The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/15/96 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM November 15, 1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO~/~'I~ / //.J.-" / FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITYMANAGER y/ / SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION ' / 1. Last week, a staff member attended a legislation implementation briefing sponsored by the League of California Cities. There were a number of topics, with much discussion centered on Proposition 218. A summary of that discussion and the meeting handout is attached. We are evaluating the impact of218 on our operations and will report back to you with more detail at a later date. 2. Enclosed is the LEA's October status report on regulated projects within the City of Bakersfield. 3. Stafffrom Public Works will be meeting with the architect next week to discuss the sight line issue on the newly remodeled restrooms outside the Council Chambers. We will be discussing alternatives to correct the problem. 4. Responses to Council referrals are attached, as follows: · request for a five year history of the City's personnel complement as authorized by the budget; · update on the crossing guard situation at Seibert School; · update on the stop sign at Eisler and Auburn; · update on the ingress/egress problem at Rosewood Gardens. 5. The City Clerk has begun receiving a one-year subscription to the "Nation's Cities Weekly," the official publication of the National League of Cities association. This weekly newsletter will be placed in the Council office for you to peruse at your leisure. 6. We continue to meet with the Fox and the Symphony periodically about joint ventures. The Symphony is scheduling a second rehearsal there in a few months to further test its suitability. Honorable Mayor and City Council November 15, 1996 Page 2 7. The installation ceremony for newly-elected Councilmembers and the Mayor will be held, beginning at 5:15 pm on December 4, 1996, prior to the Council meeting. Councilmembers are asked to provide the City Manager's office with a list of the guests they plan to invite, so that we may send them a special invitation. The list should be received not later than November 25th, so that we will have enough time (in between the Thanksgiving holiday) for the invitations to arrive. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, Acting City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst B A_K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM November 13, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Ill ~~ SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 218 INFORMATION FROM LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTATION BRIEFING The Legislation Implementation Briefing in San Francisco last Friday was very interesting from a number of standpoints. Considerable discussion, as you can imagine, centered around Proposition 218. This memo recapitulates part of that discussion. Other topics will be addressed under separate cover. Natalie West, Esq., McDonough, Holland and Allen, spoke on the implementation of Proposition 218 and tactics cities could take to deal with the issues it raises. Her handout is attached. Depending on city needs, situations and conditions, not all cities should follow the same course of action. She stressed that cities should consult their legal counsel to help in risk assessment for courses of action chosen. Some of the basic tenets of the Proposition include: · All California cities are included (charter and general law). · If a city has adopted, extended or increased a tax since January 1, 1995, without a vote, it must put it on a ballot for approval by November 3, 1998 (a regular election at which members of council are elected). · Assessments to'finance sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control are generally not affected unless the amounts change. Bonded indebtedness is probably not affected. · If an assessment district was approved by the voters or by petition of all property owners, it is not affected unless amounts change. · If a city has assessments, especially through landscaping and lighting districts for park maintenance or other maintenance purposes which were not put on the ballot and approved by election, it may have a problem. · Options could include doing nothing, putting the assessment district on the ballot Alan Tandy, City Manager Page 2 Proposition 218 Information November 13, 1996 for an election prior to July 1, 1997 for a majority vote, or conduct a mail ballot election of the property owners as set forth in Proposition 218. Legal counsel should be consulted regarding the "risk" factors involved in each of these or other options to be pursued. · Property-related fees (PRFs) are fees imposed upon a parcel or a person as an incident of property ownership. This definition is not clear and may require legislative clarification. · Fees for sewer, water or refuse collection are property related but generally require no action until the fees are increased. · Fees which are clearly not considered property related are development impact fees and fees for the provision of electrical or gas service. · Options for dealing with fee issues include doing nothing (a stronger option here if amounts are not changed), changing PRFs to non-PRFs (not considered to be an incident of property ownership), put the fee on the ballot for an election prior to July 1, 1997, change the fee to a non-property tax and put it on the ballot for a majority vote, and give written notice to each property owner as set forth in Proposition 218. Legal counsel should be consulted regarding the "risk" factors involved in each of these or other options to be pursued. Proposition 218 procedures must be followed for future taxes, fees and assessments. Additionally, all local taxes, assessments, fees and charges are subject to referendum. Fees imposed for general governmental services, including police, fire, ambulance or library services are prohibited. Areas of concern brought out in discussion included: Folding newly developing areas into existing maintenance districts. Protests need to be on ballots which need to be standardized. General feeling that Mello-Rous process is safe. Wastewater treatment plant fees (NPDES); do they meet the requirements of 6.B? Development impact fees are not property related and are therefore not subject to the measure (a non-PRF). Can PRFs be changed to non-PRFs or to a tax? Inconsistencies between sections within Proposition 218. There doesn't appear to be one "right" approach for everyone. Each city needs to assess the amount of "risk" to which it will be exposed in any course of action. Alan Tandy, City Manager Page 3 Proposition 218 Information - November 13, 1996 The League will be sponsoring several discussions on Proposition 218, its immediate and long-term impacts upon cities, how to deal with the various issues it raises, and steps necessary to comply with its provisions. I believe you may have already received notification of some of these. P:\LEGIS~vl 1113962.WPD Attachment IMPLEMENTATION OF PROP 218 HOW DOES PROP 218 AFFECT EXISTING TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND FEES? (Or, what do Cities do now?) Natalie E. West, Esq. McDonough, Holland and Allen League of California Cities Legislative Implementation Briefing November 8, 1996 Burlingame, California * All cities are included, both Charter Cities and General Law cities. TAXES (key date: November 3, 1998) IS YOUR CITY AFFECTED? * Have you adopted, extended or increased a tax since January 1, 1995, without a vote? WHAT DO YOU DO? .... ut the tax on the ballot for approval by November 3, 1998. ~ * The tax election must be a regular election at which members of the council are elected. (March 4, June 3, November 4, 1997; April 14, June 2, November 3, 1998.) * If you need a vote, do you need a majority vote or a 2/3 vote? Two thirds vote required for: 1. Any tax imposed for a specific purpose, even if it is put in the general fund; and 2. Any tax imposed on any parcel of property. The views expressed in this paper 'and in the presentation are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views of McDonough, Holland and Allen ASSESSMENTS (key date: July 1, 1997) IS YOUR CITY AFFECTED? - Some assessments are OK * Do you have assessments to finance sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control? If so, the district is not affected unless the amounts change. (Includes operation and maintenance as well as construction.) * Were bonds sold? If so, the district is probably not affected. * Was the assessment district approved by the voters or by petition of all property owners? If so, the district is not affected unless amounts change. * Do you have other assessments especially landscaping and lighting districts for park maintenance or other maintenance purposes? If so, was the district put on the ballot and approved at this election or before? IF NOT, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. WHAT DO YOU DO? The answer is not clear. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? 1. Do nothing. It can be argued that existing assessments can remain in place as long as the amounts are not changed. 2. Put the assessment District on the ballot for an election prior to July 1, 1997, for a majority vote. Election dates - March 4, 1997 (measures to County by December 6, 1996) and June 3, 1997 (measures need to be transmitted to County by March 7.) 3. Conduct a mail ballot election of the property owners as set forth in Proposition 218. (a.) Send written notice & ballot (b.) Conduct a public hearing not less than 45 days after mailing. (c.) Tabulate ballots. If ballots in opposition exceed ballots in favor, the measure is defeated. 2 11/8/96 FEES (key date: July 1, 1997) IS YOUR CITY AFFECTED? * Do you have Property Related Fees? What are Property related fees? Fees imposed upon a parcel or a person as an incident of property ownership. Note: This definition is not clear and may require legislative clarification. Some fees are not Property Related Fees ("PRFs") * Development impact fees are not PRFs. * Fees for the provision of electrical or gas service are not PRFs. WHAT DO YOU DO if you have Property Related Fees? * Is it a fee for sewer, water or refuse collection? These are apparently "Property Related Fees" but .no action is required until the fees are increased. * If it is some other property related fee, what should you do? The answer is not clear. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? 1. Do nothing. Existing fees that meet the substantive requirements of Prop 218 can remain in place as long as the amounts are not changed. 2. Change the property related fee to a non-PRF. Amend the fee so that it is not imposed as an incident of property ownership. 3. Put the fee on the ballot for an election prior to July 1, 1997. Fees require a noticed public hearing & 2/3 vote of the electorate. 4. Change the fee to a non property TAX and put it on the ballot for a majority vote. 5. Give written notice to each property owner as set forth in Proposition 218. (a.) Give written notice to all property owners. (b.) Conduct a public hearing not less than 45 days after mailing. (c.) Tabulate written protests. If written protests against the fee are submitted by a majority of the owners, the fee cannot be imposed. 3 11/8/96 THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS All local taxes, assessment, fees and charges are subject to referendum. Fees imposed for general governmental services, including police, fire, ambulance or library services are prohibited. Assessments: It is unclear whether the definition of "special benefit" has been changed from its traditional meaning. SUMMARY 1. Current revenues: determine your exposure. (a.) Place taxes on the ballot. (b.) Determine what, if any, action to take regarding assessments. (c.) Determine what, if any action to take regarding fees. 2. Inform LOCC of any needed legislative clarification. 3. Follow procedures in Prop 218 for future taxes, fees & assessments. 4 11/8/96 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Rani Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: November 12, 1996 SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION Attached for your information is a copy o£the Activity Stares Report £rom the County Environmental Health Services Department describing the status of the Local Enforcement Agency's (LEA) regulated projects within the City of Bakersfield. LEA2.MEM Attachment ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY STEVE McCALLEY, R.E.H.S., Director DA VID PRICEIII, RMA DIRECTOR 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 ~ Engineering & Survey Services Department BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Q Environmental Health Services Department Phone: (805) 862-8700 Planning Department FAX: (805) 862-8701 Roads Department- November 8, 1996 Raul Rojas, Public Works Director CITY OF BAKERSFIELD .1501 Truxmn Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 SUBJECT: Activity Stares Matrix Dear Mr. Rojas: Enclosed is the October Matrix describing the stares of the Local Enforcement Agency's (LEA) regulated projects within the City of Bakersfield. McCalley,. Dire~ SMc:MTG:jg cc: File i OV 1 996 ENGINEF. RiNG DEpT. PROGRESS OF PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF BAKERSF, IELD ~ Rosedale Burn Dump Closure of burn dump for The Final Human Health Waste Management is Closure postclosure land use as Risk Assessment (HHRA) continuing to met with agricultural, indicates no increased Martin/Macintosh, Castle SWIS #:* recreation, commercial risk of cancer to off and Cook, the Kern High 15-CR-0026 or industrial, site receptors. There School District, and the is a potential increase North of the River LEA WO #:** of cancer to Recreation District to 216 construction workers ~ discuss post closure directly exposed to ash? land uses. Waste Management met ! Remediation of site is with North of the River~, dependant upon future Recreation District Nov~. land use. 5, 1996, to discuss end uses. A meeting with all parties will be held Nov. 8, 1996 to f~nal~ze end use discussions. Greenfield Burn Investigate the The site is listed as a The LEA will research Dump #2 existence of a burn dump burn dump on the LEA ~ the history of the site at the south east corner inventory of solid waste to determine if SWIS #: of Ash Road and Taft sites, compelling evidence [5-CR-0039 Highway exists to warrant The site is inspected '. further investigation. LEA WO# quarterly by the LEA. I 180 The site is currently !i irrigated and used for crops. Recent information i indicates the site may not have been a burn dump. Bakersfield Immediate Goal: Remediation of the burn Continue remediation Sanitary Remediation of burn dump is under the under the ERAP of the Landfill/Burn Dump material to oversight of the burn ash. Closure. reduce/eliminate the Department of Toxics, health risks associated ERAP. The LEA and CIWMB are SWIS #: with burn ash'. preparing responses to 15-AA-0044 The City requested Kevin Barnes' Questions. Reduction of the further clarification LEA WO #: landfill/methane gas at LEA comments on Oct. 18,~ The LEA has informed 102 and 319 the facility boundary to 1996. EHSD responded oh Kleinfelder that less than 5% of the LEL. Oct. 30, 1996. The C~ty notification must be also received commentsi submitted to the LEA Long Term Goal: on the gas report from performing prior to Closure of the sanitary CIWMB on Oct. 22, 1996.! changes to the gas landfill and burn dump These comments raise I collection system. in compliance with Title additional issues on 14, CCR. probe construction and location . On Oct. 28,i 1996, Kevin Barnes wrote to CIWMB and the LEA voicing concerns over lack of coordination. Closure of the landfill will not proceed until the burn dump issues have been resolved. City of Concurrence and issuance The facility is The facility will be Bakersfield of a Standardized inspected monthly to inspected every month to Greenwaste Composting Permit. determine compliance determine compliance Facility with State Minimum with State Minimum Standards, Title 14, Standards, Title 14, SWIS #: CCR. CCR. 15-AA-0311 LEA WO #: 412 3 China Grade Burn Immediate Goal: The site has been ~ The most viable option Dump/Landfill Remediation of burn approved as a CIWMB for remediation of the Closure material within landfill Board Managed Clean Up east slope is to realign boundaries, to under AB 2136 funding o] the access road 45 feet SWIS #: reduce/eliminate the Sept. 23, 1996. The east, then regrade the 15-AA-0048 health risks associated estimated cost is slope. Burn dump areas with burn ash. $495,000. CIWMB has 1 & 2 will be regraded, LEA WO #: $415,000 in funds drainage installed and 108 Long Term Goal: available, fencing installed. Closure of the sanitary landfill and burn dump On Nov. 5, 1996, Waste A meeting with Waste in compliance with Title Management and EHSD ~ Management, CIWMB, EHSD 14, CCR. ' staff meet with CIWMB t and the contractors will discuss work plans for be held between Nov. 14 Area 1 (realignment of and 18 to finalize work road and remediation of for Area 1. burn material adjacent to road). Plans at 70% Tentative remediation complete will be date is December 31, forwarded to Waste 1996. Management and EHSD by Nov. 12. November 7, 1996 * SWIS = Solid Waste Information System number issued by. the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). ** LEA WO# = Local Enforcement Agency Work Order number used by EHSD. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: November 12~ 1996 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~ Subject: Council Chambers Toilet Room Remodel Public Works Department staff have contacted the architect regarding the sight line issue on the above referenced project. Alternates for addressing this problem are currently being investigated. We anticipate meeting with the architect within the next week to discuss those alternates. cc: Jack LaRochelle Arnold Ramming G:~PROJECTS~d~NOLD\CITY HALL.ADA\FOYER\TANDY.N 12 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM November 14, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinson~,t~s~sistant City Manager SUBJECT: 5-Year Personnel History Per the Request of Councilmember Carson attached is a five year history of the City's personnel complement authorized by the budget. It is important to note that during this time there have been several reorganizations and some restructuring of positions within departments which affect how and where the numbers appear. CITY PERSONNEL COMPLEMENT - 5 YEAR HISTORY Mayor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 City Council 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Legislative 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 City Manager 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.33 7.28 City Clerk 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Human Resources 9.33 9.33 8.33 7.33 8.33 Management Information Services 3.34 3.34 4.34 4.34 5.34 Risk Management 10.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 Executive 35.95 33.95 33,95 32,00 34,95 Administration* 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 28.00 Accounting and Reporting 14.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 0.00 Treasury 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Purchasing 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Financial Services 29,00 29,00 27,00 26,00 28,00 Legal Counsel 17.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 City Attorney 17,00 16.00 16,00 16,00 16,00 Administration 50.00 15.00 15.00 58.00 56.00 Operations 247.00 230.00 223.00 215.00 216.00 Investigations 69.00 62.00 61.00 60.00 62.00 Support Services** 0.00 46.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 Police Services 366,0,,0 353.00 345,00 333,00 334,00 Administration 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 18.00 Safety Control 14.00 12.00 13.00 13.00 16.00 Fire Suppression 171.00 171.00 165.00 166.00 170.00 Fire Services 202,00 200.00 195.00 196.00 204,00 Administration*** 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Engineering Services 53.50 53.52 52.52 50.52 52.55 General Services 52.00 51.25 50.25 49.23 53.35 Streets 55.00 55.44 52.42 55.33 56.25 Equipment 46.00 46.25 46.25 46.30 49.30 Wastewater 28.00 27.54 27.56 27.56 27.55 Solid Waste 49.50 48.00 53.00 58.33 59.34 Public Works 287,00 282.00 282.00 287,27 298.34 Agricultural Water 18.45 18.45 18.45 16.44 18.13 Domestic Water 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.23 2.53 Water Resources 21.00 21.00 21.00 18.67 20.66 Convention Center 19.66 17.66 17.66 17.67 19.66 Parks 63.67 61.67 59.67 58.67 62.68 Recreati on 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.66 Community Services 93.00 89.00 87.00 86.01 92.00 Planning 19,00 19.00 19.50 19.50 20.50 Building 36.00 34.00 31.50 30.50 32.50 Development Services 55.00 53.00 51.00 50.00 53.00 Community Development 10.60 10.60 9.60 8.60 9.60 Economic Development 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 7.45 Economic/Community Development 17.05 17.05 16.05 15.05 17.05 TOTAL BY DEPARTMENT 1124.00 1095.00 1075.00 1061.00 1099.00 * Historical information for Finance does not include information by division prior to FY 93-94. ** The Police Department has reorganized its support services function, twice over the past five years. *** The Public Works Department started a new administrative division in FY 96-97. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ~ Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: November 15, 1996 SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO COUNCIL REFERRALS Attached are our Traffic Engineer's responses to the following Council referrals: CROSSING GUARD/SIEBERT SCHOOL City Council Referral Record #WF0012195 / 001 Update on the crossing guard situation at Siebert School as requested by Councilmember Mark Salvaggio. (Ward 7). STOP SIGN/EISSLER & AUBURN City Council Referral Record # WFO012196 / 001 Update regarding a Stop Sign at Eissler and Auburn as requested by Councilmember Pat Smith. (Ward 3) INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM/ROSEWOOD City Council Referral Record # WF0012202 / 001 Update regarding the Rosewood Gardens ingress/egress problem on New Stine Road as requested by Councilmember Randy Rowles. (Ward 5) REF12195; REF12196; REFI2202 Attachments BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: November 13, 1996 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN b WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. WF0012195/001, CROSSING GUARD AT SEIBERT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. COUNCIL REFERRAL/REQUEST: "SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE CROSSING GUARD SITUATION AT SEIBERT SCHOOL." STAFF RESPONSE: As requested by the school administration, a crossing guard study and school traffic analysis was completed by Traffic Engineering staff. The crossing study showed that the warrant was far from being met. This does not mean that problems in the area did not exist. While more than adequate gaps in traffic were available for Students to cross the street safely, traffic problems caused by the parents were very evident. Parents were stopping in "no stopping or parking" zones, dropping off students, blocking the crosswalk with vehicles and double parking blocking the street itself. Existing rtraffic control signs and markings are appropriate and very visible to the drivers performing the illegal actions. In the Traffic Engineer's letter back to Principal Nellis Johnson the problems caused by parents were noted. Principal Johnson was advised to inform all.the parents of the safety violations, the dangerous situation in which they were placing their children and she was also informed that the Police Department would be strictly enforcing the law and traffic signs at the school. The Police Department was notified of the safety problem requiring traffic enforcement. With the traffic laws and signs enforced and parents obeying the safety restrictions, no additional controls are needed. cc: Traffic Engineering File - Seibert School file, council referrals slw: P:\DATA\WP\1996\wf012195.ref City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0012195 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 11/08/96 REQUEST DATE: 11/06/96 SCHEDULE DATES. CREW: STAR'r: ii/06/96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 11/18/96 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FRoM:FACILITY NODES FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCIL REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: CROSSING GUARD/SIEBERT SCHOOL REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC*** SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE CROSSING GUARD SITUATION AT SIEBERT SCHOOL. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: CROSSING GUARD/SIEBERT SCHOOL Category: PUBLIC WORKS TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: November 13, 1996 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM' STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. WF0012196/001, STOP SIGN AT AUBURN AND ElSSLER (WARD3) COUNCIL REFERRAL/REQUEST: "SMITH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE HER WITH AN UPDATE REGARDING A STOP SIGN AT EISSLER AND AUBURN." STAFF RESPONSE: The four-way stop was installed at the intersection of Auburn and Eissler during the last week of October. The intersection operation has been monitored by Traffic Engineering staff and is operating as intended with the school crossing guard in attendance during school hours. The Police Department continues to enforce traffic restrictions and adherence to the stop signs. cc: Traffic Engineering File o Auburn and Eissler intersection file slw: P:\DATA\WP\1996\vvfO12196.ref City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0012196 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 11/08/96 REQUEST DATE: 11/06/96 CREW: SCHEDULE DATES STAR%': 11/06/96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 11/18/96 GEN. LOC: WARD3 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCIL ~T~'l'~ REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SMITH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: STOP SIGN/EISSLER & AUBURN REQUEST COM/~ENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** SMITH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE HER WITH AN UPDATE REGARDING A STOP SIGN AT 'EISSLER AND AUBURN. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: STOP SIGN/EISSLER & AUBURN Category: PUBLIC WORKS TASK: · RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: November 14, 1996 % TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER/~.J SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. WF0012202/001, INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM AT ROSEWOOD GARDENS (WARD5) COUNCIL REFERRAL/REQUEST: "ROWLES REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE ROSEWOOD GARDENS INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM ON NEW STINE ROAD." STAFF RESPONSE: The Traffic Engineer contacted the administration of the Rosewood Retirement Community complex regarding traffic problems. Rosewood staff confirmed that ingress and egress utilizing the small and narrow existing driveways was a problem and had not diminished since last reviewed several years ago. At that time Mr. Ted Ahlem, administrator of the retirement complex, was advised that the driveways were inadequate and did not meet current design guidelines for driveway size and placement. The Traffic Engineer advised at that time that the driveways should be increased to about 30 feet wide with street-type curb returns or use a 42 foot wide flat-type drive approach. Although not required because of the Iow volume of traffic using the driveways, a right turn deceleration lane at both driveways was recommended to get Rosewood traffic out of the traffic stream on New Stine Road, an arterial street. The location is not a high accident area. Based on this current review of the operations, the recommendations of the Traffic Engineer are still appropriate. Should they decide to do the recommended improvments, Rosewood must obtain a permit prior to any work in the City right of way and use a licensed contractor. No public funds are known to be available for these recommended improvements for private development, at this time. cc: Traffic Engineering File - New Stine Road, Rosewood Retirement Community, referral slw: P:\DATA\WP\ I gg6\wf012202.ref City of .Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0012202 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 11/08/96 REQUEST DATE: 11/06/96 CREW: SCHEDULE DATES START: ii/06/96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 11/18/96 GEN. LOC: WARD5 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCIL ~'r~T~ REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - ROWLES ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM/ROSEWOOD REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** ROWLES REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE ROSEWOOD GARDENS INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM ON NEW STINE ROAD. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: INGRESS/EGRESS PROBLEM/ROSEWOOD Category: PUBLIC WORKS TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS ~START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /