bakersfield Police Department dispatched approximately 280,000 calls for service in which our radio system served as the means to relay vital information to and from the Communications Center. These personnel depend on their radios to safely complete their assignments and provide efficient service to victims, witnesses, and others in need of law enforcement services.
The necessity and urgency of this project cannot be understated. Our department has had numerous “close calls” with our current radio system due to inadequate reception and connectivity issues across our city. One such incident occurred in 2023 during an officer -involved shooting in a northwest Bakersfield neighborhood where one of our officers was grazed by gunfire from the suspect, yet the radio transmissions of critical details could not be relayed to our Communications Center or fellow officers near the scene.
The City of Bakersfield has made efforts to alleviate some of the radio system issues through temporary solutions while the full overhaul is still underway. This has included the purchase and installation of a portable radio repeater to improve connectivity issues in west Bakersfield. However, the Bakersfield Police Department respectfully urges city leadership to expedite the long -term project to ensure we do not jeopardize the safety of our personnel or community members. Reliable radio communications are a necessity within our profession and how we deliver effective public safety services to our community.
The radio system remains a vital foundational communication element of effective police response,
particularly in high -priority and life -threatening situations. The existing public safety radio system no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The proposed upgrade to the City’s radio communication is needed for public safety and emergency response. The location of the tower at the Water Resources campus provides critical link within the overall system by servicing the growing southwest area of Bakersfield.
Summary of the Administrative Report from June 24, 2026 Appeal Hearing.
The attached Administrative Report (Repor t) prepared for the June 24, 2026 appeal hearing includes details related to the recommendations from the Planning Director and Planning Commission to approve the project. The Report provided discussion that the Project is consistent with General Plan policies. This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures in accordance with Section 15302 (Class 02: Replacement or Reconstruction). All required public notices for each public hearing have been given in accordance with Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Findings. BMC Section 17.64.060. B and D contains specific findings that must be made to approve the requested Director Revi ew and Approval Permit and Zone Modification. Specifically, the section states that a Director Review and Approval Permit and Zone Modification shall be granted only when it is found that:
1. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the subject property is located.
2. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property.
3. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
In addition, the Bakersfield Municipal Code also states that a zone modification may be subject to such conditions as deemed appropriate or necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the necessary findings. The propos al involves upgrading the City’s existing public safety radio communication system, which no longer meets the operational demands of modern emergency response. The installation of a 150 -foot lattice wireless communication tower and accessary structures at an existing 5.26 -acre City Water Resources facility provides a secure and optimal geographic location to serve the expanding urban growth of southwest Bakersfield. The modification requests to allow the tower to exceed the 65-foot height limit and be located 130 feet from residentially zoned property are mitigated by landscape screening, and public safety needs.
Therefore, staff recommends to deny the appeal and uphold the Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Director Review and Approval No. PP -ADR-25-0002 and Zoning Modification No. PP -ZM-25- 0007.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The site remediation (tower build) at this location at the Water Resources Department is $1.3M. This is one of six tower sites that, when completed, will comprise the Bakersfield Metro c ell ($29M) within the
larger Regional Public Safety Communications Network, which will span county -wide. This tower and associated shelter and equipment is included as part of Agreement No. 2023-137 with Motorola Solutions Inc. approved in June 2023, as amended in July 2025. In addition, this project is included in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for $730,000.
Locating the tower at Riverwalk Park incurs substantial additional costs and project delays that are not currently funded or under contract . Estimated additional costs for location, design, engineering, construction and environmental review depend on identifying a specific location within the Park, are estimated to be $500,000 -$1.5 million additional or a new total cost $1.23 million to $2.23 million. None of the potential additional costs are budgeted.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Safety and Resilience
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Administrative Report from June 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
3. Appeal Letter from Bo Koenig
4. Applicant Justification letter
5. Map Set
6. Site Plan and Drawings
7. Radio EME Compliance Assessment
8. Planning Commission Staff Report
9. Planning Commission Res. No. 12-26