Planning Commission approves three zoning modifications for Bakersfield public-safety radio towers amid neighborhood concerns

The Bakersfield Planning Commission on Feb. 19 approved zoning modifications for three proposed public-safety radio towers that are part of a countywide radio-network upgrade, voting to allow taller lattice towers and reduced setbacks at the AgWater site (1000 Buena Vista Road), Panorama Drive (4200 Panorama Drive) and the Sports Village overflow lot (9001 Ash Road).

City staff and project consultants told the commission the current radio system is roughly 30 years old, parts are obsolete and the joint county–city upgrade, led by Motorola with Federal Engineering as the project manager, will replace multiple systems with a six-site city network tied into roughly 60 county sites. "This tower and system will strengthen the radio coverage, improve system reliability, and ensure that we can communicate effectively during incidents and large scale emergencies," Bakersfield Fire Chief Kevin Albertson said in support of the project.

Why it matters: City and county officials said the network must meet public-safety-grade reliability and microwave connectivity constraints that require taller antennas and specific site geometry. Federal Engineering consultant Rajit Javer explained microwave path and Fresnel-zone requirements and said the antenna at one site must sit "at about a 150 feet elevation" to meet the project's 5‑nines link-availability target (99.999% uptime). Project materials and speakers described a network designed for long-term reliability and redundancy.

What was approved: The commission approved three separate zoning modifications to allow towers exceeding municipal height limits and in some cases closer to residential property lines than the zoning code permits. Vice Chair Biddle moved to approve item 6a (the AgWater/Buena Vista site), Commissioner Martin seconded and the motion passed; the commission took separate, similar votes to approve items 6b (Panorama Drive) and 6c (Ash Road). Staff noted Commissioners Kaur and Neal were absent for the roll calls on these items. The staff record also says the project team commissioned an electromagnetic energy (EME) study and that copies of the report are available.

Public concerns and responses: Several residents who live near the AgWater site urged the commission to find an alternative location. Resident Beau Koenig said neighborhood notice was recent, that the tower "is going to put a nuisance on our property" and that an enlarged lattice tower next to an elementary school and backyards raises safety and health worries; he told the commissioners he was unsettled because "the jury's not out" on long-term effects. In rebuttal, Mark Mays of Federal Engineering said the team had the EME study performed and that the planned equipment operates "well below that threshold." Mays and other presenters also emphasized that an existing tower occupies the site now and that the replacement is intended for public-safety communications rather than commercial cellular use.

Alternatives and siting constraints: Commissioners asked whether nearby parks or other city-owned parcels were evaluated as alternatives. Federal Engineering and staff responded that the network design and microwave line‑of‑sight requirements limited siting options, that the candidate sites were chosen to provide the required connectivity and redundancy, and that moving a site even a short distance can break microwave links. Commissioners acknowledged neighborhood impacts but repeatedly framed the decision around balancing local effects with countywide emergency‑communication reliability.

Technical and operational details: Speakers provided several technical clarifications in the hearing: the city portion reduces from 10 existing towers to six sites; the county will operate about 60 sites including those six; microwave links and a backhaul network connect sites; project-wide reliability targets were described as 5 nines (99.999% availability for critical links) and coverage footprint goals were described as about 95% of the service area at a 95% reliability standard. The applicant said EME exposure at the proposed sites is well below FCC limits; the proposed AgWater tower height was listed as 150 feet (replacing an 80-foot tower), the Panorama tower as about 195 feet, and the Ash Road tower is sited in park overflow parking and will be fenced with locked access. Project cost figures were cited in testimony with at least two different values referenced during the meeting (a countywide figure cited as $177,000,000 and another reference to $117,000,000).

Next steps and appeals: Staff read the appeal procedure on the record: any planning commission decision may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days by filing a written request with the city clerk stating the reasons and relation to the project; a filing fee may apply. Several commissioners asked staff to pass along neighborhood concerns and to consider added site security or fencing where appropriate.

The Planning Commission closed the three hearings and adjourned at 7:06 p.m.