Bishop City Council
June 30, 2025

CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers - 301 West Line Street - Bishop, California MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2025 - 6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 p.m. Monday, June 30, 2025

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised this meeting is accessible to the public in person, on the City of Bishop website, or on the local government cable channel 12. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 760-873-5863 Extension 124. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:

1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Bishop City Council Chambers located at 301 West Line Street in Bishop, California.

2. Observing this meeting live from the City of Bishop website at:
https://www.cityofbishop.com/government/city_council/index.php

3. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 12.

Public comments may be made:

1. In person: Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration (or complete a speaker card prior to the meeting). Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes unless modified by the Mayor.

2. In writing: Go to http://bishop-ca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8 to submit an "eComment" for the corresponding meeting. Please note that eComment submissions closes at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. You may also hand deliver public comments to the City drop/payment box located at the Church Street entrance to City Hall on or before the deadline noted above. Written public comments received after the deadline will be provided to the Council at the earliest possibility. Please note written public comments received will not be read aloud at the meeting.

Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 377 West Line Street, Bishop, California during normal business hours.

Government Code 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
1 4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Renewal of Solar Asset Management Agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC B. Proposed Amendment to the City Council Standards and Procedures, Section

5.2 Procedures for Appointments to Boards/Commissions/Committees.

5. NEW BUSINESS
A. MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE BISHOP EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION, MID-MANAGEMENT GROUP, MANAGEMENT GROUP, AND

THE BISHOP POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION
A. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: This time is set aside to receive public comment limited to the items listed below on the agenda and that no general public comments on non-agendized items will be permitted. When recognized by the Mayor, please state your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the City and will be acted on by one motion.

Recommended Action: Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the five-year Solar Asset Management Agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC in an amount not to exceed $60,000, with annual payments as outlined in the agreement with the option to opt out annually.

Solar Asset Management Renewal Agreement
Sole Source Memo - TerraVerde
Recommended Action: Council consider amending the City Council Standards and Procedures, Section 5. Procedures for Appointments to
Boards/Commissions/Committees, last paragraph to read:

A screening committee, composed of two Councilmembers, appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council; the City Administrator; and a Staff Member directly in charge of the subject Commission shall review the applications for each commission vacancy, interview applicants if deemed appropriate and check such reference as they may deem expedient, then make a nomination to the City Council for filling the commission vacancy.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the Memorandums of Understanding between the City of Bishop and the Bishop Employees Association, Mid-Management Group, Management Group, and the Bishop Police Officers Association effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.

Bishop Employees Association MOU 2025-2028
Mid-Management Group MOU 2025-2028
Management Group MOU 2025-2028
Bishop Police Officers Association MOU 2025-2028
Recommended Action:

The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal submitted by 2 7. ADJOURNMENT
Robert Sharp regarding the Planning Commission’s May 28, 2025, decision on the proposed project at 168 East Line Street. Following the hearing, the Council may take action to either deny the appeal or approve the appeal by resolution setting aside the Planning Commission’s decision.
2025-06-02_Appeal Application_168 E Line
Public Comment
PC 2025-03 168 E. Line Variance_2025 05 28
Planning Commission Report
Planning Commission Minutes_05-28-2025
Staff report_05-28-2025
Vicinity Maps
168 E LINE_PROPOSAL
Notice of Public Hearing_Published
CHAPTER 17.46. - MUO-DT
Design Guidelines
Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting in the City Council Chambers MEETING CANCELLED: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting in the City Council Chambers
3 Agenda Item: 4.A
Date of Meeting: June 30, 2025
Department: Public Works
To: City Council
From: Nora Gamino
Subject: Renewal of Solar Asset Management Agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC
Prepared On: June 17, 2025
Attachments: Solar Asset Management Renewal Agreement
Sole Source Memo - TerraVerde

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

Since installation in 2016, the City’s three solar energy systems, at Well 2, Well 4, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant, have been supported by TerraVerde Energy, LLC for performance monitoring, maintenance coordination, and reporting. Their services have ensured consistent system performance, early issue detection, and compliance with performance guarantees.

Analysis/Discussion:

The proposed renewal agreement provides continued monitoring, reporting, and annual preventive maintenance of the City’s solar systems. Services include:

Real-time performance monitoring and reporting
Issue resolution and coordination with equipment vendors Quarterly and annual operational and financial reporting Annual preventive maintenance and inspections
Data collection and performance verification
The City has the option to opt out annually, providing flexibility if future needs change.

Justification for Sole Source Procurement: TerraVerde has provided asset management services since installation and is uniquely familiar with the City’s systems. Transitioning to another provider would require duplicative onboarding efforts and risk temporary lapses in oversight, with no anticipated cost savings. A sole source procurement justification memo is attached.

Economic Impacts:

In 2023–24, the City saved approximately $64,500 in electricity costs through its solar energy 4 systems; without active oversight and maintenance coordination, something as minor as a 10% drop in performance could result in over $6,000 in lost annual savings.

Budget Impacts:

Annual service fees range from $10,000 in Year 1 to $14,000 in Year 5, for a total not to exceed $60,000 over five years. Funding is included in the adopted FY 2025–26 budget and will be included in future budgets subject to Council approval.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the five-year Solar Asset Management Agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC in an amount not to exceed $60,000, with annual payments as outlined in the agreement with the option to opt out annually.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 6/23/2025
Approved By: Robin Picken 6/24/2025
Approved By: Deston Dishion 6/25/2025
Approved By:
5 1

ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Asset Management Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this 1st day of July, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), by and between City of Bishop, hereinafter referred to as (“Client”) and TerraVerde Energy, LLC, a California limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as (“Consultant”).

WHEREAS, Consultant is in the business of providing asset management services for energy systems;
WHEREAS, Client desires to retain the Consultant to provide the asset management services described herein for the energy systems (“System”) described in Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. The Services. Client hereby agrees to engage Consultant as an independent contractor to provide the services set forth in the scope of work attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the “Services”), with Client to cooperate as further provided in Exhibit A. Consultant shall determine the method, details and means of providing the Services. Consultant shall devote sufficient time to perform services under this agreement efficiently and effectively. Consultant may represent, perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in Consultant’s sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extra-contractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with the Client’s business. Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, Consultant will supply all tools and equipment necessary to perform this Agreement

2. Compensation. As consideration for the performance of the Services, Client shall pay Consultant a fee as described in Exhibit A (the “Service Fees”). In addition, Client shall reimburse Consultant for reasonable expenses directly related to the performance of the Services (e.g., travel expenses, legal fees, etc.). The Services Fee and any additional expenses shall be paid by Client to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice for the same.

Should any payment remain unpaid when due, a monthly service charge of 1.5% will be charged until the bill is paid in full and it shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. Further, Consultant shall have the right to stop work if any payment is not made, when due, to Consultant, and Consultant may, after thirty (30) calendar days written notice of non-payment, keep the job idle until all payments due are received.

All billing communications shall be directed to the following Client contact:

Name: Jessica Ortiz
Title: Accounts Payable
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone Number: 760-873-5863
6 2

3. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date. Unless earlier terminated pursuant to this section, the term of this Agreement is 5 years, as set out in Exhibit A; provided, however, that the Client may in its sole discretion and without penalty exercise the right to terminate this Agreement for convenience annually. To exercise its ability to terminate for convenience, the Client will provide written notice to Consultant at least ten days prior to the start of next service year.

Client may immediately terminate this Agreement if Consultant (i) is dissolved, (ii) fails to timely perform the Services in a commercially reasonable manner and such failure continues for a period of ten (10) business days after Consultant receives written notice of such failure, or (iii) materially breaches any provision of this Agreement, and fails to cure that breach within ten (10) business days of receiving written notice of such breach. Consultant may immediately terminate either this Agreement if Client (i) is dissolved, or (ii) materially breaches any provision of this Agreement, and fails to cure that breach within ten (10) business days of receiving written notice of such breach.

4. Independent Contractor. In the performance of the Services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties agree and acknowledge that Consultant shall at all times be deemed to be an independent contractor of Client. No deductions shall be made from the payments made by Client to Consultant, including, but not limited to, withholding or other employment taxes, social security, state and federal unemployment contributions, or state or federal income tax or disability insurance contributions.

5. Third Party Providers. Consultant may engage sub-consultants and / or sub-contractors (“third party providers”) as it deems advisable for the purpose of performing or carrying out any of its obligations under this Agreement. No such engagement shall relieve Consultant of any of its obligations or liabilities under this Agreement. The use of any thirdparty provider shall not result in an increase in the Services Fees, otherwise agreed to in writing in advance by both Parties. Consultant shall require that each sub-consultant and/or subcontractor agree to the same insurance and indemnification provisions in favor of the Client as apply to Consultant in this Agreement.

6. Additional Services. As described in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated, Client may request services from Consultant not included in the Services by submitting to Consultant a Work Order Request Form in the form of Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated. If Consultant agrees to perform such services, it shall respond to the Work Order Request Form in writing. Fees for any additional work requested by Client shall be agreed upon in advance in writing in for the form the executed Work Order.

7. Use of Data. Client is the owner of all system performance data produced by the System’s data acquisition system. As part of the services performed hereunder, Consultant shall collect and analyze such data on behalf of Client.

8. Intellectual Property. Any code or software deemed to be proprietary by Consultant and used by Consultant as part of delivering services under this Agreement shall remain the sole exclusive property of Consultant.
7 3

9. Force Majeure. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, each Party’s obligations under this Agreement shall be suspended by any Force Majeure if and to the extent that such party is prevented or delayed from performing by reason of the Force Majeure; provided, however, that (a) the suspension of performance shall be of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is necessarily caused by the Force Majeure and required by any remedial measures, (b) no obligations of any party that arose before the occurrence of such causes shall be excused as the result of the occurrence, and (c) each party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to remedy its inability to perform; and provided, further, that no Force Majeure shall excuse any payment obligations of any party otherwise due hereunder. Each party shall notify the other as to the occurrence and resolution of any force majeure event. “Force Majeure” means any occurrence that was not anticipated as of the Effective Date that:
(a) in whole or in part: (i) delays a Party’s performance under this Agreement; (ii) causes a Party to be unable to perform its obligations; or (iii) prevents a Party from complying with or satisfying the conditions of this Agreement; (b) is not within the control of that Party; and (c) the Party has been unable to overcome by the exercise of due diligence. “Force Majeure” includes an act of God, flood, drought, earthquake, storm, fire, pestilence, lightning and other natural catastrophes, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance or disobedience, terrorism, sabotage, strike or labor dispute, or actions or inactions of any governmental authority.

10. Limited Warranty. Consultant warrants that Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a reasonable and workmanlike manner. Consultant further warrants that any services provided hereunder shall be performed in accordance with prudent industry practices, all applicable laws and regulations, specifications and processes recommended by the equipment manufacturers.

WARRANTY DISCLAIMER. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES THAT EXTEND

BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED ON THE FACE OF THIS AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY

OTHER KIND, INCLUDING ANY EXPRESS WARRANTY AND ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WITHOUT

LIMITATION OF THE FOREGOING, CONSULTANT EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMES ANY

IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY AS TO ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL OF SYSTEM PRODUCTION OR FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO CLIENT.

11. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall indemnify, defend (with independent counsel approved by the Client) and hold harmless the Client, and its officers, agents, and employees from and against all liabilities (including without limitation all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses, and defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution) regardless of nature or type that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, reckless, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or the acts or omissions of an employee, agent or subcontractor of the Consultant. The provisions of this paragraph survive completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this Section are not limited by the provisions of the Section relating to insurance.

12. Insurance. See Exhibit D.
8 4

13. Conflicts of Interest/Compliance with AB 334. Consultant’s Services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the Client with any portion of Client’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with Client. Client shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. Consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of a subsequent project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Consultant shall cooperate with the Client to ensure that all, if applicable, bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.

14. Compliance with Laws. Client and Consultant agree to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations, both state and federal, applicable to the operation and administration of this Agreement and the Services. Consultant agrees to comply with all local laws.

15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and items incorporated herein contain all of the agreements of the Parties with respect to the matters contained herein, and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose.

16. Amendments. No provisions of this Agreement may be amended or modified in any manner whatsoever except by an agreement in writing of the Parties.

17. Successors. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, and assignees of the respective Parties.

18. Assignment. Consultant acknowledges it has been awarded this Agreement by the Client as a sole source due to its experience with the System. This Agreement is not assignable.

19. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein and the rights and obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed in all respects, including validity, interpretation, and effect, by the laws of the State of California. The Parties hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of the state courts located in Inyo County, California and federal courts for the Eastern District of California, in any action arising out of or relating to this Agreement, and waive any other venue to which either Party might be entitled by domicile or otherwise.

20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed by the Parties in different counterparts, which together shall constitute one agreement, even though all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart.

21. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement by any Party to this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver, or of any subsequent breach of the same, or of any breach of another provision of this Agreement.
9 5

22. Notices. All notices and other communications required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) on the date of service, if served personally on the person to whom notice is to be given, (ii) on the date of receipt, if sent by facsimile to the person to whom notice is to be given at the facsimile number set forth below, or (iii) on the third day after mailing, if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given by first-class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To Client: City of Bishop
377 West Line Street
Bishop, CA 93514
Attn: Deston Dishion
E-mail: [email protected]
To Consultant: TerraVerde Energy, LLC
1300 22nd Street, Unit 401
San Francisco, CA 94107
Attn: Ali Chehrehsaz
E-mail: [email protected]
A Party or other designated recipient may change its address by notifying the Parties and other designated recipients of its new address in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section.

23. Further Acts. Each Party agrees to do all acts and things and to make, execute and deliver such written instruments as shall be reasonably necessary to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement and to complete the transactions contemplated herein.

24. Authority. Each of the individuals signing below warrants that s/he has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party to be bound. 10 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

Consultant: TerraVerde Energy, LLC.

Name: Ali Chehrehsaz
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________ Client: City of Bishop
Name: Nora Gamino
Title: Public Works Director
Signature: ________________________________ Date: _____________ 11 7
Exhibit A
Services & Fees
Systems
Site Name Operational Year PV Size (kW-DC)
Well 2 2016 33.5
Well 4 2016 82.5
WWTP 2016 89.3
TOTAL 205.3
Services
Task 1. Energy & Provider Performance Optimization
a. System Performance Monitoring: TerraVerde will monitor systems, ensuring that issues are detected early.
b. Management Of System Issues & Corrective Maintenance: TerraVerde will track and manage the timely resolution of identified issues. Activities on each issue are tracked and shared openly in our quarterly reports.
a. Where applicable issue management will include enforcing installer, equipment manufacturer, or (where applicable) O&M Provider warranty, maintenance, and performance obligations. b. Otherwise, TerraVerde will provide as-needed corrective action services under Work Orders to be billed at an additional cost as authorized by Client.
c. Management & Upkeep of a Facility Operation Plan: TerraVerde will coordinate with the Client, and electric utility to collect available, relevant project documentation and store these in a secure data room, including reports, project contracts, project drawings, and utility agreements.

Task 2. Detailed Energy Performance Analysis & Financial Reporting a. Quarterly Operational Reports: For each of the first three fiscal quarters (see schedule below), TerraVerde will prepare and deliver a detailed, transparent, actionable operational report, including:
i. Sites Summary: a table summarize the location, age, size, and ownership structure of the systems ii. Executive Summary: graphs summarizing actual vs. expected system performance and energy usage across the portfolio of sites, along with brief narrative description of the performance and any key findings
iii. System Issues: a detailed log of all cases opened over the quarter, including insights into the specific activities taken by TerraVerde to resolve the issues iv. Site Specific Performance: a detailed comparison of actual vs. expected performance at each site along with a comparison of actual vs. expected energy usage b. Annual Operational & Financial Report: At the conclusion of each fiscal year (see scheduled below), TerraVerde will prepare and deliver a detailed, transparent, actionable operational report, including:
i. Sites Summary: a table summarize the location, age, size, and ownership structure of the systems ii. Fiscal Year Performance Executive Summary: tables summarizing actual vs. expected: bill savings, operating expenses, revenues, net savings, system performance, and electricity usage.

Additionally, TerraVerde will provide a brief narrative summary of operational and financial performance for the year.
12 8
iii. Portfolio Wide Performance & Usage: graphs showing actual vs. expected system performance and energy usage across the portfolio of sites
iv. System Issues: a detailed log of all cases opened, including insights into the specific activities taken by TerraVerde to resolve the issues
v. Performance Guarantee Accounting: a table showing the running total of any balances accruing to you from your third-party system owner relative to performance guarantee shortfalls vi. Site Specific Performance: a detailed comparison of actual vs. expected performance at each site along with a comparison of actual vs. expected energy usage vii. Site-By-Site Shadow Billing Analysis: tables what utility bills would have been at each site during each month vs. the actual bills, showing actual savings delivered at each site c. Reporting Target Schedule: TerraVerde provide these quarterly and annual reports according to the following target schedule:

Performance Period Report Delivered By
July – September Operational Report End of November
October – December Operational Report End of February
January – March Operational Report End of May
April – June Operation Report & July – June Financial Analysis End of September Task 3. Annual Preventive Maintenance
a. Preventive Maintenance: Each year, TerraVerde will provide preventive maintenance services for all Client-owned systems:
i. I-V Curve Tracing: Record the I-V curve for each string at the string fuse level. Analyze resulting data to identify issues that require further attention. In the event that local weather conditions prevent I-V Curve tracing to be completed while on site, TerraVerde will notify Client. Should an additional truck roll be required to complete this activity, time would be charged at as an additional cost. Additional work to be approved in writing in advance by Client.
ii. Ground Fault Testing: Conduct ground fault testing at the inverter and record amperage values. iii. Inverter Maintenance & Inspection: Conduct inverter maintenance and inspection activities as outlined by the manufacturer.
iv. Weather Data: Record plane of array irradiance for each unique PV array orientation, air temperature, cell temperature, and time of when the data was recorded at each site. v. Visual Inspection: Visually inspect all components of the panels, wiring, inverters, combiner boxes, and racking structures. Conduct torque test inspection of 5% of all electrical terminations at each solar energy generation facility and record results. Provide a report on all findings and anomalies.
vi. Equipment Photographs: Collect photographs of all inverters (inside and outside) before and after maintenance. Include before/after photos of filters/screens when present. vii. Thermal Imaging: Use a thermal camera to record and provide thermal images of all components of the system: wiring, inverters, and combiner boxes. Identify anomalies and issues including a 20 degree Celsius or higher delta among similar components (ex. strings in a combiner box) by highlighting the problem areas in the scan images and include a specific note in the Service Report.
viii. Site Inspection: Inspect and identify potential issues related to vegetation (particularly tree shading), debris, water penetration, weed abatement for ground mount projects, roof, etc.

Provide a report on all findings and anomalies. Include a site map with locations noted for all potential issues including the identification of broken modules. 13 9
ix. Transformer Inspection & Maintenance: Conduct transformer maintenance as outlined by each manufacturer. Any consumables required (i.e. filters, fuses, etc.) or DGA (dissolved gas analysis) or more invasive periodic maintenance will be quoted & invoiced separately.

Additional work to be approved in writing in advance by Client. x. Line-Side Inspections: Inspect line-side disconnect connections where present (see as-built drawings) by confirming bolt torque marks and using thermal images. Work with Client to schedule utility shut-down to address issues if necessary (added cost based on time and material).
xi. Service Report: Prepare and deliver a Service Report covering all items in the Scope of Services on a per Site basis.

Price & Terms
Services to be provided for an initial term of five (5) years with the Client’s option to opt out annually.

Performance Period Service Fee Due Date
July 2025 – June 2026 $10,000 July 1, 2025
July 2026 – June 2027 $11,000 July 1, 2026
July 2027 – June 2028 $12,000 July 1, 2027
July 2028 – June 2029 $13,000 July 1, 2028
July 2029 – June 2030 $14,000 July 1, 2029
Other Services
Other services including corrective action to manage third party provider to complete a retrofit project and those listed in Exhibit B will be invoiced on a time and materials basis per the Hourly Rates table, upon approval by the Client per the Work Order Request Form in Exhibit C.

Role Hourly Rate
Project Coordinator $195
Project Developer $245
Sr. Engineer / Project Manager $225
Principal Advisor $255
Technical Supervisor $295
Administrative $160
Accounting $185
14 10
Client’s Responsibilities

1. Actively manage electricity usage at Client’s facilities

2. Provide Consultant with access to:
a. Performance Monitoring System and historical production records b. Information related to the System(s) including contracts, drawings, warranties, maintenance contracts, performance monitoring platforms, historical system performance data, and historical utility usage and billing data as applicable.
c. Utility bills and data

3. Allow Consultant and its third-party providers, agents and employees with reasonable access to the System(s) during reasonable times and without prior notice as required for the performance of Service Provider’s Scope of Work under this Agreement

4. Supervise Consultant and its third-party providers, agents and employees while services are performed at System Owner’s site(s)

5. Review and respond to Consultant’s maintenance and other recommendations 15 11
Exhibit B
About Us…3…………..………………..………………..………………..………………..………
TerraVerde Energy is an energy consulting firm proudly supporting California school districts and municipal agencies since 2009. We provide owner’s representative services for planning, procurement, and project management of energy projects and programs. We support school districts with projects that help reduce their energy costs and become more resilient against power outages. Over the past 15 years, we have supported more than 140 public entities with over 270 energy project assessments and procurements.

Our Approach……….…………… …..………………..………………..………………..………
We specialize in helping schools with their energy infrastructure planning & operation. Our expertise is in solar, battery, microgrids, Electric Bus & white fleet compliance as well as vehicle electrification planning and charging infrastructure deployment. We typically support school districts in a Stage Gate Model approach as shown here:

Our Services…..…… ……. ……..………………..………………..………………..………
The following are key services we provide to our school district clients:

1. Assessment - Project ideation, needs assessment, and facility master plan integration

2. Savings Analysis - Project financial and technical feasibility and savings analyses

3. Procurement - Project procurement services including competitive RFQ/RFP solicitations

4. Contract Negotiation - Design-build contract negotiations under GC 4217

5. Project Oversight - Project management and contractor/installer owner’s rep oversight

6. Design Review - Design review, code, and permit compliance assessment

7. Incentives & Tariffs - Securing utility interconnections, grant funds, and incentives

8. Project Turnover - Post project completion turnover and closeout

9. IRA Rebates - Inflation Reduction Act Elective Pay filing to secure refund from the IRS

10. O&M - Ongoing savings & performance reporting of installations Feasibility Assessment
Energy Usage Evaluation
System Sizing & Modeling
Backup Power Assessment
Funding & Incentives Eval
Financial Projections
Project Procurement
Develop Solicitation
Administer Solicitation
Evaluate Responses
Support Vendor Selection
Negotiate Contracts
Project Implementation
Oversee Vendor Including:

Design Completion
Permitting & Incentives
Construction Management
System Commissioning
Asset Management
Performance Optimization
Active System Monitoring
Operations & Maintenance
Revenue Management
Financial Reporting
16 12
Exhibit C
Work Order Request Form
17 13

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of Agency, and prior to commencement of work and/or services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide, and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to Agency.

General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned, or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement.

Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (statutory limits) and Employer’s Liability insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

Umbrella or excess liability insurance. Consultant shall obtain and maintain an umbrella liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage liability coverage, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:
18 14
• A drop-down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason, other than bankruptcy or insolvency of said primary insurer; • “Pay on behalf of” wording as opposed to “reimbursement”; • Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies.

Should Consultant obtain and maintain an excess liability policy, such policy shall be excess over commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability policies. Such policy or policies shall include wording that the excess liability policy follows the terms and conditions of the underlying policies.

Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance and required endorsements to Agency as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein.

Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by Agency’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with Agency for the contract period and any additional length of time required thereafter. Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the contract period, and any additional length of time required thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, or financial loss which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees, or subconsultants.

Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

Agency’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Agency has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by Agency will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Agency will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Agency may cancel this Agreement.
19 15
Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the Agency’s Risk Manager.

Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against Agency, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against Agency and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the Agency to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the Agency nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Agency requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Agency.

Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide the Agency with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. If any of the Consultant’s insurers are unwilling to provide such notice, then Consultant shall have the responsibility of notifying the Agency immediately in the event of Consultant’s failure to renew any of the required insurance coverages, or insurer’s cancellation or non-renewal.

Additional insured status. General liability, automobile liability, and umbrella/excess liability insurance policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that Agency and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies.
20 16
Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to Agency and approved of in writing.

Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.

Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party who is brought onto or involved in the project/service by Consultant (hereinafter collectively “Subcontractor”), provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. However, in the event Consultant’s Subcontractor cannot comply with this requirement, which proof must be submitted to the Agency, Consultant may still be able to utilize the Subcontractor provided Consultant shall be required to ensure that its Subcontractor provide and maintain insurance coverage and endorsements sufficient to the specific risk of exposure involved with Subcontractor’s scope of work and services, with limits less than required of the Consultant, but in all other terms consistent with the Consultant’s requirements under this Agreement. This provision does not relieve the Consultant of its contractual obligations under the Agreement and/or limit its liability to the amount of insurance coverage provided by its subcontractors. This provision is intended solely to provide Consultant with the ability to utilize a Subcontractor who may be otherwise qualified to perform the work or services but may not carry the same insurance limits as required of the Consultant under this Agreement given the limited scope of work or services provided by the subcontractor.

Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with Subcontractors, and others engaged in the project and/or services, will be submitted to Agency for review.

Agency’s right to revise specifications. The Agency reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the Agency and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.

Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by Agency. Agency reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter.

Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give Agency prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance 21 17
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.

Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 22 CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
P. O. Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
City Hall 760-873-5863 Public Works 760-873-8458
Fax 760-873-4873

June 17, 2025

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Re: Sole Source Justification – Solar Asset Management Services Agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC
This memo documents the justification for renewing the City’s agreement with TerraVerde Energy, LLC for asset management of City-owned solar systems at Well 2, Well 4, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

TerraVerde has managed these systems since their installation in 2016 and has indepth knowledge of their performance, warranties, and maintenance history. Retaining TerraVerde ensures continuity, avoids the risk of oversight lapses, and eliminates onboarding costs associated with switching vendors.

The scope of services includes real-time monitoring, warranty enforcement, quarterly and annual reporting, and annual preventive maintenance. The fixed fee schedule is competitive, and no cost savings or service improvements are anticipated through competitive bidding. TerraVerde’s expertise and track record support a sole source renewal.

The Public Works Department recommends proceeding with this agreement on a sole source basis.

Nora Gamino
Public Works Director
23 Agenda Item: 4.B
Date of Meeting: June 30, 2025
Department: Administration
To: City Council
From: Deston Dishion
Subject: Proposed Amendment to the City Council Standards and Procedures, Section 5.2 Procedures for Appointments to
Boards/Commissions/Committees.

Prepared On: June 24, 2025

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The City Council Standards and Procedures are a living document and it is necessary to provide updates to them from time to time.

Analysis/Discussion:

All Commission and Committee members serve at the pleasure of the City Council and therefor should only be appointed by Council and Staff. This update will make that change to the manual.

Economic Impacts:

None
Budget Impacts:

None
Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and verified that it complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consider amending the City Council Standards and Procedures, Section 5.

Procedures for Appointments to Boards/Commissions/Committees, last paragraph to read:

A screening committee, composed of two Councilmembers, appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council; the City Administrator; and a Staff Member directly in charge of the subject Commission shall review the applications for each commission vacancy, interview applicants if deemed appropriate and check such reference as they may deem expedient, then make a nomination to the City Council for filling the commission vacancy.

Approved By: Deston Dishion 6/25/2025
24 Approved By: Dean Pucci 6/27/2025
Approved By:

Approved By:
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Agenda Item: 6.A
Date of Meeting: June 30, 2025
Department: Planning
To: City Council
From: Ana Budnyk
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street Prepared On: June 25, 2025
Attachments: 2025-06-02_Appeal Application_168 E Line
Public Comment
PC 2025-03 168 E. Line Variance_2025 05 28
Planning Commission Report
Planning Commission Minutes_05-28-2025
Staff report_05-28-2025
Vicinity Maps
168 E LINE_PROPOSAL
Notice of Public Hearing_Published
CHAPTER 17.46. - MUO-DT
Design Guidelines

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

On June 6, 2025, Robert Sharp submitted an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s decisions from a regular meeting on May 28, 2025, regarding the proposal for 168 East Line Street. The appeal disputes the project’s consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines and opposes the 20% parking reduction approved as part of the variance.

The Planning Commission action was to approve a variance from the Downtown Specific Plan development standards on building and parking location, and a reduction in parking due to site constraints. They also considered a challenge to the staff's determination that the project complies with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission approved the variance, found the project to be compliant with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and found the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA review based on the CEQA Guidelines 15032 exemption for in fill development projects. The decision was based on the staff report and project plans submitted for the project and the public testimony presented at the public hearing on the project.

The appeal was filed in writing within five days, as required by City of Bishop Municipal Code, 139

17.80.110. - Appeal procedure. The Planning Commission has submitted a report to the City Council, which is attached to this staff report.

The City Council is asked to consider the appeal and act on a resolution to overturn the Planning Commission by granting the appeal, or in the alternative, deny the appeal, which would leave the decision of the Planning Commission unchanged. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be opened, and the Mayor will call on the appellant to present their reasons for the Planning Commission decisions to be overturned. The Mayor may call on City staff to respond after hearing from the appellant. After public comment has been heard, the City Council is asked to consider the appeal and take action to either deny the appeal or to approve a resolution to grant the appeal and set aside the decision of the Planning Commission.

Notice:

Notice of the public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was published in the Inyo Register on June 19, 2025, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site at least 10 days prior to the hearing, in compliance with legal noticing requirements.

Recommended Action:

The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal submitted by Robert Sharp regarding the Planning Commission’s May 28, 2025, decision on the proposed project at 168 East Line Street. Following the hearing, the Council may take action to either deny the appeal or approve the appeal by resolution setting aside the Planning Commission’s decision.

Approved By: Russell A. Hildebrand 6/26/2025
Approved By: Robin Picken 6/26/2025
Approved By: Deston Dishion 6/26/2025
Approved By:
140
141
142
143
1 Jessica Ortiz
From: Alexa Flower <ale
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Planning Department
Subject: [External] Public comment 168 E Line St
Hi
I live in downtown bishop so I would always ride my bike to the gym so the amount of parking would not be an issue for me.

It would address a growing need for the community and provide a service, as of now unavailable, for this world famous climbing desƟnaƟon.

Thanks
Alexa
Sent from my iPhone
144
1 Jessica Ortiz
From: Ron <gr
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 3:54 PM
To: Planning Department
Subject: Public Comment 5/28
Regarding the proposed business at 168 East Line Street, I would like to say that Bishop should encourage as many new non-corporate, local-owned businesses as possible. The parking is a nonissue, as many locals will be walking and biking to the facility, and it would be a shame to sink the project over parking spaces.

This parking variance is a reasonable request and I hope to see this approved.

Thank you for your consideration.
145
1 Jessica Ortiz
From: Eric Lynch <eri
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 3:52 PM
To: Planning Department
Subject: [External] Public comment on 168 E Mine Street Hi
I live in the downtown area and would like to submit my comments on the proposed climbing gym for the above address.

I would exclusively ride my bike to get to this gym.

This proposed gym is also exactly what I would be looking for in a gym.

This seems like a great use of the vacant lot and would enhance downtown Thanks
Eric Lynch
146
1 Jessica Ortiz
From: Quinault Childs <qu
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 6:47 PM
To: Planning Department
Subject: Public Comment May 28th
Hello,
My name is Quin Childs. I'm a resident of Bishop and I'd like to express my support for granting the variance on 168 East Line street.

I understand that there's a question of parking, but as a resident, I try to avoid relying on a car, and usually walk or bike to local businesses, as do many other people I know. Furthermore, when I do drive, I've never noticed any lack of parking at any business or any destination at all in Bishop. To be honest, it's surprising to me that requiring a minimum parking like this is even a consideration, as Bishop is one of the easiest towns to park in California.

The benefits of the new business at 168 East Line street would far outweigh any unlikely problems caused by parking. I hope that you decide to encourage the growth of Bishop small businesses and encourage a community-supporting gym at the location by granting the variance.

Best,
Quin Childs
147
148
City Council Report As Addendum
to Appeal 168 E Line St
Subject: AI Evaluation of Proposed Metal Two-Story Climbing Gym in Downtown Bishop per the City of Bishop’s Building Design & Character Guidelines
Prepared for: City of Bishop City Council
Date: 06/25/2025
Received from Robert Sharp
149
Introduction
This report evaluates the proposed construction of a metal two-story climbing gym in Downtown Bishop. The analysis is based on AI review of the Building Design & Character Guidelines and a series of contextual images and online street mapping that illustrate the existing architectural and environmental character of the area.

Analysis: Outside of C1 Zoning There Exist Several Inconsistencies with the Guidelines Architectural Style
The proposed gym's industrial and modern design is incompatible with the traditional, eclectic, and civic-classical styles prevalent in the E. Line St. sector of Downtown Bishop. The surrounding buildings feature pitched roofs, gabled dormers, and symmetrical facades that reflect the historical and cultural context of the area.

Additionally, the surrounding buildings have primarily fixed current, and future uses similar to each other. A twostory metal structure with garage doors is completely different use and design than surrounding buildings, and its future use would heavily differ from future uses of existing surrounding architecture and materials if they were to remain the same.

Materials
The use of metal as a primary building material is inconsistent with the recommended materials in the guidelines, which emphasize wood, stucco, and stone. Metal requires special city approval via a permit and will be perceived as visually discordant with the natural and historical character of the area.

Scale and Massing
The proposed two-story structure would dominate the streetscape, which is characterized by single-story, humanscaled buildings. This would disrupt the visual rhythm and potentially obstruct views and sunlight for adjacent properties. At this point of the street, the scale and rhythm of the street are clearly designed for low-density, human-scaled development, and more residential than urban traffic and limited parking.

Mixed Use Overlay
A natural transition based on images and data available for the regulatory Mixed Use Neighborhood Transition Zone (MUO-NT) would begin at the Elks Lodge and Masonic Lodge. However, the City of Bishop neglected to create this transition on E. Line St. and does not provide an explanation for this in the Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay.

Cumulative Analysis
The proposed two-story structure would dominate the streetscape, which is characterized by single-story, humanscaled buildings. This would disrupt the visual rhythm and potentially obstruct views and sunlight for adjacent properties. Although there is the existence of other two-story buildings, they size, shape, and visual dominance are out of sync with the other predominantly existing architecture, although a masonic hall would historically be taller than other primary buildings of this era, and a deliberate and consistent design choice of the time it was erected.

Such a design would be out-of-sync today. However, the other two-story buildings remain consistent to the style of the surrounding architecture whereas a two-story metal structure would be architecturally, materialistically, historically, and sizeable inconsistent with the existing environment and guidelines provided in the Building Design & Character Guidelines of Downtown Bishop.
150
Design Element Existing Context (Images 1–5) & Online
Street Mapping
Proposed Gym Conflict
Style Traditional, eclectic, civic-classical,
residential-commercial blend
Industrial,
modern
Incompatible
Materials Wood, stucco, shingles, stone, natural
landscaping
Metal Requires permit, visually
discordant
Scale Single-story, modest, human-scaled Two-story, large Out of scale Environmental
Fit
Tree-lined, shaded, pedestrian-friendly Potentially
disruptive
Lacks contextual
sensitivity
Cultural Fit Reflects local history and character Generic, utilitarian
Lacks contextual
sensitivity
Conclusion and Permit Requirements
Based on the analysis of the proposed design and the visual context provided by the images, the metal two-story climbing gym is inconsistent with the Building Design & Character Guidelines of Downtown Bishop. The project would require the following permits and approvals outside of normal permitting:
- Design Review Approval
- Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
- Planning Commission or City Council Approval
It is recommended that the City of Bishop deny the proposal in its current form due to its incompatibility with the established architectural and environmental character of the area. It is recommended that the City rezone the 168 E. Line St. lot to R-2000 or require conditional uses that consider the predominantly residential use and traditional “9-to-5“ businesses to be cohesive eastbound to the current street beyond the E. Line Elks Lodge and Masonic Hall.

It is recommended that 175 E Line St be rezoned to R-2000. It also is recommended the City incorporate a regulatory Mixed Use Neighborhood Transition Zone (MUO-NT) for E. Line St. and consistency throughout the plan. 151
152
153
154
 End of AI Analysis Report
155
Parking and Traffic Concerns
- Currently the City is spending tens of thousands of dollars on a city-wide parking study. It would behoove the City not to make non-emergency-based decisions around parking variances since this project will be completed in the near future. This would allow the City to make data-driven decisions and not speculative or based on feelings or pressure.
- At peak times of business, the parking spaces in front of Eldridge, State Farm, the residences, and the empty lot already fill to capacity on the available street parking. - During special events, and peak camping, and camping van seasons, like-wise E Line in this immediate facility gets both inundated with RV’s and camper vans – sometimes days at a time. - It is not uncommon for vehicles to block driveways. The designated red zone creating safe views and distance for pulling out have stopped being painted causing people to encroach or block driveways, as well as creating unsafe situations for pulling out onto E Line St. o Increased bike traffic to the gym will also create additional hazards for motorists, and the bicyclists. - Bishop PD already does not enforce the speed limit, ambulance parking, nor the 25 MPH speed zone (although we do appreciate the light-up sign!) due to limited resources and more important priorities. It is organic that when 24/7 shower and restroom facilities are made available, they will be utilized by travelers and tourists potentially causing pro-longed and additional ongoing overnight use of E Line.

Additional Concerns
The City is said to invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into this plan to crate density for mixed use where appropriate, and to create future consistency going forward. The idea being to build up for combined commercial and residential, and to make commercial consistent and residential consistent where it already is. By the Planning Commission’s decision to find this within the improvement plan is a direct violation of the spirit and intent of the plan especially inconsistently applying this (watch the Bishop Glass portion of the January 2025 Planning Commission Meeting this was denied based on design guidelines although his primary concern was safety and maintenance – Additionally down the street from him they have exactly what he was trying to do 6.A) Appeal to Construct a Sloped Canopy at 476 West Line Street, Bishop, CA (Bishop Glass Inc.) APN 001-172-04).

City not consistent with it’s decisions with metal buildings on the property.

The last time metal was approved a bond was to be established for repurposing and residential noise ordinances were to be applied to the parcel. Neither of these were stipulated this time around. The residential ordinances are particularly interesting since this will be a 24/7 facility.

Process – Several surrounding properties did not receive their official notices, or received them with one or two days’ notice. Creating insufficient time to attend the public hearings. Whereas the applicant knew that there was going to be a second meeting, and was able to get assistance to launch a social media campaign to support the 156
application and ride bikes there. Creating a great turnout and support but the scene intimidated several to leave in opposition. This created an unfair environment for the second meeting.

Please take the time to WATCH previous discussion/decisions (link below 8/27/2018 City Council Meeting):

Meeting Materials here:

MetaViewer.php
Meeting here:

Associate Planner Kabala reviewed this item with Council. PH is to address the proposed use of the building.

Reviewed findings for Council's consideration. Mayor Schwartz opened the public hearing. Applicant has reasonable amount of time to present their comments. and time for a rebuttal. Public comments were made by:

Roy and Beulah Chacon - spoke to adding an antique gate in front of the property.Need building there so we can move the things in that building on Main Street to. That is why we would like to make the move. Thought we are improving the property at 168 E Line St. Have a storage building but to repair and to sell furniture. Downtown - want to help the City and spoke to Triad Engineering can split the lots and sell them. Warehouse and building on Warren St. Already invested $28,000 in this project; got sick and was unable to come to the planning commission meeting. landscape in front. C-1 use. would bring revenue to the city through property taxes. fence problem with grafitti. That was our intention, thank you for your time. Hank Truxillo - planning commissioner - one vote in favor of this CUP. Seemed to be an aesthetic issue. Mixed use. C-1. Storage not out of place; fairly reasonable request. Did not seem that unpleasant. Ok to make changes going forwards. Kenny Loyd - a resident of Bishop, it has been an eyesore - thank them for purchasing land; I think they are doing something good for the neighborhood. And open up Main Street vacant. Robert Sharpe - thanked chacon's on their work with the planning dept to help with the aesthetics. 15 foot evergreens. I am against this particular project, because you see a lot of work done on E Line St. to making things look good, keeping the residential look. Recommended guidelines. Add to the vitality of Bishop.

Since warehouse - looking at increasing their budget another 1/3 to do landscaping. Cheryl Adams, resident on E Line St., object to the storage roll up doors. Concerned about grafitti problem. Safety is her concern. Lawful vs. helpful. Gordon Adams - shared commendation given back on: (DATE). Grandfather here in 1864; city started 1861. Invested in Bishop and invested in their home. Asked Council to not consider a cheap metal building on E.Line St. Robin Stater - a resident of Bishop - on E. Line St. - spoke to upgrading her community; cervente family 1910-1912; and has put everything into her home. Have a lot of pride in their community. Consider use of the property and how it is meant to be used. Greg Lippencott (sp?) - resident of Bishop - on E. Line St. - Council should only approve what is compatible to the neighboring community. Concerned this property will not be maintained; weeds and invites problems. Motion: to close the public hearing 157
PUBLIC

COMMENTS

RECEIVED
BY 3:00 PM
JUNE 30, 2025
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 1
158
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:13:51 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Kyle Queener submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: During the two previous planing commission meetings the variances for 168 East Line Street where approved by the commission and with heavy support from local residents in support of the building design and future business. The decision for compliance and variances resides with the planning commission, not city council. To drag this beyond the planning commission decision is asinine.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 2
159
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:39:13 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Katie Lambert submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose the appeal against the approval of the variance for 168 E Line St. The owners of this lot have provided an aesthetic and creative solution that aligns with the Downtown Specific Plan’s goals for diversity, vitality, and walkable small business opportunities. The location allows for easy walking/ biking to and still provides onsite parking with additional public parking across the street behind the Elks Lodge and street parking. The community wants this and will benefit from this.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 3
160
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:32:29 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Rebecca Church submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose the appeal and support the variance that has been approved (twice!) by the planning commission. The variance is very reasonable and the proposed project meets the Downtown Design Guidelines, as the planning commission has gone over. I lived in town for 8 years and now live in west Bishop. I still ride my bike into town. I also never have any trouble finding parking when I do drive into town. There are empty storefronts all over. This business is trying to change that. Please let them.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 4
161
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:39:31 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Brandon Adams submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose this appeal. The proposed project is a community-centered business that would be so good for Bishop. We put up so many hurdles in front of community-minded entrepreneurs and then wonder why downtown has so many empty buildings. I urge City Council to uphold the decision of the planning commission, which found this project met design guidelines and had a reasonable variance request. Those willing to invest in our community should be encouraged, not hindered.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 5
162
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:24:46 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
ben ditto submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I am a homeowner within Bishop City limits. I am writing to oppose the appeal and support the planning commission granted variance at 168 Line Street. The planning commission has twice approved this variance, I believe their decision should be maintained by the city council. It’s an inconsistent neighborhood aesthetic to begin with, the approved proposal provides for an appealing commercial space while providing ample parking ( more than many other businesses). Bishop needs this.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 6
163
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 5:03:36 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Tara Misiewicz submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose the appeal of the planning commission. The lot for this business is across the street from public lots, one of which is east of the elks lodge and rarely used. Therefore its location makes it perfect for the 2 spot variance. There are multiple metal buildings downtown and the plan for this one looks much more attractive than most. It will be in line with other downtown aesthetics. A vote to appeal the variance is a vote against developing downtown and local business.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 7
164
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 5:03:39 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Tara Misiewicz submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose the appeal of the planning commission. The lot for this business is across the street from public lots, one of which is east of the elks lodge and rarely used. Therefore its location makes it perfect for the 2 spot variance. There are multiple metal buildings downtown and the plan for this one looks much more attractive than most. It will be in line with other downtown aesthetics. A vote to appeal the variance is a vote against developing downtown and local business.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings

SAME COMMENT

SUBMITTED TWICE
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 8
165
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 9:46:43 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Mark Postle submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I am writing in support of the overall design and park variances for the project at 168 E Line. This is an amazing opportunity both for the outdoor community and for the struggling downtown commercial zone. Please do everything possible to support this amazing local effort which has already passed TWO complete reviews of the planning commission. This is exactly the kind of project the city should be going out of their way to help along if Bishop is going to remain vibrant. Thankyou!!
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 9
166
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:03:01 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Matt Hoffman submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I fully disagree with the appeal from Robert Sharp. This project is great for the City and great for its residents. Please see the attached letter addressed to the Bishop City Council.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 10 167
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 11:12:28 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Alex Garcia submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I think a new climbing facility would be great! Id much rather see folks creating something lasting within the community than see a lot sit empty growing weeds. I support the variances on this project. Thanks!
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 11 168
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 11:56:13 AM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Chris Trainor submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose this appeal
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 12 169
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:22:07 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Brooke Maushund submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I am in opposition to the appeal and in support of the variance for the gym. This zone is zoned for commercial use, as is the area where the appellant lives—having a business in a commercial area is following regulations; the onus is not on businesses to help those who choose to reside in commercial areas. I, along with the many others who attended the first meeting, would walk/bike to the gym, which is a much-needed community resource that can only be realized with the variances.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 13 170
From: George Aguilera
To: Robin Picken
Subject: Variance at 168 E Line Street
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:34:50 PM
I would like to voice my thoughts on the purposed variance of the climbing gym on East Line St. I’m not in favor of the variance as it does not comply with the city’s ordinances. If you allow one variance then you open the door to other variances. Thank you for your time.

George Aguilera
Sent from my iPhone
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 14 171
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 2:04:22 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Seth McKinney submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: I oppose the appeal because I believe the planning commission has already settled this twice. Thanks
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 15 172
From: April Leeson
To: Robin Picken; Robin Picken
Subject: FW: public comment meeting 6pm
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 2:44:06 PM
From: April Leeson
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 2:32 PM
To: apr
Subject: public comment meeting 6pm
Hi Robin
Below is a public comment that I would like to be read aloud at the meeting tonight. I will be there in person, but I’m feeling a bit sick and I don’t want to be sniffling all over.

I feel the community members and business owners most affected by this project did not receive adequate notice about it or the associated meetings. I am concerned that a parking variance would be granted in an already congested area of Line Street, especially considering that the city would likely deny variances to other businesses that do not comply with the original city plan.

In addition to the city planning commission not properly notifying residents, it seems the city changed its original stance on classifying this facility as a sports facility, which is specifically prohibited by the downtown ordinance. They then reclassified it as a sports center during the second review. This raises concerns that the city is trying to expedite the approval process instead of allowing for public input.

During the second planning commission meeting, it was repeatedly stated that this facility is not just going to be a gym (which is allowed); rather, the goal is to make it a hub for climbers in the Eastern Sierra. Plans include moving movie screenings from the Bishop Twin Theatre to this sports facility, holding large competitions, and hosting various climbing events. This would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles needing parking, particularly for visitors from out of town who cannot bike.

April Kress
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 16 173
From: [email protected]
To: Robin Picken; [email protected]; Jessica Ortiz Subject: [External] New eComment for City Council Special Meeting Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 2:49:10 PM
City of Bishop, CA
New eComment for City Council Special Meeting
Olivia Johnson submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Special Meeting
Item: 6.A) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings for 168 East Line Street
eComment: Olivia Johnson, 605 W Elm St, Bishop. I strongly oppose Mr. Sharp's appeal against the previous variance. I argue that the proposed project aligns well with the intent of the downtown plan. Walkability is a major reason I and many others choose to live in downtown Bishop, and many would walk or bike to the gym, thereby minimizing stress on available parking.

Regardless, as this is a mixed-use zone, Mr. Sharp and other residents are no more entitled to public parking than business customers.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://bishop-ca.granicusideas.com. 377 West Line Street Bishop, California 93514
Unsubscribe from future mailings
Public Comments received by 3:00 PM - 6/30/2025 Page 17 174
175
176
177
Planning Commission Report
To: City Council
From: Heather Lind, Planning Commission, Chair
Prepared on: June 23, 2025
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for Design Guidelines Compliance and Variance Findings – 168 East Line Street Background/History:

At its regular meeting on May 28, 2025, the City of Bishop Planning Commission reviewed an application from James Miller for three variances related to the proposed Climbing Training and Fitness Center at 168 East Line Street (APN 001-182-10), a currently vacant property.

The variances requested included:

1. Waiver of the on-site parking location requirement (allowing parking at the rear of the building),

2. 20% of parking space reduction, and

3. Increased number of compact parking spaces from 25% to 37%.

The Commission also reviewed the project for compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Commissioner Comments:
• Chair Lind expressed support for the project and the parking variance. • Commissioner Lowthorp recommended that the applicant engage adjacent property owners regarding shared access to rear parking. • Commissioner Bhakta raised concerns about emergency vehicle access. • Vice Chair Gaidus supported rear parking but noted concerns about increased traffic on a shared residential driveway, especially with 24/7 operations.

Motions and Votes:
• The Commission unanimously (4–0) approved a motion affirming that the building is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines based on the information and analysis presented in the staff report. • The Commission approved the variance application (3–1), making the required findings as set forth in the staff report and supported by the staff report and public testimony at the public hearing, finding that the project meets General Plan goals and that the requested variances are justified by site-specific conditions. 178
May 28, 2025 Page 1

CITY OF BISHOP

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 2025

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lind called the meeting of the Bishop Planning Commission to order at 6:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lowthorp.

3. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Commissioner Bhakta
Commissioner Lowthorp
Vice Chair Gaidus
Chair Lind
ABSENT:

Commissioner Leitch
Commissioner Lew
OTHERS PRESENT:

Deston Dishion, City Administrator
Ana Budnyk, Principal Planner
Robin Picken, City Clerk
Russell Hildebrand, Deputy City Attorney

4. PUBLIC COMMENT: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: This time is set aside to receive public comment on matters not calendared on the agenda. When recognized by the Chair, it is requested that you please state your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. Under California law the Planning Commission is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Planning Commission may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Planning Commission will listen to all public comment but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it.

No public comments were made.
179
May 28, 2025 Page 2

5. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Commission and will be acted on by one motion.

A. Meeting Minutes – April 29, 2025
Chair Lind opened this item. No comments were made.

Vice Chair Gaidus made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and Commissioner Bhakta seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Bhakta, Lowthorp, Vice Chair Gaidus, and Chair Lind Noes: None

6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Variance – 168 East Line Street
Chair Lind announced that the first order of business is for the Commission to make a motion to reconsider this variance request and to rescind the resolution approved on April 29, 2025.

Deputy City Attorney Hildebrand reviewed this item with the Commission and explained further as to why this item is being brought back for the Commission’s reconsideration and to rescind the resolution approved on April 29, 2025.

Chair Lind made a motion to reconsider this variance request and to rescind the resolution approved on April 29, 2025. Vice Chair Gaidus seconded the motion.

Motion passed 4-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Bhakta, Lowthorp, Vice Chair Gaidus, and Chair Lind Noes: None
Chair Lind opened the public hearing.

Principal Planner Budnyk reviewed this item with the Commission.

The applicants, James “Bud” Miller and Eric Bissell, reviewed their variance request for 168 E. Line Street and thanked the Commission for rehearing their requested variance.

Public comments were made by:

Taylor Lyon, a local resident and business owner, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.
180
May 28, 2025 Page 3
Allan Pietrasanta, a local resident, spoke in support of the City’s process and the applicant’s requested variances.

Karen Schwartz, a Bishop resident and a Council Member, spoke in support of the public process and is looking forward to listening to what the Planning Commission has to say.

Howie Schwartz, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s project, and stated that this project should be allowed the two parking spaces variance, a legitimate effort should be made to share the adjacent driveway to locate parking behind, and developers should construct a façade in front of the building.

Siobnan Kenney, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

Alex Vaught, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicants, the proposed gym, and to approve the variance requested.

Rebecca Church, a local resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

John Rambo, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

Phil Wesseler, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicants, the proposed gym, and to approve the variance requested.

Travis Heidepriem, a resident of Crowley Lake, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

Jean Sprague, a Bishop resident, spoke in disagreement of the metal building being proposed based on the City’s plan that discourages metal structures.

Kate Rutherford, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

Jessica “Jo” Olsen, a local resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance and proposed plans.

David Surber, a local resident and owner of rental property on Keough Street in Bishop, spoke in support of the applicant’s proposed business. He spoke in support of new businesses in Bishop, provided the Commission with a list of 23 metal buildings located in downtown Bishop refuting the statement that metal buildings are out of character for the city, and that this proposal will create jobs and tax revenue for the city. He stated that it is important to establish Bishop as the climbing capital of California and build an economy based on outdoor recreation.
181
May 28, 2025 Page 4
Olivia Johnson, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance and offered counter points to the public letter from the owner of Sage to Summit that was submitted in opposition of the applicant’s variance.

David Ansalem, announced that Jackie Surber who wanted to speak on this topic had to leave and he would be speaking in her place. David Ansalem, a Bishop resident and local emergency medicine physician, spoke in support of the applicant’s project and the parking variance.

Chair Lind announced a short recess for five minutes. The recess started at 7:05 p.m. and Chair Lind reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

Public comments were made by:

Robert Sharp, a Bishop resident, expressed his support on the applicant’s overall business concept. However, he requested that the Commission consider abstaining on this decision and allow it to go to the City Council for a decision or have this item tabled until the current parking study is completed for additional information to consider.

Robert Sharp stated that he is not in favor of the requested parking variance and feels there will be impacts and issues related to granting this parking variance.

Shelma Jun, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

John Bowen, a local resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance and opposed tabling this item or just passing this decision to the City Council.

Marissa Leonard, a local resident, expressed her concerns about this variance due to the current lack of parking currently available on East Line Street. Marissa Leonard stated that she was not opposed to the rest of the proposed project but asked the Commissioners to be mindful that she felt that there was not enough due diligence to reach out to others in the community that are not present to speak on the parking impacts on East Line Street at this meeting. Marissa Leonard asked that the Commission pause this issue to do more due diligence and asked the applicants to do more due diligence on this matter.

Michelle Gilmore, a local resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance and expressed that this business promotes positive health.

Sarah Thomson, a local resident, spoke in support of the applicant’s requested variance.

No further public comments were made.

Chair Lind closed the public hearing.
182
May 28, 2025 Page 5
The Commissioners deliberated this item.

Chair Lind spoke in support of the parking variance.

Vice Chair Gaidus asked if any of the Commissioners had any other concerns since they last deliberated on this item.

Commissioner Lowthorp stated that he would like to see the applicants formally approach the property owners next door to see if it is viable to provide access for parking in the back of the proposed building on the applicant’s lot. Commissioner Lowthorp stated that he would be willing to hold off on this decision for another month for the applicant to do so.

Commissioner Bhakta expressed his concern about access for emergency services.

Vice Chair Gaidus stated that he thought that parking in the back sounds appealing, but there were concerns sharing a driveway with a residential property since the applicant’s business would be open 24/7, thus potentially increasing traffic on that driveway.

With no further discussion, Vice Chair Gaidus made a motion that the Planning Commission finds that the building is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines as determined by City staff. Chair Lind seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.

Ayes: Commissioners Bhakta, Lowthorp, Vice Chair Gaidus, and Chair Lind Noes: None
Vice Chair Gaidus then made a motion to approve the variance application based on the site-specific circumstances presented above because the variance allows for a project that meets the following goals of the General Plan and meets the Downtown Design Guidelines: a. Encouraging diverse land uses that support long-term economic viability, b. Increasing downtown activity and employment opportunities, c. Promoting recreation-related commercial development, and d. Encouraging development of vacant and underutilized land. Chair Lind seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BISHOP,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 168 EAST LINE STREET (APN 001-182-10)
Ayes: Commissioner Bhakta, Vice Chair Gaidus, and Chair Lind Noes: Commissioner Lowthorp
Chair Lind provided a one minute break to allow the public to leave the meeting before addressing Item 7 – Staff and Commission Reports.
183
May 28, 2025 Page 6

7. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Principal Planner Budnyk reported to the Commissioners that the City Council approved the hiring of a parking enforcement position for the City at their May 8, 2025 Special Council meeting where they discussed the City’s Strategic Plan. Principal Planner Budnyk also announced that she received good news on the Prohousing Designation application for our community, with $36 million dollars designated for the Silver Peaks project, of which $9 million dollars is designated for sidewalks and bike lanes. She reported that we received a highly competitive score, therefore if we do not receive notice of this award in December of this year, we anticipate we will be awarded the funding next year.

Commissioner Bhakta and Commissioner Lowthorp both commented on how pleased they were to see so many people in attendance at this meeting. Commissioner Bhakta stated that in the 6 years as a Planning Commissioner, he has never seen the chambers filled with so many people. Commissioner Lowthorp stated he had not seen so many people in attendance since the 1980’s when there were no signs in Bishop, and the Planning Commission met to discuss imposing sign regulations.

Chair Lind remarked that participation was wonderful, and reminded everyone that there is a current vacancy on the Planning Commission should anyone be interested in applying. She also reminded everyone that there are many community organizations and programs that need this type of participation and volunteers to sustain these local national renown community organizations.

No further reports were made.

8. ADJOURNMENT:  The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Bishop City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop.

Chair Lind adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 24, 2025
_________________________ ___________________________
Heather Lind, Chair Robin Picken, City Clerk
184

STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
From: Ana Budnyk, Principal Planner
Subject: Variance – 168 East Line Street
Prepared on: May 22, 2025
Attachments: A) Application for Variance
B) A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Bishop, State of California, to approve the Variance
B) A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Bishop, State of California, to deny the Variance
APPROVED BY: ________________________
Deston Dishion, City Administrator
______________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND / HISTORY
The Planning Department has received an application from James Miller requesting three variances related to the development of the Climbing Training and Fitness Center proposed at 168 East Line Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-182-10), currently a vacant property.

The property is zoned General Commercial (C1) with a Mixed Use Downtown Overlay (MUO-DT) designation and is located within the City's Specific Plan area. The surrounding uses and zoning are summarized below:

Property General Plan Zoning Current Use
North (across E. Line Street) General
Commercial C1, MUO-NT Electrician business
East General
Commercial C1, MUO-DT Residential and office
West General
Commercial C1, MUO-DT Residential apartments
South General
Commercial C1, MUO-DT Residential apartments
Agenda Item: ______
Date of Meeting: May 22, 2025
Department: Planning
185

The applicant is requesting the following three variances from the MUO-DT development standards:

1. On-Site Parking Location: Allow parking in front of the building when viewed from East Line Street, rather than behind the building as required.

2. Parking Space Reduction: Reduce the number of required parking spaces from ten (10) to eight (8).

3. Compact Parking Spaces: Increase the number of compact spaces allowed from two (2) (25% of required parking) to three (3) spaces (37%).

Per Bishop Municipal Code Section 17.80.060 – Variance – Application, the Planning Commission has authority to grant variances if the following findings can be made:

A. The variance shall be subject to conditions ensuring that it does not grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and district.

B. Due to special circumstances applicable to the subject property, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same district.

Planning staff has evaluated the proposed metal building, and as discussed below, finds it to be consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. This determination has been challenged in various public comments received on this Project and therefore the Planning Commission is asked to review this determination and either approve the finding of consistency or disapprove this finding of consistency by making a separate motion and vote.

DISCUSSION:

CONSISTENCY WITH MUO-DT OVERLAY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 2: MUO-DT Development Standards Comparison for 168 East Line Street Standard Required Proposed
Lot Size 9,600 SF (0.22 acres)
Maximum Building Area n/a 6,600 SF
Maximum Building Height 46 feet Two stories
On-site Parking Location Behind the building In front of the building Parking Spaces 10 (including ADA) 8 (including ADA)
Maximum Compact Parking 25% (2 spaces) 37% (3 spaces)
Customer Bike Parking 4 spaces 8 spaces
Staff Bike Storage 1 per new retail worker 2 spaces
186

Standard Required Proposed
Minimum Landscaped Area 10% (358 SF) 360 SF
Front Setback 0’ minimum / 10’ maximum 10’ + 64’ parking + 9’ entry The subject property at 168 East Line Street (APN 001-182-10) is a vacant parcel with 50 feet of street frontage and 191 feet of depth. While this lot size is typical for downtown parcels, its narrow frontage poses a development challenge under current zoning and parking standards, particularly for uses requiring larger open interior spaces, such as the proposed Climbing Training and Fitness Center.

Unlike nearby properties that benefit from wider lot frontages or pre-existing, nonconforming driveways, this site would require 24 feet of its 50-foot frontage just for driveway access to rear parking—substantially impacting the usable width for active building frontage and pedestrian access. Additionally, a comparable property at 169 Short Street shares a driveway with its neighbor, a configuration unavailable to the applicant.

The Bishop Specific Plan encourages pedestrian-oriented, walkable development in the downtown area, calling for:
• Concentrating density on parcels that front Main Street and Line Street, • Reduction of potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts resulting from higher density development
• Building features that contribute to a pedestrian-oriented, walkable downtown, which includes: large windows, a continuous street wall with limited setbacks, entrances and signage that can be read from the sidewalk.

The proposed athlete training center proposes a building footprint of 4,410 square feet, which is 45% of the site area, and a 6,600 square foot 2-story structure. While requesting relief from certain parking standards, the project compensates with double the required bicycle parking, two long-term staff bike storage lockers, and safe bike access near the building’s entrance—helping to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and align with Specific Plan goals.

The building also includes large street-facing windows and a 10-foot wide landscaped area along East Line Street featuring dense shrubs and trees designed to create a "green street wall", mimicking the continuous façade encouraged by the Specific Plan.

The applicant has committed to ongoing maintenance of this landscaping to ensure long-term compliance with the streetscape intent.

GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY
The property is designated General Commercial (C1) with the Mixed Use Downtown Overlay (MUO-DT), within the Bishop Specific Plan area. The proposed project 187

supports the General Plan’s goals of:
• Encouraging diverse land uses that support long-term economic viability, • Increasing downtown activity and employment opportunities, • Promoting recreation-related commercial development,
• Encouraging development of vacant and underutilized land.

CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND MIXED USE OVERLAY

BUILDING DESIGN & CHARACTER GUIDELINES

GUIDELINES FOR STOREFRONT BUILDINGS
Storefront Buildings are designed with active, pedestrian-friendly frontages at the ground level, typically with transparent glass, direct sidewalk access, and commercial or retail uses facing the street.

1. Materials:
• Should be consistent with those identified in the Specific Plan Area, including:
glass, shiplap or clapboard siding, new or used face brick, cut or carved stone, ceramic tile, stucco, and metal by permit.

The proposal includes a metal building, which complies with the Specific Plan guidelines related to Transparency; Building Orientation; Building Form, Mass, and Scale; Windows; Entrances; Awnings and Canopies; Lighting; Facade and Materials Color; and Architectural Style (see below).

Per the guidelines, use of metal as a primary material requires a permit, which may be granted when the overall project demonstrates compliance with the remaining design standards.

See Attachment: 168 E LINE PROPOSAL for Renderings of the East Line Street Elevation.

2. Transparency:
• There should be a difference between upper story openings such as windows and doors and street level (storefront) openings. There should be a greater transparent or glazed open area at the storefront level to support pedestrian activity. Any obstructions in the window should still allow for a clear view into the building.

The proposed storefront façade facing East Line Street meets these goals by providing large, transparent ground-floor windows that occupy 44% of the first story, offering clear, unobstructed views into the building from the street. 188

• Whenever a building is proposed that has two adjacent neighboring structures, attempt to maintain the characteristic proportion and spacing of window and door openings.

The height of the ground-floor windows and doors aligns with those of the two adjacent buildings. The second-story window proportions are also consistent with those of the neighboring structure to the west (162 E Line Street), ensuring architectural compatibility and visual cohesion along the street frontage.

3. Building Orientation:
• The front of the building wall should be oriented parallel to the street.

The front of the building is oriented toward East Line Street. • Major pedestrian access for all buildings should be oriented to the primary street upon which it is located.

The pedestrian access is oriented to East Line Street.
• Storefronts should be designed to orient to the primary major street frontage.

Storefront is oriented to East Line Street.

4. Building Form, Mass, And Scale:

The building form, mass, and scale are important in maintaining the quality of the built environment and in protecting the scenic views of the natural environment of Bishop. New construction should be compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of mass, scale, and height.
• New multi-story buildings and remodels may be taller than adjacent structures (as permitted within the MUO Mixed Use Overlay).

The proposed building is 32’ in height. Adjacent structures vary in height, with the property on 156 E Line St being over 40’ height.
• Although building heights will vary, generally, taller buildings are encouraged in the Mixed-use Overlay Downtown District to create a stronger presence on the street and to frame the scenic views.

Compliant.
• Keep the scale of building elements, especially at the ground level, intimate and close to human scale.
189

The ground floor elements are designed with pedestrians in mind, with 8’ windows and doors, 9’ high canopy, and lighting elements at 7’. • Reduce building mass on structures with multiple stories by “stepping back” upper stories, which can provide for balconies and outdoor dining spaces (see Outdoor Dining section).

Not applicable, as the full building is stepped back.
• Consider the relationship of height-to-width proportions of existing facades.

Similar in proportion to the adjacent façade on the west (162, 156 East Line St). • Roofs should be flat; however, decorative pediments may be sloped and extend above the roofline. Roof lines of adjacent buildings shall be considered to avoid clashes in scale, style, and materials. Mansard roofs and “radical” roof pitches that are overly prominent or out-of-character are not permitted.

The proposed roof is close to flat; radical roof pitches are avoided.

5. Windows:

The windows of storefronts should vary in size and shape, depending on the type of business, as well as the architectural style of the building. Specific design criteria related to window treatments include the following:
• Use clear glass on the first floor.

Clear Grass is used that allows visibility inside the building. • Storefront windows should be as large as possible, but no closer than 6 inches to the ground.

The proposed storefront windows are “as large as possible”.[Can we get some dimensions to be more specific. “As large as possible” is too general]

6. Entrances
• Storefront entries can consist of any projecting elements, and any landscape, hardscape, walls and fences between the building facade and the back of the sidewalk. This provides a transition between the public environment of the street and the semi-private and private entrances of the building. Small forecourts, recesses, and nooks are encouraged around entries in new and remodeled construction. The dimensions of these should be proportional to the overall 190

facade with a maximum depth of 10 feet. To ensure proper access all entrances must be a minimum of 4 feet apart.

Not applicable, as the entrance is not located on the street.

7. Canopies:
• Minimum height of awnings and canopies shall be 8 feet as measured from the bottom of the awning to the sidewalk and shall not extend outwardly more than 6 feet from the face of the structure
Canopy is located 9’.
• Canopies shall reflect the character of the building, particularly in material and color selection.

Complaint.
• Canopies are permitted to shelter openings at the bottom floor only.

Canopy is proposed to shelter the entrance at the bottom floor only.

8. Lighting
• Exterior lights that are part of a building facade shall provide adequate lighting levels and be designed to satisfy functional needs and complement the architectural style of the building.

Lighting lights up the entrance, bike area, landscape/seating areas. • Lighting should follow the Joint International Dark-Sky Association & Illuminating Engineering Society, Model Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (MLO) which the city intends to adopt in 2022.

CA Building code also requires BUG-rated lighting, the compliance will be determined at the building permit application.

9. Facade & Materials Color
The number of materials, colors, and combinations is unlimited, and the appropriateness of any given material, color, or combination for a particular building depends on a number of factors including architectural style and details, building material, building size, and building context. A visually balanced composition of materials and color is encouraged.
191

• Consider exterior colors that complement the architectural style or theme of a building.
• Vary color to provide architectural interest; at least one accent color is required, do not exceed what is required for contrast and accent of architectural features. • Colors should be durable and weather-resistant; stain and flat paints are encouraged.
2 colors are used, color complements the architectural style of the building.

10.Architectural Style Guidelines
As there are a variety of architectural styles it is important to consider the rooflines for all buildings and styles. In general, rooflines should be:
• Consistent with their surroundings, adjacent buildings shall be considered to avoid clashes in scale, style, and materials.

The block presents a rich variety of architectural styles, including: Victorian (186 East Line St), American Craftsman (178 E Line St), Flat Roof Commercial (162 East Line St), Classical Revival (168 East Line), Midcentury modern (151 East Line).

The proposed building contributes to this eclectic streetscape while maintaining human-scaled proportions consistent with its context. The height of the ground-floor windows aligns with those of adjacent buildings, and the second-story window proportions reflect those of 162 East Line Street, promoting visual continuity and architectural harmony along the block.
• Flat, gable, or hipped.

The roof line is compatible with the proposed architectural style.

VARIANCE FINDINGS:

Based on substantial evidence in the record, the Planning Commission of the City of Bishop makes the following findings regarding approval of a variance waiving the OnSite Parking Location requirement parking in back of the building, Parking Space Reduction, increased Compact Parking Spaces.

A. That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated.
192

Evidence: Any property owner in the City of Bishop has the right to request a variance subject to the same consideration and review by the Bishop Planning Commission for General Plan and zoning code consistency. Due to the requirement for parking to be located behind the building being approved in 2022 other properties in the vicinity have parking located on the front of the property or exercise other privileges, like narrower preexisting non-compliant driveways, the property immediately adjacent to the subject property on the west 162 East Line Street complies with the parking requirement due to wider 70’ street frontage, and the property immediately south 169 Short Street shares a driveway with the adjacent property. The subject site’s narrower width and lack of shared driveway make strict compliance uniquely burdensome.

B. That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the land use ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical district classification.

Evidence: the subject lot's 50-foot width, while typical downtown, creates unique limitations when coupled with the functional requirements of a fitness center (open interior spaces, high ceilings). The inability to locate parking to the rear without consuming significant building frontage or reducing usability supports the request for the proposed parking layout with adjusted parking placement, reduced stall count, and additional compact spaces.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed project qualifies as Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects.

NOTIFICATIONS:

A public hearing for this item was noticed in the Inyo Register on May 17, 2025, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site at least ten days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, in accordance with City noticing requirements.

LEGAL REVIEW:

Attorney Russell A. Hildebrand has reviewed and approved the item. 193

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Hold a public hearing to review the proposed variance and evaluate the building’s consistency with Downtown Design Guidelines. Motion and vote to approve the building’s consistency with Downtown Design Guidelines.

2. Approve the variance application based on the site-specific circumstances presented above because the variance allows for a project that meets the following goals of the General Plan and meets Downtown Design Guidelines:
a. Encouraging diverse land uses that support long-term economic viability, b. Increasing downtown activity and employment opportunities, c. Promoting recreation-related commercial development, d. Encouraging development of vacant and underutilized land.

OR

3. Deny the application because the project does not meet the MUO-DT Development Standards for onsite parking location, number of parking stalls required, and maximum number of allowed compact spaces. 194
Downtown
Core
Parking In-Lieu
Other 50’ properties
Vicinity Map
50’
100’
195
Vicinity Map
Mixed-use
Overlay
Boundary
R 2
50’
100’
P P
R C+R C
C+R
C C
C
C
R
C
C
C
C
C
P P
C R R

C R R C R R
C
Current Property Uses:

R – Residential
C – Commercial Uses
P - Parking
C
C
R
C C
R
E Line ST
196
168 E LINE

PROPOSAL
197

OBJECTIVE

PROVIDE BISHOP AND THE

GREATER EASTERN SIERRA

COMMUNITIES A MOUNTAIN

ATHLETE TRAINING CENTER

THAT REFLECTS THE PASSION

AND COMMITMENT OF THE

LOCAL AND VISITING
COMMUNITY.
2 BISHOP

CLIMBING

AND FITNESS
2 198
Property Description
168 East Line Street, parcel number 001-182-10
6,600 square foot, two-story, open-span
metal structure for use as a climbing gym,
weight room, yoga studio, and general
training center.

Proposed Use
● 17.46.150. - Parking - sections B/2
and C
Code Section
● C-1 Commercial
● Mixed Use Overlay
Existing Zoning & Use
● Hardship variance
○ Parking requirements
Variance Type
3 1993
6,600 square foot, two-story,
open-span metal structure for use
as a climbing gym, weight room,
yoga studio, and general training
center.

PROPOSED BUILD
168 E LINE - FROM THE

NORTH WEST
[Approx render.]
2004
SITE

LOCATION
2015
Public parking identified in the
Bishop Downtown Specific Plan
and Mixed Use Overlay.

PUBLIC PARKING
6 SITE LOCATION. Note
proximity of existing public
lots.
202

17.46.150. - Parking.

Provision C - On-site parking standards. On-site parking shall not be located between the building and the primary street setback. Parking must be behind the building when viewed from the primary street.

The lot in question is narrow (50’ wide). To provide the parking required in the back of the lot, we would need to install a 20’ wide (two-way) driveway, which would reduce the usable width of the lot to 30’ (bringing the interior usable space closer to 28’).

Second, it would require an entrance in the back (South) of the building, and/or a sidewalk from the back to the front of the building. This would further reduce usable width of the lot and create pedestrian confusion.

Reducing the interior space to such a narrow width would eliminate the spacious, gymnasium feel that makes our proposed use a successful and meaningful addition to the community. We are asking to exploit the maximum usable width of the lot by situating onsite parking in the front of the building.

Variance - Hardship
2037

17.46.150. - Parking.

Provision B.2 - A building less than 15,000 square feet will require 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

The requirement for 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sf would require us to provide 10 parking spaces for a 6,600 sq ft building. (6,600 / 1000 = 6.6 x 1.5 = 10 spaces) A parking space is required to be 20’ deep with 24’ of maneuverability space behind it. Each space will require 44’ depth on a 50’ wide lot. With the addition of one ADA space, this means that the back 108 LF of the lot would be used for parking (20’ along the back row for five cars, a 24’ maneuvering area, 40’ for two 3-car rows, then an additional 24’ for maneuvering).

Combined with the 20’ wide driveway to the back (approximately 72 LF), the lot's paved-over area would end up around 6,840 sf (68% of the total lot).

By reducing our required spaces from 10 spaces to 8 spaces, we can reduce pave-over significantly by reducing the parking lanes to two rows:
● One five car row (three Compact spaces, one ADA space, and one Standard space)
● One three car row + 20ft two-way driveway (three Standard spaces, 3 ft buffer, driveway)
Variance - Hardship
2048
Site Plan
9 A landscaped green screen composed of approved plant species (see page 14) will be installed along the perimeter of the parking area. The selected species will grow to a minimum height of 5 feet and will be maintained to ensure full visual coverage year-round. This planting buffer is designed to screen vehicles from pedestrian view and enhance the street-facing facade with natural elements. 205
The combination of these two requirements (10 spaces and parking in the back, south side, of the building) greatly reduces the amount of usable space on the property.

While we are not within the boundaries of the Downtown Core, we feel that a reduction in the amount of parking and paved over space in this mixed-use area is in line with the spirit of the downtown plan:
“MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE (MUO) PARKING - Parking policies for the MUO are driven by the goals set out in Chapter: 2. The policies focus on maximizing land use opportunities and helping create a vibrant pedestrian- friendly environment for Bishop. As with the SPA, parking maximums will still be utilized to ensure that land is focused on commercial and residential development and improvements to landscaping.” -pg. 131 Downtown Bishop Specific Plan and Mixed Use Overlay Furthermore, as our intended use of this lot is a downtown fitness center, we see walking and biking as an integral means of transportation to the facility. According to the Downtown plan (page 57), areas within the SPA (within which we are located) have a 1.5 parking space maximum per 1,000 sf to avoid over-paving of Bishop’s downtown area.

However, as we understand it, since we are located both within the SPA and the MUO, we are subject to the MUO requirements of adding parking and not restricting it.

We understand the reasoning behind both requirements, but we hope to appeal to the spirit of the SPA and its desire to provide more usable structures and less paved-over areas with this project. We want to emphasize that this business would provide a major hub for our community, reinvigorating this section of the downtown-adjacent area.

Variance - Justification
20610
From what we’ve learned about the history of
this lot, others have tried to develop it in the
past, but have run into issues due to the unique
size and shape of the lot.

Its narrow width and location behind and in
between developed lots creates a difficult
situation. With no back or side access, it forces
the installation of a driveway, which will take up
almost half the width of the entire property. With
such a narrow lot, each parking space
requirement (which is in essence a 44’ deep
proposition) eats away drastically at the
property’s potential.

Unique Circumstances
Our request is multi-pronged and ideally needs
to be enacted together to be beneficial.

Part one
Allow for parking at the front of the property.

This automatically adds an additional 1,440 SF of
usable space back, and more importantly,
allows us a 50’ wide footprint that can sustain a
functional and purpose-built space. We plan to
install landscaping, seating areas, and
opportunities for art installations in the front of
the property/parking lot, which will provide a
feeling of continuity while driving down East Line
Street.

Alternative Solutions Our goal with this project is to help rejuvenate the downtown area while having as little
negative impact on surrounding properties as
possible. We believe that by having minimally
fewer parking available and by having this fully
visible from the street (as opposed to creating a
need for people to drive to the back of the lot to
look for spaces) and by providing bike storage,
we can create a space which emphasises
walking and biking to the business. This
emphasis will ideally increase foot traffic in the
area.

Furthermore, by reducing the amount of pave
over area on the property, we will help fill the
downtown space with buildings and
landscaped areas as opposed to pavement,
enhancing the area aesthetically.

Impact on Surrounding
Properties
Part two
Allow for a reduction of (2) parking spaces.

At eight spaces (as opposed to ten), we can
reduce the lost amount of space on the land
that’s reserved for parking to 3,200 SF.

This means that, in conjunction with the
driveway, the total SF of pave-over area would
be reduced to 3,200 SF (down from 6,500 sf).
32% of pave-over versus 65% of pave over (a
33% reduction in pave over).
20711
In short, this design includes five spaces (1 Standard, 3 Compact, 1 ADA) directly in front of the building, a 24’ maneuvering area, an additional three spaces (3 Standard) and a two-way entry/exit driveway at the East Line setback. A 10ft x 30ft (with an additional 3x20 north-south planter) landscaped visual privacy hedge will continue the East Line streetside frontage.

To encourage bike traffic, we will be provide (8) lockable bike spaces at the front of the building, as well as (2) interior spaces for staff bikes. Bishop code requires (4) short term spaces plus (1) long term space. We will be providing double the amount of required bike parking.

We’re requesting that two on-street spaces be considered to supplement our proposed eight spaces.

We believe our business’s parking needs will complement the surrounding businesses as we anticipate our heaviest use to be off-peak (before and after business) hours. During the bulk of the day, we anticipate eight parking spaces to be sufficient.

Proposed Solution
Our goal is to make a space that conforms to the spirit of the Downtown Mixed Use Overlay goals. Section

17.46.020 states the following as the first two goals:
a) Concentrate density on parcels that front Main Street and Line Street; b) Reduce potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts resulting from higher density development The building materials will be consistent with the Downtown Plan Guidelines.

We believe that what we are proposing will help this lot to realize this goal more fully, both by reducing the amount of pave over land, as well as creating a space which inspires walking and biking.

With these two variance requests we believe we can optimize this vacant property to fulfill a highly desirable need in the Bishop community.

Compliance with Zoning Principles
20812
Landscaping
13 In our design, the resultant parking area totals 3,580 sq ft. Our street side green space totals 360 sq ft. This yields a 10% green space to parking percentage.

A landscaped green screen composed of approved plant species (see page 14) will be installed along the perimeter of the parking area. The selected species will grow to a minimum height of 5 feet and will be maintained to ensure full visual coverage year-round. This planting buffer is designed to screen vehicles from pedestrian view and enhance the street-facing facade with natural elements.
209
Landscaping
14 Establishing a “visual wall” on the North edge of
the property (along East Line Street) is a primary
priority of our proposed landscaping.

This green wall will be planted and maintained
over time as a contingent element of this
variance, and in commitment towards
maintaining the Specific Plan's intention for the
street wall.

Multi-level visual elements (shrubs mixed with
trees) will be chosen from city approved species.

Species to consider include: rose of sharons,
dogwood shrub, spirea, multi-trunk crate murtle,
photinia shrub.

Artwork will be installed as either a wall mural,
and/or ideally as complementary to the “visual
wall” in the frontage green space.
210
Material
“Building materials to be used on buildings in the downtown, as with all other aspects of design, should be consistent with the materials identified in the overall Specific Plan Area… A brief list of the primary recommended building materials for downtown storefront construction is included as follows: Glass, Shiplap or clapboard siding, New or used face brick, Cut or carved stone, Ceramic tile, Stucco, Metal by permit.” Downtown Bishop Specific Plan pg. 67 See next slides for preliminary design considerations related to building exterior material choices. We are proposing a metal building with a modern, low slope roof, choosing colors from the DSP and incorporating “street-facing windows, entries, and frontage elements”.

Representative colors selected from the DSP “Sunset + Sage” palette, pg. 76 Design Considerations
Transparency
A minimum percentage of the total area of each ground floor facade which faces a street or public space should consist of transparent window openings. For non-residential uses, this minimum is 40% transparency. For residential uses, this minimum is 25% transparency. The greater portion of the windows should remain free from obstructions to provide a clear view into the interior. This will help enhance the pedestrian environment and encourage customers to visit businesses. Downtown Bishop Specific Plan pg. 66 See next slides for preliminary design considerations related to front facade transparency. Our ground floor transparency totals 44% transparency. (504 sq ft front ground floor with 222 sq ft of transparency = 44%) 21115
View from Driveway on East
Line Street
Building height = ~31 feet
21216
The project location showing the
adjacent variety of building types
and sizes on East Line Street.

EXISTING SITE
168 E LINE - FROM THE
NORTH
21317
214
contact
BUD MILLER (925) 451-1119
[email protected]
ERIC BISSELL (415) 847-8288
[email protected]
215

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.) This space is for County Clerk’s Filing Stamp

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF INYO
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County aforesaid. _______________________________ I am over the age of eighteen years, Proof of Publication of And not a party to or interested in the Public Notice
above-entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of the
The Inyo Register
County of Inyo
The Inyo Register has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of Inyo,
State of California, under date of
Oct. 5, 1953, Case Number 5414;
that the notice, of which the annexed
is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than non-pareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof, on the
following date, to with:

June 19th,
In the year of 2025
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated at Bishop, California, on this
19th Day of June, 2025
_____________________________
Signature
216
217
218
219
220
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan Building Design & Character 65
Guidelines
Primary building design shall take consideration of the physical context of the street and adjacent buildings as well as to their historical and cultural context. They should be compatible with existing or historical design patterns representative in the distinctly eclectic condition of Downtown Bishop.

NON-STOREFRONT BUILDINGS
Building facades should utilize the following material, color, and architectural style strategies:

Materials
Primary building materials must consider the regional, local and historical context, the natural environment, and the local culture when selecting exterior materials and components.

The following list provides a recommendation of building materials for Specific Plan construction. Other materials may be used, such as metal, but must first obtain approval through a city permit. Some materials, like cinderblock are discouraged.

Metal (Permit Only)
New or used face brick Stucco
Shiplap or clapboard siding
Cut or carved stone
221
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 66 Transparency
A minimum percentage of the total area of each ground floor facade which faces a street or public space should consist of transparent window openings. For non-residential uses, this minimum is 40% transparency. For residential uses, this minimum is 25% transparency. The greater portion of the windows should remain free from obstructions to provide a clear view into the interior. This will help enhance the pedestrian environment and encourage customers to visit businesses.

Building Orientation
New buildings should be oriented to define adjacent public streets with street-facing windows, entries, and frontage elements. Buildings should also provide rear entrances and street access along the alley when present.

Top Non-residential: 40% minimum
Bottom Residential: 25% minimum
Building entrance designed and oriented to primary adjacent street 222
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 67 STOREFRONT BUILDINGS
There are a variety of design elements that contribute
to a storefront building and in turn provide an enhanced experience for pedestrians. Building facades should utilize the following material, color, and architectural style strategies:

Materials
Building materials to be used on buildings in the downtown, as with all other aspects of design, should be consistent with the materials identified in the overall Specific Plan Area. Where new additions to buildings occur, the materials used should be compatible with existing buildings and desired architectural styles. A brief list of the primary recommended building materials for downtown storefront construction is included as follows: • Glass • Shiplap or clapboard siding • New or used face brick • Cut or carved stone • Ceramic tile • Stucco • Metal by permit
Ceramic tile use in Marfa, TX
223
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 68 Transparency
There should be a difference between upper story openings such as windows and doors and street level (storefront) openings. There should be a greater transparent or glazed open area at the storefront level to support pedestrian activity.

Any obstructions in the window should still allow for a clear view into the building.

Whenever a building is proposed that has two adjacent
neighboring structures, attempt to maintain the characteristic proportion and spacing of window and door openings. For non-residential uses, storefront window should be a minimum 40% transparent.

Building Orientation
The front of the building wall should be oriented parallel to the street. Buildings located at corners should have a pedestrian plaza, outdoor seating, or other architectural feature setback from the intersection. The minimum corner setback should be 10 feet from the property line.

Major pedestrian access for all buildings should be oriented to the primary street upon which it is located, secondary rear pedestrian entries are encouraged as well. Providing rear pedestrian entrances via alleys and parking lots is encouraged, especially if it fronts a prominent active alley (i.e. Whitney Alley).

Alleys in Bishop are an asset which allow pedestrians to access buildings while avoiding busy Main Street and Line Street.

Ground floor transparency that has good visibility for passersby in Bisbee, AZ 224
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 69 Improvements to rear facades should encourage pedestrians to use them, and should include signs, landscaping, awnings and pedestrian walkways (See Rear Entrances section on page 74 for reference).

Storefronts should be designed to orient to the primary major street frontage. While alley, side, or rear entries may be desirable, the predominant, major building entry should be oriented toward Main Street, Line Street and other major streets as determined by the city.

Building Form, Mass, And Scale
The building form, mass, and scale are important in
maintaining the quality of the built environment and in protecting the scenic views of the natural environment
of Bishop. New construction should be compatible with
surrounding buildings in terms of mass, scale, and height. • New multi-story buildings and remodels may be taller than adjacent structures (as permitted within the MUO Mixeduse Overlay). • Although building heights will vary, generally, taller buildings are encouraged in the Mixed-use Overlay Downtown District to create a stronger presence on the street and to frame the scenic views.
• Keep the scale of building elements, especially at the ground level, intimate and close to human scale.
• Reduce building mass on structures with multiple
stories by “stepping back” upper stories, which can provide for balconies and outdoor dining spaces (see Outdoor
Dining section).
• Consider the relationship of height-to-width proportions of existing facades.
• Roofs should be flat; however, decorative pediments may be sloped and extend above the roofline.
◦ Roof lines of adjacent buildings shall be considered to avoid clashes in scale, style, and materials.
◦ Mansard roofs and “radical” roof pitches that are overly prominent or out-of-character are not permitted.
225
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 70 bulkhead heights for new construction should be 30
inches. Bulkheads should be finished with a material
complementary to the building’s design and surroundings, and not exposed concrete. By limiting the bulkhead
height, the visibility of the storefront display and retail interior is maximized.

Windows
The windows of storefronts should vary in size and shape, depending on the type of business, as well as the architectural style of the building. Specific design criteria related to window treatments include the following:
• Use clear glass on the first floor.
• Storefront windows should be as large as possible,
but no closer than 6 inches to the ground. Maximum
Window frame material different from building material in Silver City, NM 226
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 71 Entrances
Storefront entries can consist of any projecting elements, and any landscape, hardscape, walls and fences between the building facade and the back of the sidewalk. This provides a transition between the public environment of the street and the semi-private and private entrances of the building.

Small forecourts, recesses, and nooks are encouraged around entries in new and remodeled construction. The dimensions of these should be proportional to the overall facade with a maximum depth of 10 feet.

To ensure proper access all entrances must be a minimum of 4 feet apart.

Recessed building entrance in Bishop, CA
227
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 72 Awnings
Awnings play a significant role in encouraging pedestrian traffic throughout the year. Awnings protect a pedestrian on the sidewalk from extremes of sun and weather, and
also contribute accent color, pattern, and signage to the streetscape and should be considered along Main Street and Line Street. The following guidelines should be consulted when constructing or rehabilitating structures located within Downtown Bishop: • Minimum height of awnings and canopies shall be 8 feet as measured from the bottom of the awning to the sidewalk
and shall not extend outwardly more than 6 feet from the face of the structure.
• Awnings shall be weather-treated canvas over steel frames.

New aluminum awnings or canopies are not permitted.
• Awnings shall have frames of noncombustible material with flame resistant fabrics.
• The highest point of a first-floor awning shall not exceed the midpoint of space created between the second story
window sill (or parapet for a single story building) and the top of the first floor storefront.
• Roll up security screens must be located behind
storefront window.
• Awnings shall be well maintained, washed regularly, and replaced when faded or torn.

Top Awnings variations along Main Ave in Durango, CO
Bottom Awning in Flagstaff, AZ
228
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan Lighting 73
Exterior lights that are part of a building facade shall provide adequate lighting levels and be designed to satisfy functional needs and complement the architectural style of the building.

Storefronts with a deep recessed entrance shall install a light into the ceiling of this area to illuminate building entrances.

Rear security lighting shall be provided with a minimum 1.5 foot candles per square foot. The level of lighting shall be measured at ground level and should not adversely impact neighboring residences.

Lighting should follow the Joint International Dark-Sky Association & Illuminating Engineering Society, Model Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (MLO) which the city intends to adopt in 2022.

For further lighting guidance see Figure 13, Public Realm Design Matrix.

Canopies
A canopy is usually permanently affixed to the building, flat, and made out of solid materials versus canvas or vinyl. The design criteria for canopies pertains to awnings as well. Refer to the awnings section for design criteria, for all other canopy criteria they are as follows:
• Canopies shall reflect the character of the building, particularly in material and color selection.
• Canopies are permitted to shelter openings at the bottom floor only.

Canopies in Bridgeport, CA
229
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 74 Rear Entrances
Due to the block configurations and active alley use within Downtown Bishop, providing rear entrance access is critical.

The rear entrance should respond to the same requirements as the storefront, typically at a reduced scale. These
requirements include identification signage and a safe and inviting entry. In addition, it must also meet the functional service needs of the business.

The design of a rear entrance should be appropriate to its surroundings. Rear entrance design should be inviting and incorporate architectural elements, details, and design from the front facade. The design of the entrance can be modestly scaled or enhanced utilizing all of the elements from the Storefront Building Section. Specific design criteria related to rear entrances includes the following: • Signs should be scaled to fit the visual character of the rear entrance area.
• The rear entry should be similar to the front entry. • All utility and mechanical equipment should be screened from view and integrated into the building’s architecture. • Delineated pedestrian walkways are encouraged. • Setbacks should accommodate outdoor dining and small plazas while still supporting the functional needs of the business.

Rear entrance and outdoor seating for business in Bishop, CA 230
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan Facade & Materials Color 75
The number of materials, colors, and combinations is
unlimited, and the appropriateness of any given material, color, or combination for a particular building depends on a number of factors including architectural style and details, building material, building size, and building context. A visually balanced composition of materials and color is encouraged. • Consider exterior colors that complement the architectural style or theme of a building.
• Vary color to provide architectural interest; at least one accent color is required, do not exceed what is required for contrast and accent of architectural features.
• Colors should be durable and weather-resistant; stain and flat paints are encouraged.
• Natural materials outside of the color palettes are permitted but should be comparable in color.
• Where appropriate, building colors should reflect the basic colors of the architectural style of the building; color palettes based on historical research are encouraged.
• The following pages showcase 3 color palettes reflective of Bishop’s natural and built environment.
231
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 76 Sunset + Sage
Inspired by the muted reds, oranges, pinks, and blue-greens of existing buildings and the surrounding hills and mountains.

CMYK: 32/89/93/42
RGB: 117/39/26
HEX#: 75271a
CMYK: 24/73/72/11
RGB: 176/90/74
HEX#: b05a4a
CMYK: 0/44/28/0
RGB: 247/163/158
HEX#: f7a39e
CMYK: 0/26/26/0
RGB: 251/198/177
HEX#: fbc6b1
CMYK: 0/10/16/0
RGB: 254/230/210
HEX#: fee6d2
CMYK: 95/67/54/51
RGB: 2/51/64
HEX#: 023340
CMYK: 95/62/36/17
RGB: 10/85/116
HEX#: 0a5574
CMYK: 75/46/52/21
RGB: 68/102/103
HEX#: 446667
CMYK: 53/24/28/0
RGB: 127/166/174
HEX#: 7fa6ae
CMYK: 35/18/13/0
RGB: 166/187/203
HEX#: a6bbcb
232
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 77 233
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 78 Sand + Stone
A muted palette in a balance of warm and cool earth tones, designed to harmonize with the landscape and the existing architectural vernacular.

CMYK: 51/63/63/39
RGB: 96/73/67
HEX#: 604943
CMYK: 50/48/47/11
RGB: 128/118/116
HEX#: 807674
CMYK: 16/37/63/0
RGB: 214/164/111
HEX#: d6a46f
CMYK: 9/12/45/0
RGB: 233/214/155
HEX#: e9d69b
CMYK: 6/7/7/0
RGB: 236/231/228
HEX#: ece7e4
CMYK: 95/67/54/51
RGB: 2/51/64
HEX#: 023340
CMYK: 95/62/36/17
RGB: 10/85/116
HEX#: 0a5574
CMYK: 44/26/17/0
RGB: 147/169/189
HEX#: 93a9bd
CMYK: 16/7/4/0
RGB: 211/222/232
HEX#: d3dee8
CMYK: 14/10/7/0
RGB: 216/218/224
HEX#: d8dae0
234
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 79 235
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 80 Warm + Bright
A bolder palette that encompasses a wider selection of
saturated colors, inspired by local art and architecture, and the striking colors of that the desert can take on and reflect.

CMYK: 95/67/54/51
RGB: 2/51/64
HEX#: 023340
CMYK: 88/49/72/54
RGB: 10/63/52
HEX#: 0a3f34
CMYK: 75/46/52/22
RGB: 68/102/103
HEX#: 446667
CMYK: 39/20/84/1
RGB: 165/174/83
HEX#: a5ae53
CMYK: 35/18/13/0
RGB: 166/187/203
HEX#: a6bbcb
CMYK: 51/73/65/60
RGB: 72/43/43
HEX#: 482b2b
CMYK: 32/89/93/42
RGB: 117/39/26
HEX#: 75271a
CMYK: 23/95/99/16
RGB: 168/44/35
HEX#: a82c23
CMYK: 21/76/86/10
RGB: 183/86/55
HEX#: b75637
CMYK: 11/38/100/0
RGB: 226/163/37
HEX#: e2a325
236
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 81 237
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 82 Architectural Style Guidelines
The Architectural Design Guidelines in this section are intended to guide property owners and developers in the design of buildings that reflect Bishop’s history, culture, and community preferences. These guidelines are not designed to be prescriptive standards but examples of characteristics of architectural styles of buildings found in Bishop, the Sierra Nevada Mountain Region, and similar western towns. The
following Architectural Design Guidelines are appropriate anywhere within the Specific Plan Area and apply to all parcels.

As there are a variety of architectural styles it is important to consider the rooflines for all buildings and styles. In general, rooflines should be:
• Consistent with their surroundings, adjacent buildings shall be considered to avoid clashes in scale, style, and materials. • Flat, gable, or hipped.
• Decorative cornices are allowed but tall or ornate roofs are out of character within the SPA.
• Decorative parapets to hide rooftop mechanical
equipment encouraged.
• A building may not exceed the area’s maximum building height but decorative pediments may extend beyond the
max roofline height.

VICTORIAN (1880s-1910s)
Victorian Style reflects the change of construction advances in the mid 1800’s highlighted in extravagant detailing and complex volumes. Victorian-era architecture typically features multi-colored or multi-textured walls, steeply pitched roofs, and asymmetrical facades. Key characteristics of this style usually include:
• Gable or hipped roof
• Porch
• Brick or wood walls
• Window and door articulation with material changes
Victorian single family home in Bishop, CA
238
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan FLAT ROOF COMMERCIAL (1830s-1930s) 83
Flat Roof Commercial Style buildings are decorated
rectangular masonry boxes in form, one-story buildings are always commercial in use, while multi-story buildings are mixed-use with commercial ground floors. Multi-story facades are typically divided into base, body and top with the ground floor taller than the upper floor. Key characteristics of this style usually include:
• Brick, stone or metal street facades
• Flat roof with parapet
• Glass storefronts that extend along the ground level
• Recessed entries
• Bay windows
AMERICAN CRAFTSMAN (1890s-1930s)
Craftsman Style buildings are defined by large gabled roofs, attic spaces with dormer windows, and street-friendly
porches. The massing is low. Windows and doors are vertical in proportion and are trimmed in wood. Roofs are shallow in slope with overhangs rafters. Porch and balcony roofs are typically supported by timber piers. Key characteristics of this style usually include:
• Roofs with gables facing street, large overhangs,
hipped roofs
• Brick, stone, stucco, or shingle
• Side porches and upper level balconies
• Building base and porch column and railings are detailed in wood, stone, or brick
American Craftsman single family home in Bishop, CA Flat Roof Commercial buildings along Main Street in Bishop, CA 239
| Downtown Bishop Specific Plan & Mixed Use Overlay | Downtown Bishop Specific Plan 84 Top Art Moderne building along Main Street in Bishop, CA Bottom Art Moderne building in Bishop, CA
ART MODERNE ‘STREAMLINE MODERNE’
(1930s-1960s)
Streamline Moderne is an architectural style which
represents the last phase of Art Deco. Buildings of the Art Moderne style were designed to emphasize simple geometry, incorporating curving forms, long horizontal lines and
occasional nautical elements. Art Moderne buildings were typically designed in low, horizontal shapes. Key characteristics of this style usually include: • Low, horizontal and asymmetrical • Flat roofs with no eaves • Rounded corners • Smooth, white walls • Wraparound, porthole and glass block windows • Stainless steel detailing 240