The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/20/95� B A K E R S F I E L� MEMORANDUM f�ctober 20, 1995 T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �'� ��,,`�"r FROM: .ALAN TAND , CIT MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The negotiations for the contract refuse haulers on automation are going very slowly and poorly. They seem to want to deal with it in a political environment rather than a negotiating environment. We will continue to work towards resolution, but this is a caution that they seem to have the belief that they have great political influence. With that belief, it will be difficult to complete negotiations. 2. There is a memo enclosed on our Human Resources Streamlining effort; just a status report and update. A memo is enclosed showing that Rule 9001, the costly requirement to decrease vehicle trips by large employers, has been dropped by the State. 3. We received a claim from Gerry Glass and Dick Kravitz this week who want $3 million. They were a part of the Bakersfield Oilers partnership. A half million dollars of the claim is because we allowed, according to them, the use of the name "Oilers" by the new hockey team. The balance is for loss of profits. This is frivolous. If they turn the claim into a lawsuit, I believe we should seek penalties from the court. 4. There is a response enclosed to a Council inquiry on a sewer fee question from the cost recovery system. 5. The County Board will take up the subject of the stadium on the 24th. It will be taken up from their own perspective since we haven't asked them anything. 6. There is a memo enclosed from Traffic Engineering on a traffic problem by Centennial High School. 7. A copy of the transcript from the Council meeting regarding an elections agenda item is attached for your information. AT:rg cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst T0: FROM: SUBJECT: � B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTION - JOHN W. STINSOt��'ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES STREAMLINING TASK FORCE ALAN TANDY CITY MANAGER II October 16, 1995 � �� 2� �� The City Managers Office, the Human Resources Division and various city departments have identified problems related to the city's cumbersome human resources function. You have been selected to assist with a task force to further identify problems and issues related this area. This will involve reviewing the need and value of current practices, rules and regulations. The task force will make specific recommendations for improving the human resources function to make it more effective and responsive to city departments. The task force �ill meet on a weekly basis until its work has been completed. A summary of problems/issues which have been previously identified will be sent to you prior to the first meeting. The first meeting will be in the Risk Management conference room on Thursday October 19, 1995 at 9:00. Please contact me if you will be unable to attend. cc. Alan Tandy, City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney Bob Sherfy, City Attorney Steve Brummer, Police Department Jack Hardisty, Development Services Department Georgina Lorenzi, Community Services Department Joe Lozano, Public Works Department Gil Rojas, Finance Department Bob Tobias, Fire Department Jake Wager, Community and Economic Development Department �� ,T � � 1995 �� ,,, �„�, ��.�. .,_. . ; . ___:�.�--- Goveraing Board: Ni�k w. siom Chair Supervisor, Stanislaus Counry Charles Harness Vice Cna�r Supervisor, Tulare County Doug Vagim Supervrsor, Fresno Counry Mary K. Shell Supervisor, Kern Caunty joe ltammond Supervisor, Kings County Gail Hanhart McIntyre Supervisor, Matlera County jerry O'Banion Supervisor. Merced County Kenni Friedman Counciimember, City of Modesto Robert J. Cabral Supervisor, San Joaquin County Denais Lujaa Councilmember, CRy of Selma Claude Retherford Mayor, City of Tulare � San Joaquin Valley Unif'ied Air Pollution Control District David L. Crow Fxecutfve Dlrector/ Afr Polludon ca�rrot o,�'t�e. 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite N200 Fresno, CA 93721 (209) 497•1000 Fax (209) 233-2057 Northern Regioa a230 Kiernan Avenue. Suite a730 Motlesto, CA 95356 (209)545•7000 Fax (209) Sa5•8652 Central Region 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite a200 Fresno. CA 93721 1209) 497-t000 Fax (209) 233-2057 Southern Region 2700 M Street. Sune M275 Bakerst�eld, CA 93301 (BOS) 861-3682 Faz (805) 861•2060 October 9, 1995 Dear Employer: '� OCT I 2 l995 -- - . a k.°'°`=�" r^ '�' �� >i:. .��...,,. �V. .. •��4� � �� ..��r The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Governor Wilson has signed Senate Bill (SB) 437 which eliminates the previous state mandate that required the District to implement a trip reduction program (see attached SB 4371. In accordance with this law, which becomes effective January 1, 1996, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) will be required to rescind Rule 9001 (Commute- Based Trip Reduction). Effective immediately, the SJVUAPCD will no longer enforce Rule 9001. The Employee Transportation Coordinator training sessions required by Section 6.2.2 of the rule will not be held and no Employer Trip Reduction Plans need to be submitted to the SJVUAPCD. Those employers who have _ not yet completed their Employee Transportation Surveys will not be found out of compliance or moved to Tier II for failure to conduct their surveys. If, however, you have conducted your survey or your survey date is near and you are prepared to survey, we would appreciate receiving your survey results. The survey information will help us to determine the current AVR throughout the San Joaquin Valley and will also tell you how successful your trip reduction programs have been. You deserve credit for the considerable time and effort you have invested in responding to this state mandated District program. The underlying trip reduction goals, cleaner air and reduced congestion, still remain before us. The SJVUAPCD's commitment to these goals is strong. In fact, the SJVUAPCD's portion of .the State Implementation Plan that predicts attainment of the Federal ozone standards by 1999 counted 1.07 tons per day reduction in ROG emissions and 1.04 tons per day reduction in NOX emissions from Rule 9001. We continue to be obligated to achieve these emission reductions. We must do so either through a totally voluntary trip reduction program or another measure to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. The Air Pollution Control � Rule 9001 Employers October 9, 1995 Page 2 � _ ,_..: Officer (APCO) will conduct workshops and seek your input on what to advise the Board as to if and how the Board should proceed with measures to achieve the required emission reductions. If you have any questions or comments about SB 437 and its implications for your employer or about the development of alternative emission reduction measures, please call Cheryl Lesinski or Joan Merchen at (209) 497-1075. Since ly Yours, G�v�G��.r'_ David Crow Executive Director/APCO c: Governing Board � �� - AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 1� 1995 ��D�D II�T ASSEMBLY JULY 19,1995 � � . �NIF,�TDED IN SENATE MAY 10� 1995�� . SENAT'E BILT� � No. 437 Introduced by Senator Lewis February 16;1995 An act to add Section 40929 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air polluhon. ' �C��yg C�Ut�SELS DICEST SB 437, as amended, Lewis• . Air Pollution: trip reduction Existing law imposes specified requiremeats and places specified limi�ti Pollution control distiicts and su' dqualih' prograsns bY . . management districts. � b� v�,onld prohibit the districts and other public agencies from imPcsiaB anY requu'emeat on any employer to implemeat a trip reduction program unless the Program is expressly required by federal law aad the elimination of the program wculd res�ult in the imposition of federal sanctions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. ' State-mandated local program: no. • , Tbe people of the State of Califoraia do enact as follofcx 1 SECTION 1: Section 40929 is added to the Health and 2 Safety Code, to read: • SB 437 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 3 14, 15 � —2— 40929: (a) Notwitiutaadin8 . Sectioa 40454, 40457. 40T17, 40717.1� or 407175, or any cther provision of law, a district, congestion managemeat agency. as defiaed ia subdivisioa (b) of Section 65088•1 of the Goverament �de, or any cther public agency shall not require an employer to implement an emPl°Yee txiP jeductioa prcgram ualess . the program is eapresslY required by federal law and the elimination of the program � w� result ia the imposition of federal saactions, iacluding, but not li=nited to, the loss of federal funds for transportation purposes. (b) Nothiag ia this sectioa shall preclude a public agencY from regulatin8 iadirect so�ces ia any manner that is not specificaIlY P=oh�bited by this section, where otherwise authozszed by law. - �� .�- C� �,� � � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM T0: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director October 16, 1995 SUBJECT: Cost Control and Recovery System; (S-76) Sewer Tap Fees and (5-73) Sanitary Sewer Service At the City Council Workshop on fees held October 11, 1995 a Councilmember asked the Public Works Department why service center S-76 on the Master Fee Schedule indicated sewer connection service was no longer provided. The Councilmember also wanted to know where the sewer connection fee appeared on the Master Fee Schedule. The Master Fee Schedule identifies S-76 as a sewer connection fee, however, this description is misleading and it should be shown as a sewer tap fee. The sewer connection fee is a component of S-73 the sanitary sewer service. All new connections or new fixture units connected to the city sewer system require payment of a sewer connection charge at the time the building permit is issued. The sewer connection fee is adopted annually during the budget process by Executive Order and goes into effect ten (10) days after it is signed by the City Manager. If you have any questions or need additional information do not hesitate to contact me. `> 5's ! 8 i995 tui tai aa •nu vb : 4c ran ov� �c�. oa � a, nr�niv w eu�miiv � �vc �' v / _� JOEt A. HEINRICHS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFiCER KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SCO'IT )ONES AQSistanf C:ounty AdministtAtiva Ufficer W1I.LIAM C DOUGLAS Employee Relstiun� Ufflc�� October 24, 1995 Boazd of Supervisors Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue Baketsficld, CA 93301 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF BASEBALL STADIUM Fiscal Impact: Unknown As your Bvard is aware, considerable public discussion concerning the construction of a baseb�ll stadium and ancillary facilities hss occurred. '�'he purpose of this report is to provide information on the background and cu�nt stazus of this propose�l project, and to gain dixection from your Board regarding [he Counry's participation in the construction of the pmposed facilities. : � i� � � Over the years, Sam Lynn Ballpark has been criticized as being an inadequate facility for minor leagve baseball due to poor orientadon, seating, and club house facilides. In 1994, improvements to the club house and the grandstand were completed. However, even with these unprovemettts, the California league has indicated that a new stadium is required to retain the existing minor league franchise. � � T'he Ciry of Bakersfield has beEn a svong proponent fox the construction of a new stadium. In January 1995, with the City of Bakersfield acting as lead on this project, a Feasibility Study and Business Plan was prepazed by the Spectxum Group. The study assessed the economic impact v� a new stadium and rated various sites for eons�uctian feasibility. A site located at Panama and Old River was rated the highest in this study. The City then hired HOK, a sports facility group, to do a more detailed master plan study of this site, now referred to as the Southwest site. i Ac che same dme. strong community support was voiced for construcdon of a new stadium at the � Metro site noang that such a facility could serve as a downtown anchax, was complimentary to adjacent uses (museum and parkway), and that the site, due to its cuirent use, would r�quire minimum environmental review. ,A,s a result, on Apri125, 1995, your Board agneed to financially contribute for a master plan study by HOK that would include tbe Metco site. This study was completed on August 9, 1995. 1115 T�u:tun Avenue, 5th flaot BAKER5FIELD, CALIFORN[A 93301 (80� 861•2371, FAX (80513ZS3979 lU/1N/M� lrili UN:43 rAA tSU5 :f'L5 32!"!N 1SY;!(1V (:U AllM1N __ � Board of Supervisors Proposed Construction of Baseball St�dium October 24, 1995 Page 2 The master plan smdies focused on the availability of utilities and the subsoil conditions at each site since tttese two factors detetmine to a great extent the cost of construction. Stadium construction costs are minunized if a bttm�ed, rarher that swctural, faWiry is built The water table ac che N�etro site was determined to be located at a depth of four feet in some areas, which precluded the consuuction of a fully benmed facility. HOK estimated chac a new scadium at the Mea-o site would cost $12.6 million; a new stadiurn at the Southwest site was esdmated to cost $10.4 million. It is noted that these esdmates do not include the development af any adjacent area. An additional fiscal matter not taken into consideration was the effect of removing Southwest site fmtn the tax roles. Fallowing the publication vf the master plan study, discussion and controversy continued aver the site selection process and the financing mechanism ta be used. There was also considerable controversy regarding the comparative approach used in the study with some contending that the Metro s�te and the Southwest site were assessed with an"apples to oranges" methodology. .r � On September 27, 1995 the Bakersfield Ciry Council further considered the proposed stadium project_ Considerable diseussion regarding the selectivn o� a site, the funding meehanisms, and whether to place this matter on the March ballot as an advisory measure was conducted. The Council ultimately voted to refer the matter to the Council's U�an Development Committee for recommendations on two sites: a downtown site direcdy south of the Convendon Center; and a sitc in the Noztheast on land offered for donation, effectively eliminating the Metro site from further consideration. During the Urban Development Coaunittee meeting, the Northeast site was excluded from further consideration by the majority of ihe Committee due to anticipated cost of mitigation that would be required by CalTrans, the uncertainty regarding the amount oi land being offered for donation and the copographical issues exisdng on the site. The majority of the Committee selected the downtown site as the "prcfcrred sitc". The matter w�s again considered by the Ciry Council on October 11, 1995. At that time, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare ballot language for an advisory meas,ure. The Council, at that time, elected not to specify a"preferred site". FlA�►DE Numerous funding proposals have been put forth for the construction of this project. The proposal that has gamered the most discussion provides for donations. cash advances frotn the City and the County in anticipaaon of increa�ed tax revenues resulting fmmi the project, and loans to the project from the City and the County. The financing plan most recently presented to the City Cou�ncil by City staff proposed thac the Gounty loan the project $4.8 million at 4�o interest for 20 years with security for the loan being the land and the constructed stadium. 'This proposal eliminated any cash advance ftom the County. It is also noted that the proposed $4.$ million loan is most likely a minimum amount. Depending on the site selected, this amount could increase substantially. IQ.J U U � tui tai a� inu ua: 4a rna au5 sza .fa i a i�r.euv �u nlimliv �I uu4 ~ �; Board of Supervisors Proposed Construction of Baseball Scadium October 24,1995 Page 3 Should the Board decide to financially participate in the stadium project, the loan would be funded from the AccumulaLed Capital Outlay (ACO) fund. This fund is used to service the debt on the County's Cercificate of Participation (CO� projects and has a current cash balance of approximately $15 millian after consideration of outstanding loan obligations. Loans from this fund have been nnade in the past for County purposes--Airports, Solid Waste, KIPS, Teeter Plan financing� etc. The County's COP projects are scheduled to be paid in 2006. Thus, a�► loan from tlus fund Should be limited to the term of the COPs (a ten year loan). The interest �rates of exi,sting loans from this Fwnd are variable and consistent with the pooled treasury rate (currendy at 5.5%), ._„..��: ., Although the City of Bakersfield has assumed the lead on the proposed stadium project, Counry staff has been involvod with this ptoject during the discussion iegazding site selection and possible funding participation. As previously noted, one of the putposes of this report is to gain your Board's direction regarding Caunty staff pazticipation in the planning, electian process. and potential funding of this projecc. � At this juncture, a numbcr of options are avai,lable to your Bvard: County staff could withdraw from continued participation in this project Counry staff could participate in developing ballot measure langusge for an advisory election (if we ar+e to participake in drafting a ballot mcasure, direction is required as to the extent of the election—City only, Metropolitan Belcersfield or11y or Countywide) � � Cvunty staff could paRicipate in the development of funding options for a new stadium ' Accordingly, IT �S RECOMMENDED that your Board consider the matter of the County's participation in the construction of a baseball stadium and provide staff with direction. Sincerely, �/ oel A. Heinrichs County Administrakive Officer JAH/ACK/stadium.bos cc: City of Bakersfield County Counsel ` �/'�vU/ � , . Robert D. Addison Director, Parks and Recreation �S • � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: October 17, 1995 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: HAGEMAN ROAD TRAFFIC CONGESTION BETWEEN RIVERLAKES AND THE FRIANT-KERN CANAL. On Monday, October 16, at about 10:30 am, a resident in the Riverlakes area called complaining about a traffic signal. Gary Wenino, Traffic Operations Tech, who handles signal operations and timing, was given the call since it concerned a traffic signal operation. The name given was Mrs. Robin Walleen (spelling uncertain on last name) and she was distressed that the canal traffic signal was not functioning in the morning to artificially stop eastbound traffic between about 7:30 and 7:50 am. Shortly after the start of the school year, the Police Department, Sgt. David Haskins, had requested that the signal stop traffic in the morning, as an experiment, to slow traffic at the school zone of Centennial High School and allow student parking lot traffic time to cross Hageman into the lot. Last week we had been directed to cease the signal function in the morning due to Hageman Road commuter traffic complaints. Mrs. Walleen was told that we had been directed to cease the signal stop of traffic and became very irate with Mr. Wenino and said she knew that Councilman McDermott was behind the change to the signal. (I have confirmed that this allegation has not come from anyone in the Traffic Section. Staff has been told to only comment that it was done because of commuter complaints to the City Manager's Office.) She said that she would not let this situation rest and would pursue it with the City Manager. Later that afternoon, I was directed to call her back and discuss her problem. She was not available when I called at 2:30 pm and left a message to return my call. On Tuesday morning at about 8:30 am I called her again since she had not returned my call of the previous day. She was home at that time and able to discuss her problem. Her complaint is primarily that she cannot make the left turn, west to south, into the school student parking lot to drop off her child within a reasonable time. She claims to have waited as much a 14 minutes to make the left turn, due to traffic backup in the left turn lane and waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic. When the signal at the canal was artificially stopping traffic, gaps were created and she was able to make her turn within a reasonable time and short delay. I told her that we had been directed to stop the signal operation because of complaints. She again blamed the change on Councilman � � McDermott, though he was not named by me or any of my staff. Her secondary complaint was that the 4-way stop at Riverlakes and Hageman, at the corner of the school, was not effective in that most traffic did not stop,making crossing of Hageman or left turns nearly impossible. She complained that the signal under construction at Coffee and Hageman was a mistake by the City, that the signal at the canal is a joke and that we should have built the Riverlakes and Hageman signal first. I told her that the Coffee signal had met warrants first and was initiated prior to the Riverlakes location so it had an earlier start. I also informed her that the Riverlakes location was now warranted and is anticipated to be designed this coming project year. This was still totally unacceptabte to her. I also told her of the current CIP funded project to add a signal at the student parking lot entrance which will only stop eastbound traffic to allow the west to south left turn that is causing her distress. This design is nearing completion and will soon be ready to bid. I told her completion may be about 4 to six months away. This was still totally unacceptable to her. I then told her the only option left is to close off the left turn lane into the parking lot until the signal improvements are done. At this comment she became very agitated and profane. She told me that she holds me personally responsible for any accidents that may happen and that she would "make a hell of a lot of noise with the media" over her problem with traffic. With that comment she hung up on me before I could respond. I immediately redialed her phone number, got the answering machine and left a message that I would appreciate her calling me back to continue the conversation and try to resolve her problem. I have not been in contact with her since. MY RESPONSE: I fully agree with the complaint that the left turn into the parking lot of the high school is a difficult move during the morning rush hour from 7:30 to about 7:50 am. Our project to signalize the left turn will solve the problem but will not be operational for several months. We have not observed the severity of delay and traffic backup that she alleges. The Police Department, Lt Darbee, indicate that traffic is heavy and that speeding is a serious problem at the school. I propose that we continue to move forward with the signal design for the left turn into the school and investigate the possibility of the General Services Division installing this signal. BACKGROUND: The drive entrance off Hageman into the student parking lot has been a problem since before the school started construction. When the district brought in plans for the high schoot, I requested that the student parking be moved to come off of Riverlakes and not off Hageman. I was told that the State had already approved the plans and they could ' not change it. I advised them at the time that this location would be a problem in the future. When Hageman was completed and made continuous, the access problems to the parking lot and backup of traffic on Hageman began to be evident as anticipated. In spring of 1994, I called and met with Mr. Hatcher, Principal, and Mr. Olds, Vice Principal, to go over strategies on this problem. We met in the fall of 94 on the same problem and developed a possible solution to add a signal at the student parking lot entrance. The signal would only stop eastbound traffic to permit the left turn into the parking lot and work off of the existing signal controller at the canal to keep cost down. This project was included in our curren� approved 95-96 CIP and the plans are near completion. The signal at Riverlakes is on our priority list and resides at number seven (7) out of twenty-six (26) warranted, but unfunded, future signal locations. Because we could not obtain funding earlier and crossing traffic was becoming a problem, we made the intersection a 4-way stop as an interim control measure. I anticipate that this location would be funded with the next CIP and have plans to start the design process on this site before the next budget year in anticipation of Council funding of this signal. I do not expect it to have any effect on the problem at the parking lot entrance, but it will be easier to cross Hageman at Riverlakes and access the student drop off area designed into the school layout. cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Undervvood, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo Files Traffic Engineering File - Hageman Road/Riverlakes, west to canal slw:\DATA\WP\1995\HagmnTrf.Mem f .. np✓u��'��„� � a � J.{; = �,°�' �;_ • � ;. � ._, _ ��' �_ ; � _., �� hHinu,.� tl • �\ � _= y.,�t-� t�`,\1`' •� Oatober 20, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMII�SRS � , FROM: CAROL WILLIAMS, CITY CLERR � �sC�"�G;��c�f-,c� � SUBJECT: TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF TH$ CITY COUNCIL 1�ETING OF OCTOBER 11, 1995 Attached is a copy of the subject transcript of New Business Item 12.f. regarding Elections. If you have any questions, please call me. CW/ndw A:COVER.MEM Attachment cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Gail Waiters, Assistant City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney � � 1 � TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF THE C(TY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 1995 12 . NEW BUSINESS f. MAYOR: ZARAGOSA: MAYOR: MAYOR: McDERMOTT: MAYOR: Elections: a. Resolution callinq the Primary Municipal Election for the Office of Mapor, and Special Municipal Election for the Amend�ents to the Citp Chartsr, requestinq tbe Board of Supervisors oi the County of Rern to order consolidation of said Elections with tbe State of California Presidential Primary to be held Tuesday, l�iarch 26, 1996, settinq priorities for filinq vritten arquments reqardinq City measures and directinq the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis. b. Resolution providinq for filinq of rebuttal arquments tor City measures submitted at the Bakersfield Special Municipal Election. The next item? Elections. Ms. Skousen? What? I was going to talk on.... I'm sorry. Mr. McDermott. McDERMOTT: Yes, regarding Item 12.b., small lot ordinance, I've received a letter from Martin McIntosh regarding the setbacks on corner lots in R-2 zones, I guess it is. If I could forward this to staff to have a response. He basically thinks we�ve got a conflict between the ordinances, so if we could address that before the next hearing. MAYOR: Okay. Now, Ms. Skousen, Elections. SROIISEN: Yes. You have before you two resolutions necessary to call the Primary Municipal Election and request that the County hold that election for us; and, also, in the event that there is rebuttal arguments, then this resolution provides how those would be filed. This is just a formality of calling the election. Transcript of a Portion of the City Council �eeting October 11, 1995 Page 2 MAYOR: , Council's desire? Vice-Mayor DeMond? DEMOND: I move that we adopt the.necessary resolutions. MAYOR: Motion to adopt. Mr. McDermott? McDERMOTT: Yes. In addition, I would ask that the Council place on there a measure that allows privatization of City services so that -- yeah, that we also do that. MAYOR: Mr. Rowles? ROWLES: Yeah, I call the question. MAYOR: Well wait, I gotta be sure I got a question here. Did you make a motion.... � � McDBRMOTT: ....To include a ballot measure for privatization. � MAYOR: So, you're asking to amend the motion, which was to � adopt these resolutions, to include that? I McDERMOTT: Yes. li _ MAYOR: Thank you. Okay. Now, we'll discuss the amendment �' to the motion only. Mr. Rowles called for the question. This is on the amendment. Please record your vote on the amendment. Vice- Mayor DeMond? DEMOND: Isn't this an item that came up after this Agenda arose -- I mean, arose after this Agenda? Are we adding something -that I've not seen before? MAYOR: Attorney? DEMOND: I mean, I haven't heard about this before. SROOSEN: I might make a suggestion, One of the portions of this Resolution actually sets out the ballot language which the Council has not yet acted on, and the dir.ection I hear from Councilmember McDermott would probably be better served if we could put the exact wording in. So, could we perhaps continue this to the November 8th meeting so it can be adopted at the same time you adopt the actual ballot language, and that way we can have the language suggested by Councilmember McDermott before you also at that time? Transcript of a Portion of the City Council Meeting October 11, 1995 Page 3 DEMOND: If I may continue, is there any reason why we just can't adopt this and then look at that issue when it comes up on the 8th? BROIISEN: There's not, but this Resolution does have the proposed ballot language in it. It can be changed, but it does have the three suggested ballot language. . DEMOND: another one. SROIISEN: DEMOND: MAYOR: That�s fine. I mean, can't we do that and then do I mean, you can always add one, can't you? Yes, you can. Well, my motion stands. Okay. Mr. Rowles? ROWLES: Well, speaking to the amendment, which I think is the order of business.... MAYOR: Yes, it is. ROWLEB: ...., does this item include anything -- does this Resolution include the baseball�stadium which the Council acted on today? Question to the City Attorney. SROIISEN: No, it does not. It has the Council residency requirement, the amendment allowing more flexibility in hiring the Deputy and Assistant Chiefs for the Fire Department, and repealing the Charter section to make it come into conformity with the MOU's with the Unions. Only those three measures are in this Resolution. ROWLESf All right. So, you're saying it's not complete considering the given actions of the Council this evening? SROUSEN: No, it does not have the ballot language for the stadium. Transcript of a Portion of the City Council Meeting October 11, 1995 Page 4 ROWLEB: That's right. Well, the Councilmembers' comments are really moot to the issue, and I just say we close -- Well, I want to make one more comment in support of this. People talk about how voters feel about the baseball stadium and trying to do something with taxpayers' money. Let's put the taxpayers' money where peoples' mouth is and put a privatization -- Being that I'm not going to have anything to work on for three weeks, maybe our Urban Development Committee can work on some language there; and you want to see a 70 percent vote, you're going to see one. So, read it and weep. I vote in support of the amendment. MAYOR: All right. The amendment to the motion which i privatization. Is that correct, McDERMOTT: Yes. amendment -- we're voting on the s to add a ballot measure allowing Mr. McDermott? MAYOR: All right. Please record your vote on the amendment to the motion only. ZARAGOZA: The motion fails with three ayes and four noes by Councilmember DeMond, Carson, Smith and Salvaggio. MAYOR: Okay, we now go back to the main motion. Mr. Salvaggio? SALVAGGIO: Yeah, I want to clarify my vote. This is an issue that had not been studied in committee. We have no general drift of any type of specific language, unlike the issue on the baseball stadium which has been discussed several times, particularly by Councilmember Smith and Councilmember DeMond about going on the ballot. So, that's why I didn't support it. Among other reasons, it' s j ust a s 1 ight-of -the-hand ef f ort, and that' s why Ms . Skousen' s suggestion was well-taken. We need some time to come up with some language to be fair to the proponents of this, whoever they may be. Thank you. MAYOR: Thank you. Councilmember Smith? SMITH: Yes, I certainly may have been a proponent, but I wanted to see it in writing. I'm not going to vote on something that I have not seen before or had an opportunity to peruse, to take a look at. MAYOR: Thank you. Mr. Rowles? . . Transcript of a Portion of the City Council Meeting October 11, 1995 Page 5 ROWLEB: All the other ballot language has gone through the Legislative and Litigation Committee. Therefore, if the maker of the motion will amend their motion to send this to the Legislative and Litigation Committee to prepare language to come back for November 8th, we will do it. l�AYOR: We have a motion on the floor.... ROWLEB: I ask for a friendly amendment, Mayor. Thank you. MAYOR: Vice-Mayor DeMond? DEMOND: If I may, through the Chair, to the staff . I'm just curious, because I would like to see some language, but I'm just curious, aren't we allowed to privatize? I mean, can't we put.... SROIIBEN: I do not think it takes a charter amendment or a ballot measure to privatize. DEMOND: Thank you. MAYOR: Mr. Salvaggio? SALVAGaIO: Well, that's true. Also, if you come back with a ballot measure, you better be specific, as Mr. McDermott said earlier. What are we going to do, privatize every City employee in the City; lay off all the cops, all the firefighters, all the blue and white collar workers and hire -- privatize the whole thing, or are you just going to do a piece meal approach? Interesting. Thank you. MAYOR: Mr. Rowles? ROWLEB: Question of the City Attorney, if I may? Do we need a balloted measure or advisory vote to commit funds to a baseball stadium or to conceptually endorse the multi-use stadium in the City of Bakersfield? SROUSEN: No. The City Council has the authority.... ROWLEB: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. MAYOR: Mr. McDermott? � , . . t .;_ - , ,. Transcript of a Portion of the City Council Meeting October 11, 1995 Page 6 McDERMOTT: Yes, I think the point is I'm hearing .some Councilmembers say is that you need to be specific, can't just have something very generic and general. I think I said that a couple of issues ago and was voted down. I think it's interesting how people are willing to talk out of both sides. MAYOR: We have a motion to adopt the Resolutions. Please record your vote. Mr. McDermott? We're voting on the two Resolutions. ZARAGOZA: Motion is approved with four ayes and three noes by Councilmembers McDermott, Rowles and Salvaggio. MAYOR: Next item. BALOAGGIO: Mayor, I'd like to clarify my vote on that, too. MAYOR: Please. SALVAGGIO: Thank you.' Appreciate your enthusiasm there. I know I don't talk the most up here like some. I voted against that. I support the two charter amendment proposals. I do not support the one that tells the voters what they already believe and what has been past practice up until a few years aqo: Councilmembers should live in their Ward. It's a waste of money to put that on the ballot. I don't care if it costs One Dollar. Thank you. MAYOR: Thank you. Next item. Requested By: City Manager Request Date: 10/18/95 Prepared: 10/19/95 11:44am ' Time Used: 1.30/.15 (ndw,pjl) TRANSCRIPTS:OCTII.NB —,T _ , :� t:. � TO: � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: October 18, 1995 ,; 'a � r, l OCT ► 9 1995 � ��"�'—_ .- _ " - �� "��!"4: ' � 4, .,',�,_ _ , . : . ' �: �.� _ SUBJECT: Plan for Growth Technical Advisory Committee Meeting of October 12, 1995 Transportation Impact Fee Mr. Craig Pope, Kern County Roads Department Director, presented the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program to the Technical Advisory Committee of the Kern County Plan for Growth Committee at 1:30 P.M., October 12, 1995. This presentation was identical to the presentation to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee earlier that day. During the question and answer portion of the presentation, no new points were brought up. The implementation of the fee program, and when the fee is to be paid, seems to be the item of major concern. Presented at this meeting were the County's Report, their draft ordinance, and the facilities list. I have included copies of these for your use. Staff is reviewing the question raised at our Intergovernmental Relations Committee regarding collectors, and is working with County staff on including at least 10% of the construction cost of the Kern River Freeway in the facilities list. However, staff has been in touch with CalTrans and have received assurances that a local match is not required in order for a freeway to be funded by the State. Further meetings with County staff, Kern COG and the Building Industries Association are scheduled for this week to resolve some of these questions. We will keep you apprised of our progress. C1-95:\TIFITACIGR C.MEM RMR:mps xc: Judy K Skousen, City Attorney Michael Allford, Deputy City Attorney Reading File Project File 7acques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw C � A� � ` � A 0 REPORT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Plan for Growth Transportation Subcommittee Kern County Roads Department City of Bakersfield Public Works Department s '� �, e PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO METROPOLITAN SAKERSFIELD T}.2ANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM -;• -� � -;• �_ Amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program • �� The 400+ square mile area constituting the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area. -;• ) � ; _ �� The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern propose to amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance; changes would result in the following: 1. Revise the Fee Schedule as shown on Table 1; 2. Revised fee would be considered full mitigation without need for supplemental payments to offset impacts; 3. Eliminate the need for project specific traffic impact studies except in the case of large scale General Plan Amendments; 4. Provide an equitable improvement requirement between developments with arterial and collector street frontage and those developers without such frontage; 5. Provide a funding mechanism that would allow timely construction of inedian and interior lanes based on new improvement requirements; 6. Include arterial and collector streets and facilities within the Capital Improvement Program for which developers could receive credits when constructed; 7. Include funds to protect the rights-of-way for Beltways and the Kern River Freeway when necessary. � � : ,� _ a 8. Resolve the requirement of supplemental mitigation for those development projects currently assigned such assessment. The proposed project will result in a higher fee for single family and multi-family dwellings, will delete freeway construction funding, and will delete funding for some canal and river crossings and railroad grade separations. The proposed project will cause development of interior parcel to be subject to higher fees than present. The builder of one single family residence will generally be assessed a higher fee without benefit of off-setting credits made available to larger scale developers. In addition, the Kern County Board of Supervisors will be required to amend the Kern County Ordinance Code to exclude the Rosamond Transportation Impact Fee Program from the proposed changes. TABLE 1 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE Sin le Famil $1,179 $1,973 Multi-Famil $828 $1,321 Industrial $38 $42 Office Commercial $39 $39 Retail Commercial Under 100,000 sf $39 $45 100,000 - 399,999 sf $44 $82 Over 400,000 sf will be sub'ect to individual stud * Several fees listed in current schedule de endin on uare feet of floor area as follows: Industrial $ 38 - 87 Office Commecrial $ 33 - 87 Retail Commercial $ 25 - 71 � ' � ; • �� [U� ..._ .� - -_ -_. � � -�- _� The County of Kern and City of Bakersfield adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan in the latter part of 1989. That Plan and the accompanyinq Environmental Impact Report (EIR) made several recommendations to resolve e � � . .t.� � . �..T.,�-..�..�„��?��._." •. _...-•-_�-.__._..---... I . � � . •1�•� A, I I 1� ' f _._ � . � . w? �('.' i' f ` _�. . . S ; j I � i � �•--�.�..� .i.� I I �+ �� ; � � ._. � � �; � �`•�,, . �'•---•� ` �1I � � '� r�.�1� . . '-+ .-�'� ... . fR�'NC�Sc gAN / ` � `�\1� � L ; � g �` ? .. ..... �.�.Y;.�.�... ' . '; •;..".: . .' � f,`�..�.� •. �� • � � ME N� � ��•� �• � '• � 1 � � � .\ r` � „ • w• ••\ i '` � � .� \� ��..-..✓••'� •, � � .��. � -�` t ' � • ', . '�� ,� r i-'- -�: � �� ~' \ , 1, � \ v` �•..- � F Ft£� _._„( NY ��' � I, .r �� ' � �`� �'.�ti �`�a£ 1 GCUN� ,� J �g � T �NTY � \ �`{;�.�GO'1 GO � ' �� I �•�� .��.��.�.�.T.�.l•�•�•�.� N� LU, p0 � ,3�1@`0 ! ''� oeo�N�.� $ �rc�R a� ! �. , r�. K� T Y, N �� NT� �- GpVN � s�►a9�Np �.�.�.� Sw pB�.Rw � � BERN�A ,�.� ' B GGUNTY� ��J��• �pE�g i �►p V N . I NT� g o$ARA �� GO��G vN�� 9 w �� "� ANCiE1"�g ��. �as . � o • so �oo � 0 SCALE IN MILES O ptE6o SAN _._._.r•—� — �•�'T•� •�.�'�• � I � - _.. �-. J».------""' � .. . i - _ , , .. .. . .. ' �:, .,. .. . . , , . ... . .. . . .. . . _ , , , ..:.. . ..... . . -- _ .. .. . _ .._ .. . . . - - -- __--_ _. _. �,� _ ._----� - . _.. .. . .. _ . :.�. ;,. . ' � . . -� �.nc. i�t. �s�. :oc. t�[. ttc t��. s�a. �i. :sc :si. t�c. �c. aoi. ��e. at[.� aac a�c. ��c. ue. aa[. a�c. s�c: R.soc. �T� --- -- - ELANO '-- " -- --- --- --- �----i -- -- • - � T 23 3 .• - - � ---- - � �. � . � - - �-- - ' - -'-- �. _ . - - • - - - --r: t�s� '� � '__ �, I � ___ � � � i I i 26 S. �'•�' � � . � --±_ _ � RIDGECR Zf t. � ! . � I � ; ! I � I � n s. � -; ---� � _. . , - - - �--- I __ u� L� �_� . �T` , --� � --1 ', . _— _'-_ ' ..'. s��.-L' —_— --. � - I ( ; �' � i I iss. :s.. � - --- - �- :�;,:..� — - , `w�:: � , - - - -- � .- ►--- -- -- - -- - 111L ;� i-- ; i 84KERSf1E � I I i zsa. , — - -- .. — --.. --- I 10�.. �:': (,:�' \ ( i ( 70f.. , � . .._ __j. _ _ n ! � ' � ._ _ � � � :.'..,.....r.:..�:.,, > .is::•, � -- --- - . .. 1-- - - • -�- -• . . � . . i . 71t.i � t I I L i I . �-_•'_ y� t � r 1 I AFT - -- •�--- -r - - , I � 7=!. i ( � ! EH�A-• I --..-. ' - !23 � •-,�K-�- • --- - - - -- -- -- . I I-- -- i- - • ' • --- l- --. .- - .. : - 1 _ _ _I -r- - ---- - - --- ---- 1 --- -- ---- } - - �, �:K i I j � Man�— i I u M. I nK , _ __� r ; : � __ . . --- - -- --- - --�---�- � ION / I • � � 10 N. ,.. �--•- - - _ � _ -. . . ----- - - _ �- � � � -- � 1 ( � i __ . . T.lN. -- � T.9N.� '---1.-.- � � .__lJ ---..� _ --�.----- --- ---- .-----. --- ---- - Rasr. tsa :tw. i�re sow. �sr. ��r. �s�. �s�. iia 1��. tl�. I2�. 11 w. IOM. fr. ' •M. R7V. -�;. �;.�. a .. � . ,, transportation-related siqnificant effects identified with development of the Metropolitan area. The Plan and EIR anticipated street improvements to be made which would result in no traffic congestion with a projected operation Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better. The 2010 Plan suggested that congestion would occur at several identified intersections, and noted a number of circulation issues including: 1) the need for more high- speed freeways; 2) deficit right-of-way widths; and 3) need for a method to secure funding for the circulation system, including the high-speed facilities. Policies proposed and implementation measures listed included the need to prevent Level of Service from dropping below "C", or where the LOS was currently below "C", prevent a further decay of service level; and adoption of an area wide impact fee ordinance. - - . -,. - �- �-. "Level of Service" can be defined as "A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and the conditions as perceived by motorists and/or passengers;" also, a level of comfort experienced by people while traveling public roads. LOS is graded on a scale of "A" to "F", with "A" being the most comfortable and "F" being the least desirable condition. The City and County, through adoption of the 2010 Plan, have determined that the LOS should not drop below a"C" for roadways within the Plan area. The Highwa��a i� Mani� 1 defines LOS C as "In the range of stable flow; operation of individual users significantly affected by interaction with other users". Theoretically, the volume of traffic to capacity of the road (v/c) will be in the range of 0.70 to 0.80. (LOS C at signalized intersections can be represented by the number of vehicles stopping as "significant", and by rarely having to wait through a second signal cycle.) Most jurisdictions use a LOS of C or D for their standard. LOS D is defined as "Represents high-density, but stable flow; users experience severe restrictions in speed and freedom to maneuver; poor levels of comfort and convenience." The v/c is in the range of 0.80 to 0.90. (LOS D at signalized intersections can be represented by "many vehicles stopping", and the number waiting through a second signal cycle as "noticeable".) There are several detailed measures of LOS depending on the type of facility. Vehicle density, average travel speeds, average time delay at signalized intersections, etc., may � ��- � , all be used to describe operational conditions as perceived by motorists. Omni-Means Transportation Development Fee Re�ort In order to implement the General Plan measures, the City and County, through Kern Council of Governments (COG), contracted with Omni-Means, Ltd., to develop a transportation impact fee program for the Metropolitan area. The purpose of the fee program is to generate revenues for capital funding for off-site capital facility expansion necessitated by new development. The Omni-Means report specified those roadway segments that are presently (February, 1991) operating at worse than LOS C. Based on a projected growth rate for the Metropolitan Area of 3.1� per year, Omni-Means included a list of roadway segments that would be needed to maintain LOS C within the 2010 planning window. A unit cost table was developed reflecting the best know cost estimates for road construction and right-of-way purchase at the time. Based on these unit cost estimates and the deficiencies identified, Omni-Means concluded that the total cost for improvements, including a 25� contingency, would be as shown on Table 2. The Omni-Means report recommended specific fees to be collected in order to provide 100� mitigation ($1.58 billion) for development of roadways and transit. -;i�'��_ - • -�.. .• •� -��- -- _. ��. • -.��-� .� In adopting the Metropolitan Bakersfield Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Plan, the County and City reduced the fee basis. The total funds projected to be collected was approximately $215 million resulting in $1.36 billion of the Omni Means estimate to be funded by other sources and/or ., .. � . remain partially unfunded; this means that fees collected would provide for identified improvements at specified percentages of amounts needed to complete these project, as noted on the following table. Source: Metro�olitan Bakersfield Ca�ital Im�rovement Plan, Kern County Board of Supervisors Resolution #92-196. Note these figures differ from the Omni-means totals since the adopted improvement program and cost figures varied slightly from the Omni-Means Report. �.--. -. - - .�.-_,- With completion of the Omni-Means Report and adoption of the Metropolitan Transportation Impact Fee Program, the City and County recognized that there were several unresolved issues and concerns that needed to be addressed. There was a generally recognized need to readdress the growth projections identified in the 2010 Plan and EIR. Further, the fee schedule adopted as part of the Impact Fee Program covered only a percentage of the costs necessary to complete the Capital Improvement Plan (see Table 2) resulting in the remaining funds to come from some yet-unknown source; a revision of the Capital Improvement projects was needed. Based on these significant concerns, the Board of ,,. . ^ . Supervisors authorized consideration of these concerns� through the Plan For Growth Committee. �-� •� ��. s_ . � _ .• .� • •�� -- The City and County authorized their staffs to pursue an update of the fee program and facilities list. As a part of the Plan For Growth committee, the Transportation Subcommittee was formed to act as the "Metro Fee Committee" to review and update the Metropolitan Bakersfield Impact Fee Program. The subcommittee, chaired by the Resource Management Agency, includes the County Transportation Management Department, County Planning and Development Services, City Public Works, City Planning, Kern Taxpayers Association, Kern Transportation Foundation, Kern Council of Governments, Building Industry Association and, from time to time, other private and public groups. On March 11, 1993, a Technical Working Group (TWG) was formed. - . �- - �� .• �. . . y. 1. Re-evaluate assumption of the reality network (i.e., costs, needs list, traffic generation and distribution parameters); 2. Re-evaluate assumptions related to growth projections (i.e., Department of Finance projections, historical trends, general plan designations, phased build-out); 3. Develop consensus to assure technical assumptions and results are acceptable for the purposes of the fee program; and 4. Provide discussion list of possible alternate program scenarios (i.e., all needs paid by fee, reduce needs list 100o fee, alternate funding sources, combinations of these) . .-� •� •_ ,,- - -- As studies progressed, several key issues and directions began to form. The subcommittee generated a set of options to be explored. These included: * Deletion of funds for freeways * Revision of fee schedules based on corrected data * Provision of "seed" money for the beltways and Highway 58 west corridor * Change Level of Service.(LOS) from "C" to "D" Several other San Joaquin Valley communities and counties were polled to see what LOS they were using. Generally, � � . PLAN FOR GROWTH TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP Preliminary Unit Cost Assumptions ' May 4, 1993 RIGHT OF WAY costs are averages for metropolitaa area. � CONSTRUCTION costs for travel ways iaclude grading, com paction, base and asphalt concrete and median cost ($54/foot�prorated per lane) for artenals. The costs aLso include an expanded intersection every 12 mile. Various uulities, curb, gutter aad landscaping costs aze not inciuded. u+auoEO u+ u+auoEO iN BT OE�ELaPER REGONAL fEE REdONAL fEE BY OEVEIOPER LANOSGAPE L�NDSCAPE ypEWM.tt I Zo' I la' 1�' I 20' _ I_ SIOEW/�LK COLLECTOR �un � nrn w ARTERIAL J File Name: 0493J8 Job Nc. 18580 DATE MAY 5, 1993 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DRAWN J.BAKER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENGINEER lb(PACT FEE F. KLOEPPER UESIGN ENGINEER CITY OF HAKERSFIELD Arthur Lee Moore ��, rc�narrrn ° " ,, � � most jurisdiction use an LOS D in the urbanized area; those using a C indicate that they are considering an amendment to their local ordinances. �1� •• � _�_ - _ �t �-.. I. GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND TRANSPORTATION MODEL PARAMETERS Actual anticipated growth for the years 2010 and 2020 were used instead of full build out of designated land use. These growth parameters were analyzed within each of the 400+ Traffic Analysis Zones of the metro area. These projections were loaded on a revised "Reality Network" (a working group list of highways that more accurately reflect transportation needs based on an objective evaluation of future development), using the 2010 Circulation Plan. Following a series of model runs, the TWG established the minimum necessary Facilities List. II. FACILITIES LIST/UNIT COST The subcommittee identified about sixty highways/highway sections within the metro area to satisfy the criteria of the revised "�Reality Network". The following were in the suggested improvement schedule: * canal widenings * improved railroad crossings * canal relocations * interchange construction * grade separations Also listed was right-of-way purchase and construction. The "Reality Network" did not include construction of new freeways but could include extension or widening of existing state routes. Preliminary Unit Cost Assumptions, found on the following page, are similar to those found in Omni-Means Report with some minor variation. The "Typical Cross Sections", following the cost assumptions, graphically depicts the "fee share" for Arterial and Collector routes. III. LOS/NEW CONSTRUCTION vs. AMBIENT GROWTH Currently, the Metro Area uses an LOS C; an updated (July, 1993) model run and the resulting facilities list used an LOS ranging between C and D. The following areas of concern were considered: a) The current fee program proposals, with an average level at 350 of funds needed, are not considered over-build and would not necessarily maintain an LOS C; b) Additional analysis may consider a lower LOS standard. However, a lower LOS compared to newest 1993 Department of Finance growth projections will result in an overall increase in demand and necessary facilities; and c) the issue of ambient growth has not been included in the model analysis to date. Ambient growth is basically traffic increase due to other than new construction. Ambient growth would need to be added to those already in the model in order to demonstrate worst case conditions. IV. PROGRAM OPTIONS/RECONIl�lENDATION The subcommittee reviewed and considered all aspects of the Omni-Means report from population growth to actual road and street analysis. Current conditions and recent actions that partially implemented the Impact Fee Program were considered and the model adjusted. During the course of this evaluation, it was noted that the annual population growth for the metro area was three times faster than new construction; tables regarding growth projects were adjusted accordingly. With these considerations, the major goal of the subcommittee was to match the fee requirement to the actual growt•h from new construction. The second major study area was whether or not freeway construction should be a part of the fee structure. It was determined that these routes carried large volumes of traffic through the community, ancl that funding for freeways would have to rest with federal, state or other sources. It was determined that "seed money" for the Kern River Freeway and some funds for the beltways should continue to rest with and be a part of the Fee Program since most traffic on these units would be locally based. Four options were studied. Areas of consideration included delete freeways from facilities list, minimize funding for Transit needs, modify fee schedule for residential, and reduce land use categories where similarities exist. As of the July 15, recommended adoption of in eliminating freeways a freeway funding or derives its revenue construction. 1993 report, the subcommittee fee structure for Option A and, from the funding option, adopt matching fund scenario that from sources other than new � V. TRANSIT ISSUES As noted above, some transit issues were suggested by the, subcommittee to be funded. As described in the Omni-Means report, the Transit District will experience a$7.7 million shortfall caused by extension of service to new development; this can be completely avoided if the District does not expand its system. The District will, however, be able to fully fund purchase of 27 busses over the next 20 years, with the $7.7 million allocated from the fee program. (Note, this does not reflect all new transit/rail proposals.) VI. FEE SCHEDULE AND METHODOLOGY Fee schedules studied by the subcommittee were based on the total unfunded cost of the transportation system including noted transit costs. Two options do not include any freeway funding; two others include funding for acquisition of rights-of-way for the beltways and 10� of the construction cost of the Kern River Freeway for "seed" money. Two options do not alter Industrial or Office Commercial current rates, but distribute costs to other land uses; two others are based on an unmodified determination of the fee for each land use. The suggested fee program is a"consumption-based" fee, which does account for the differences in land use. Trip characteristics of the basic land use categories are used to determine the fee. This study resulted in potential funds under Option A/A1 at $246,932,068 and Option B/Bl at $311,350,141. Table 5 shows a comparison of the fee schedules for these options: e Using these figures the subcommittee then projected the funds necessary for the Regional Transportation Facilities List utilizing LOS C, as follows: • . . - • • . • _ ! . . . � -_ . . A revised facilities list was prepared reducing the number of local highways included on the list to about forty-five routes. Based on this number, the October 1, 1993 report to the subcommittee provided potential funds collected using an LOS D scenario at $13,0775,330. This study would include the Transit Costs and 5� Kern River Freeway Construction Costs but would not include any beltway right-of-way costs. The addition of 50� Beltway right-of-way costs would increase costs of this option to $135,434,366. Table 6 shows the required fee schedule using either of these options under the LOS D scenario: Fee Schedules "Hold" shows nonresidential at current rates; "50�" shows reduction for industrial and office commercial with remaining nonresidential at current rates. e Using these figures the projected the funds necessary for a Regional Transportation Facilities List utilizinq LOS D is shown: • ..- •• - �- - . On October 27, 1993 an alternate study was prepared comparing fees required under LOS C and D; this showed that the LOS C requires $92,394,238 more than LOS D. These figures are based on total network cost (which includes freeway improvement costs) plus transit costs, less the funded costs, less freeway costs, to which 5� of the cost of the Kern River Freeway and 500 of the cost of the beltway Rights-of-way was added. Using these scenarios, a network designed to LOS C would need to generate $256, 276, 104 over the next twenty years, while LOS D would need $163,881,866 over the same twenty years. Table 7 compares the Regional Transportation Facilities List for LOS C and D, while Table 8 compares the fee schedule of these two scenarios; the current fee schedule is included to demonstrate fees required under the existing ordinance. - «. , . s * Several fees now listed for various square feet of floor area. Using either of the LOS C or D scenarios, it is assumed that funding from other sources will be made available for freeway right-of-way purchase and construction, and additional on-site development consistent with unit cost assumptions and ambient growth demand by others. It was considered appropriate, in light of the above findings, that any resolution of the exact fee rates for residential and commercial be deferred until the LOS and funding level is determined. As noted previously, the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan EIR evaluated traffic impacts based on an LOS C which has a volume to capacity (v/c) of 0.70 to 0.80, while the LOS D carries a v/c of 0.80 to 0.90; this represents a higher density traffic flow which, in contrast to LOS C could result in users experiencing severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, and reduced levels of driving F. � comfort and convenience. If the change LOS were to occur, potential impacts in areas of transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, human health, and possibly other areas, could also take place; further, the 2010 EIR would have to be supplemented in order to satisfy the reguirements of CEQA and the 2010 General Plan would have to be amended. . � _ � .., �-.. . . �•_ • _�_ At the conclusion of their studies, the Plan For Growth Subcommittee - Transportation Working Group recommended that there was sufficient evidence to recommend an evaluation of the merits of changing the Level of Service required by the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan from "C" to "D". In the ensuing reports to the City Council and Board of Supervisors, it was determined that a change in LOS could result in several adverse conditions: * Living conditions within the Metropolitan Area would be impacted in the following areas: * Air Quality * Acoustical Environment * Transit Capabilities * Congestion Management Programs * The change in LOS would not address all transportation issues, specifically transit and rail; * Even with a change in LOS, a significant unfunded street and highway needs would remain; * The change would not resolve source of capital necessary to meet the unfunded needs. * The 2010 General Plan would have to be amended and Supplemental FEIR would have to prepared. As a result, the City and County decided not to pursue the change in LOS from C to D. With continued application of LOS C, the City and County propose to amend the Impact Fee Program as described. � -�-� - - 1�� _ � � �l4� � _ � !� � _ � �! _ �_:_ � � On April 20, 1995, in accordance with Section 15153(b)(1), State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agencies (City of Bakersfield and County of Kern) reviewed the proposed project, prepared an Initial Study and determine the adequacy of using the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to satisfy the requirements of CEQA for this project by finding the FEIR describes: a 1. the general environmental setting of the project; 2. the significant environmental impacts of the project; and 3. alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant effect. The Initial Study and CEQA consultation is attached. �'� �� — �!_ � ' �• �_ Following completion of the CEQA review, the City, County and Working Group of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Plan For Growth Committee met several times to refine the proposed program, facilities list and fees required to meet the needs of the program. Attached is the Regional Transportation Facilities List (Capital Improvement Program) for the project. Based on this activity, the following fee program is proposed: // II ,I I/ 1 ' i II ' II - ./ � MG�G401ED AV IPF67LYVAL fEE 1/, L/,': � AEUi6vAAL •am,�►.rs,wu w��..��o �v a�oer � r�nr �sr cn� «�.. rrr .: /�: BAI�E/PACTf� /'�4JI/IIAD Q��'7� COMPARISON OF SAMPLE PROJECTS EXISTING AND PROPOSED METRO BAKERSFIELD IMPACT FEE PROGRAM 1� � �• - .0 �- �-� . �- - •�u-� Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $117,900 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 100-SFR Traffic Engineer Fees $7,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $15,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($7,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($15,000) Total ($22,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required ��I� i �• - .0 :- �-� . �- - •.u-� �237,000 $354,900 $197,300 Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $235,800 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 200-SFR Traffic Engineer Fees $7,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $48,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($7,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($48,000) Total ($55,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $270.OQQ $505,800 $394,600 ($237,000) ($270,000) a �00-Unit Single Famity Residential Development Existing Assessment - Existing Fee Structure Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 500-SFR Traffic Engineer Fees $7,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $350,000 Total Cost Under F�cisting Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($7,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($350,000) Total ($357,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required 25.000 Square Foot Office Commercial Development Existing Assessment - Existing Fee Structure Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 25,000 sf Office Traffic Engineer Fees $4,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $12,500 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure (no change in fee structure proposed) Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($4,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($12,500) Total ($16,500) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $589,500 $572.000 $1,161,500 $986,500 $11,550 $16,500 $28,050 $13,650 ($572,000) ($16,500) 150 000 Sauare Foot Retail Commercial - Supermarket Existing Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $702,150 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 150,000 sf Supermarket Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 � Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $270,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($270,000) Totaf . ($278,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required � �� ... - .. ;- .iii�- �� . _-� - �493,000 $1,195,150 $1,857,300 Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $283,650 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 150,000 sf Shopping Center Tra�c Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $270,000 Total Cost Under F�cisting Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($270,000) Total ($278,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $493,000 $776,650 $750,300 ($493,000) ($493,000) 11 111 • _. - •• �' •Illl' 1��• • -� - Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $580,800 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 300,000 sf Shopping Center Traffic Engineer Fees $10,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $540,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Tra�c Engineer Fees ($10,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($540,000) Total ($550,000) Highway Constnaction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required �� :_. - �. ��.7�. -�- , u.�. .K_�i� $765,000 $1,345,800 $1,082,400 Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $45,600 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 300,000 sf Industrial Traffic Engineer Fees $10,000 Construct 1/2 Mile Arterial $215,000 Supplemental Mitigation Fees $150,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($10,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($150,000) Total ($160,000) Highway Construction Cost ($215,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $375•QQ� $420,600 $50,400 ($765,000) ($375,000) �,500 Square Foot Commercial - Fast Food with Drive-Through at Arterial-Coileetor Intersection Not On Network Existing Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $30,810 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for Fast Food/Drive Through Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial $10,200 Construct 250' of Collector $6,800 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 $85,000 Total Cost Under F�cisting Ordinance $115,810 Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure $35,550 Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) No Credits Total Credits and Costs Not Required ($68,000) • � . �� _� . •� •uu- �•• . � i �-•� • ►-u• , _i-�, . - . -ti- .� Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $30,810 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for Fast Food/Drive Through Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial $10,200 Construct 250' of Collector $6,800 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) Highway Construction Cost - Credits ($17,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required �jd��TFT�a •• • u�ii - F._1Q�� •••[^lfi7� � - � • _ • � . ►-��,:r-�- i�i i-��. _�.. � -�- �i $85.000 $115,810 $35,550 Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $30,810 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for Fast Food/Drive Through Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial $10,200 Construct 250' of Local $6,000 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) Highway Construction Cost - Credit ($10,200) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $84.200 $115,010 $35,550 ($85,000) ($78,200) � ! u _. � � � � _ . � � � � �� . � . �. 1� • . � _ . � ' � � �� _ • . , +1 � \ � � ' � • � � � � � � _ � � Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $71,370 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 5,000 sf Convenience MarkeUGas Pumps Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial $10,200 Construct 250' of Collector $6,800 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) Highway Construction Costs - Credit ($17,000) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $85,000 $156,370 $82,350 ($85,000) ��I�I��•�FTia • • t u�iTTT�'ii - �• f1Q � i : i - i • - JiETiT��^1I��7ffiTa' _ u � . ► - u � �, �r-�- �•� ►-�,��, • . � -ti-K •� Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $71,370 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 5,000 sf Convenience MarkeUGas Pumps Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial $10,200 Construct 250' of Local $6,000 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) Highway Construction Costs - Credit ($10,200) Total Credits and Costs Not Required $84,200 $155,570 $82,350 ($78,200) . .. . •- 5.000 Square Foot Commercial - Convenience Market w/Gasoline Pum�s Arterial-Collector Intersection Not On Network Existing Assessment - Existing Fee Structure $71,370 Estimated Add-on Costs Required for 5,000 sf Convenience Market/Gas Pumps Traffic Engineer Fees $8,000 Construct 250' of Arterial � $10,200 Construct 250' of Collector $6,800 Supplemental (50% of Signal) $60,000 $85.000 Total Cost Under Existing Ordinance $156,370 Proposed Assessment - Total Cost Under Proposed Fee Structure $82,350 Costs Not Required Traffic Engineer Fees ($8,000) Supplemental Mitigation Fees ($60,000) Total ($68,000) No Credits Total Credits and Costs Not Required ($68,000) � , . _ Li; ir Chapter 17.60 TRANSPORTATION IlVIPACT FEE Sections: 17.60.010 Short Title This ordinance shall be know and may be cited as the "Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance". 17.60.020 , Purpose A. This ordinance is intended to implement and be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. B. The pwpose of this ordinance is to regulate the use and development of land so as to assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide a regional transportation system consistent with the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. C. The fees established by this Ordinance shall be reviewed annually as part of a regularly scheduled public hearing. In no event, , ,' shall the fees established herein be raised -� � `�-°- `�-� � �, ^�-�..— - "w�� T--a�_. : without public hearing considering a review of the base unit cost for road construction as it relates to the facilities list and established justification for this progrdm. �ke . , �� .. , . D. The fee schedule provide would provide for the collection of fees sufficient to fully mitigate iraffic impacts created by a development without the need for supplemental payment to off-set impacts; a�rrd would eliminate the need for project specific traffic impact studies for those projects consistent with the designations of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, Western Rosedale Spec�c Pdan, and other simidarly adopted plans within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan area at the time of adoption of this ordinance; E. The Transportation Impact Fee program includes a Regional Transportation Facilities List that provides an equitable improvement requirement between developments with arterial and collector street and those developments without such frontage; that provides an averrue for which developers can receive credits for construction of facilities included in this List; and that includes funds necessary to protect the rights-of-way for identlfied freeway and beltway alignments, and transit facilities. � F. Projects currently approved in which a development agreement or for which spec�c supplemental mitigation has been required will be required to fu�ll such development agreement or supplemental mitigation agreement; development projects approved, including vested subdivision tract maps, but not including subdivision tract maps not vested, shall pay the transportation impact fee applicable at the time of approval of said project. Any development project approved prior to the existance of any transportation impact fee program shall be subject to fees established by this ordinance, and as may be amended 17.60.030 Definitions Whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. "Administrator" means the n-•'-'�� `I'�-''�� Transportation (Roads) Department D'uector or �is designee. . B. "Building pernut" means an official document or ofiicial certification which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitatioq erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. In the case of a change in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, the term shall specifically include Certificates of Occupancy, as defined in the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08 of this Code). ' C. "Capital improvements" means transportation planning, preliminary engineering, engineering design, land surveys, right-of-way acquisition, engineering, pernutting and construction of all the necessary features for any transportation facility projects including, but not limited to: 1) Construction of new through lanes. 2) Construction of new turn lanes. 3) Construction of new frontage or access roads. 4) Construction of new bridges and widening. 5) Construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway construction. 6) Purchase and installation of Traffic signalization (including both new and upgrading signalization). 7) Construction of curbs, medians, sidewalks, bicycle paths and shoulders in conjunction with new roadway construction. 8) Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction. 9) Other capacity increasing improvements, such as transportation systems measures. D. "Expansion" of the capacity of a road means all road and intersection enhancements and includes, but is not limited to e�ensions, widening intersection improvements, upgrading signalization and improving pavement conditions. E. "Fee payer" means a person commencing a land development activity which generates or attracts traffic and who is applying to the County for the issuance of a building permit for a type of land development activity specified in Section 17.60.050 (A) of this chapter, regardless if the fee payer owns the land which is developed. F. "Land development activity generating traffic" means any change in land use or any construction or expansion of buildings or structures, or any change in the use of any building or structure that attracts or produces vehicular trips. G. "Level of Service" (LOS) means a qualitative measure that represents the collective factors of speed, travel time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience and operation costs provided by a highway facility under a particular volume condition as set forth in the 1985 (or current edition ) Highway Capacity Manual. H. "Regional Transportation Facilities List" means those projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan area which are included in the Capital Improvement Plan annually adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These facilities constitute some of the regional facilities needed to maintain a LOS "C" or not to permit the degradation of roads which are currently below LOS "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan - Circulation Element. I. "Site-related improvements" means capital improvements and right-of-way dedication for direct access improvements to the development in question. Direct access improvements include but are not limited to the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Site driveways and roads. Median cuts made necessary by those driveways or roads. Right turn, left turn, and deceleration or acceleration lanes leading to or from those driveways or roads. Traffic control measures for those driveways or roads. Access or frontage roads not identified on Regional Transportation Facilities List. 17.60.040 Imposition of Transportation Impact Fee. A. Except as provided in Section 17.60.090 of this chapter, an person who applies to the County for the issuance of a building permit to make an improvement to land for one of the uses which is specified in Section 17.60.050 of this chapter and which will generate or attract additional traffic, shall be required to pay a transportation impact fee in the manner and amount set forth in Section 17.60.050. r ; B. In the case of structures, mobile homes, or recreational vehicles which are moved from location to another, a transportation impact fee shall be collected for the new location if the structure, mobile home or recreational vehicle is a type of land development listed in Section 17.60.050 of this chapter, regardless of whether transportation impact fees had been paid at the old location, unless the use at the new location is a replacement of equivalent use. If the structure or mobile home so moved is replaced by an equivalent use, not transportation impact fee shall be assessed the replacement use. In every case, the burden of establishing past payment of transportation impact fee or equivalency of use rests with the fee payer. The follawing limitation are established where a replacement use is proposed to those uses that have existed on the project site based on the following: 1) Prior use within five (S) years of the building permit application -100% reduction. 2) Prior use between five (S) years and ten (10) years of the building permit application - SO% reduction. 3) Prior use greater than ten (10) years of the building permit application - noreduction. Any alteration of the above noted reductions shall be subject to approval of the program Administrator. 17.60.050 Computation of Impact Fee A. Traffic impact fees shall be required as a condition for the issuance of any building permit within the fee area herein under the following circumstances: 1) New construction, except for a medical hardship residence for temporary use when a Zone Variance has been granted for such condition. 2) Remodeling, resulting in an expansion of fifty percent (50%) or more of the e�cisting floor area of an e�sting structure (excluding attached garages, carports, and patios). 3) Any grading pernut for construction of a new mobile home paxk or for an addition of one (1) or more spaces to an existing mobile home park. The building pernut applicant sha11 pay a tra.f�ic impact fee as described under Subsection B and Table l. TABLE 1 FEE PER TR/P CHART FOR BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATlON IMPACT FEE PROGRAM S GENERATOR CATEGORY /MPACT FEE 1 Single Famil , Detached Residential $1,973 2 Mu/ti-Famil Residential $9,321 3 fndustrial $42 4 O�ce Commercial $39 Retail Commercial 5 Under 100, 000 s uare feei $45 6 1 D0, 000 to 399, 000 s uare feet $82 Over 400,000 s uare feet sub ect to individual stud B. The following rules sha11 govern the computation of the fee: 1) The reference in the schedule to square feet refers to the gross squaze footage of each floor of a building measured to the exterior walls, and not usable, interior, rentable, non-common or other forms of net square footage. � ,y 2) The fee amount shall be reduced by 25% for those housing projects affordable to "low income" families as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),and where the developer can submit evidence from H[JD or other similar financing institute that said project satisfies HiJD criteria. 3) When more than one Land Use Type is proposed within the same structure (i.e., an office as part of an industrial complex), each Land Use Type will be calculated separately and the total of the various uses will be assessed. 4) If the type of development activity for which a building permit is applied is not clearly specified on the above fee schedule, the Administrator shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule. The Administrator shall be guided in the selection of a comparable type by the report titled �}� C�eneration: An Information Re}�or : Institute of Transportation Engineers (latest edition). If the Administrator determines that there is no comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule, then the Administrator shall determine the fee by: a) Using traffic generation statistics from the above-named sources; and b) Applying the formula set forth in Subsection D of this Section. 5) When a change of use, redevelopment or modification of an existing use requires the issuance of a building pernut, the transportation impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. However, should the change of use, redevelopment or modification result in a net decrease, no refunds or credits for past transportation impact fees paid sha11 be made or credited. The Administrator shall follow the same procedure to determine "increase" as is outlined above for a determination of "comparable use". C. Residential fees shall be as noted in Table 1. The computation of non-residential fee will utilize the following formula: �e Transportation Impact Fee = ADT g Units z Fee per Unit where the "ADT" is Average Daily Traffic per 1,000 square feet, acre or unit listed; "Units" is the land use rate (number of 1,000 square feet, number of acres, number of units); and "Fee per Unit" is the established fee for each "Unit" proposed. Table 1 is the established "Fee per Unit" to be used in computing the required fee. ADT is listed in the Attachment (Table 2) at the end of this Chapter. D. Where there is any question regarding the land use and corresponding ADTs, the Administrator sha11 make the determination, which decision shall be final. E. If a fee payer decides not to have the transportation impact fee determined according to the requirements of this Section, then the fee payer shall prepare and submit to the Administrator an independent fee calculation study for the land development activity for which the building permit is sought. The independent fee calculation study shall measure the impact of the development in question on the road system by following the prescribed methodologies and formats for the study established by the Administrator. Any decision of the Administrator pursuant to this subsection may be appealed as set forth in Section 17.60.100. 17.60.060 Payment of Fee A. The fee payer sha11 pay the transportation impact fee required by this chapter to the appropriate county department, as deternuned by the Administrator, �~ �~'��F -� ��-� a�� , � , as follows: 1. On or before the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. "Final inspection " and "certificate of occupancy" as used in this section, have the same meaning as described in Section 305 and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition, and as amended; or 2. In the case of a subdivision tract map approved after the effective date of this ordinance, for which a grading permit is required, at the time of application for a grading permit for said subdivision or at the time of rough grading confirmation in accordance with grading permit requirements. B. In lieu of cash, the transportation impact fee may be paid by the use of credits which are created in accordance with provisions of Section 17.60.090 of this chapter. C. All funds collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be deposited into the appropriate Transportation Impact Fee Trust Fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this chapter. 17.60.070 Use of Funds. A. Funds collected from transportation impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to transportation facilities associated with the Regional Transportation Facilities List. Such improvements sha11 be of the type as are made necessary by new development. No funds sha11 be used for periodic or routine maintenance. Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements within the unincorporated areas of the County within the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 Plan area or for projects which are a direct benefit to the regional transportation and circulation system within that area. B. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advance provision of road capital improvements for which roads impact fee may be expended, transportation impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in Subsection A above. C. Each fiscal year, the administrator sha11 present to the Board of Supervisors a proposed capital improvement plan for road construction projects as set forth in Section 17.60.030(C). Such plan sha11 indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all improvements to be financed with transportation impact fees. Such plan shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors following a notice public hearing as set forth in Government Code Section 66002. 17.60.080 Refund of Fee Paid. A. If a building permit expires, is revoked or is voluntarily surrendered and is therefore voided, and no construction or improvement of land has been commenced, the fee payer shall be entitled to a refund, with interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum, of the transportation impact fee paid as a condition for it issuance. B. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following five (5) years from the date the transportation impact fee was paid shall be refunded to the then current owner or owners of lots or units of the development project or projects on the prorated basis, pursuant to the provisions of Govemment Code Section 66001. 17.60.090 Egemptions and Credits. A. The following shall be exempted from payment of the transportation impact fee: 1) Alterations or expansions of an existing building or use of land where no additional living units will be produced over and above those in the existing use of the property, the use is not changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing use. 2) Construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above those produced by the principal building or use of the land. 3) The replacement of a lawfully pernutted building, mobile home or structure, the building permit for which was issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance or the replacement of a building, mobile home or structure that was constructed subsequent thereto and for which the correct transportation impact fee, which was owed at the time the building permit was issued, was paid or otherwise provided for, with a new building, mobile home, or structure of the same use and at the same location, provided that no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. 4) A building pernut for which the transportation impact fee thereof has been or will be paid or otherwise provided for pursuant to a written agreement, zoning approval or development agreement which, by the written terms thereof, clearly and unequivocally was intended to provide for the full mitigation of such impact by enforcement of the agreement, zoning approval or development order, and not by the application of this ordinance. 5) A building pernut which does not result in any additional generation or attraction of traffic as determined by the Administrator. Exemptions must be claimed by the fee payer at the time of application, for a building permit. B. Credits may be granted under the following procedure and when proper claims are made: 1) No credit shall be given for ' , local roads or payments to special assessment or taxing district. 2) All other capital improvements for approved roads on the Regional Transportation Facilities List shall be credited against roads impact fees in the amounts to be established pursuant to paragraph B.3) of this section. However, determination of whether a capital improvement will be approved for credit purposes lies exclusively with the Administrator, unless the improvement �� ` ��`� -�'�`�a °-a is required under state or county development approval, in which case credits sha11 be given to the extent required by law. 3) When a fee payer requests that a credit be given for construction of any facility included in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, including dedication of right-of-way for an approved road pernutted by paragraph B.2) of this section, the fee payer sha11 submit a project description in suffcient detail and with complete costs estimates consistent with the unit costs established by the Regional Transportation Facilities List support data to permit the Administrator to evaluate the request. Credit requests for land dedication or roads listed in the Regional Transportation Facilities List require: a) Deed to convey title to the appropriate governmental body; b) Title report prepared within sixty (60) days of submission thereof; c) Costs consistent with the unit costs established by the Regional . Transportation Facilities List support data. 4) Credits for construction sha11 be created when the construction is completed and accepted by the appropriate governmental body for maintenance. Credits for land dedication sha11 be created when the title to said land has been accepted by the County. E Fee payers claiming credits shall submit documentation sufficient to permit the deternunation of whether such credits claimed are due and, if so, the amount of such credits. The amount of credit shall be actual documented costs, not to exceed the facility's Regional Transportation Facilities List total cost. � £� Credits must be claimed by the fee payer at the time of application for a building permit. 17.60.100 Appeal. Any decision made by the Administrator in the course of administering this chapter may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by filing a written notice of appeal within ten days after the decision with the Clerk of the Board, setting forth the grounds for appeal. The cost to file a notice of appeal is three hundred fifly dollars ($350.00). The Board of Supervisors shall hear sucli appeal at a regular meeting no later than three (3) weeks following the filing of the appeal with the Clerk of the Boazd. The appellant shall be given notice of the appeal no less than three (3) days prior to said hearing. The Clerk of the Board shall notify the Administrator of said hearing and shall furnish the Administrator with copies of all documentation submitted by the appellant. The Board of Supervisors may, upon said hearing, sustain or overrule the decision of the Administrator, which decision sha11 be final and conclusive. ATTACHMENT A TABLE 2 COUNTY OF KERN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE AVERAGE DAILYVEHICLE TRIP RATES AD FOR NOIWRESIDENTIAL USES GENER,4TOR ADT PER TYPE S ACRE UNIT LISTE RETAIL: 5 & 6 Free Standin 5 B 6 Su rmarket 151 5 8 6 Discount Club 78 5& 6 Discount Store 70 5& 6 New Car Dealer 48 5& 6 Convenience Market 369 5& 6 Convenience Ma�lcet/Gasoline Pum 366 5& 6 Hardware/Paint Store 52 5& 6 Bu�ldin Materials and Lumber Store 31 5 8 6 Fumiture and Ca t Store 4 5& 6 P/ant Nurse Garden Center 36 SHOPP/NG CENTER - GENERAL: 5 Under 10,000 sf 168 5 10,000 - 49,999 sf 111 5 50 000 - 99,000 st 79 6 100,000 -199,000 sf 61 6 200,000 - 299, 999 sf 50 6 300,000 - 399,999 sf 44 Over 400,000 sf sub ect to individual stu SHOPP/NG CENTER: 5 6 6 S cia Retail Center SM Center 41 5& 6 A rel Sfore 38 INDUSTRIAL /MANUFACTURING: Free Standin 3 Genera! Manufacturin 4 3 Warehouse 5 3 lndusbia/ Paik 7 3 Li ht /ndu 7 3 Hea Indust 2 3 Mini-warehouse, inc. Stora e Containers 3 OFFICE -COMMERCIAL: 4 Under 100,000 sf 14 4 100,000 - 199,999 sf 13 4 200,000 - 399,999 sf 12 Over 400, 000 sf sub ecf fo individual stud �. � a OFFICE: 4 Govemment 69 4 Sin e Tenant Office Buildin 12 4 Medical 34 4 Clinic 24 RESTAURANT 5& 6 Qual' - 1 hr. orlon er tumover - 97 5& 6 Hi h tumover sit-down 205 5 8 6 Fast Food without Drive-thru 393 5& 6 Fast Food with Drive-thru 316 5&6 BeerBadDrinkin Place 155 FINANCIAL: 5& 6 Ap Facil'�Ges 265 PARKS AND RECREATION: 5& 6 Golf Course 8 5 & 6 Bowlin 33 5& 6 Recreational Commun' Center 23 5& 6 Health Club 43 5& 6 Rac uet Club 17 HOSPITALS: 5 8 6 General 17 12/bed 4 ConvalescentMursin Home/Rehab. 3/bed EDUCATJONAL: 4 Cope es/Trade Schools 2.4/studertf 4 JuniodCommun' Colle s 1.3/student 4 Hi h Schoo/ 1.Mstudent 4 Elemertfa /Jr. Hi h School 1.1/student 4 Da Caie Centei 79 4.7/student 4 libraries 46 A/RPORTS: 5& 6 Loca1 Ai rt 7 HOTEUMOTEL: 5& 6 Hotel* w/restaurant, meet. & ban .rooms 9/occ.room 5& 6 Mote1 w/restaurant onl 10%cc.room M/SCELLANEOUS: 5 B 6 Senrice Stadon 181/ um '"' 5 B 6 Service Station w/Convenience Market 194/ m'* T. . � � �y�� _ . /; ('y. �Y Page 1 12—Oct-95 ,� <��. ... �, Page 2 12—Oct-95 Al ♦� �. �i.�. .J. :� Page 3 12-Oct-95 cmi � . y-.y � . /� Page 4 12—Oct-95 � f.�; M Page 5 12—Oct-95 „ �:r %M Page B 12—Oct-95 ) . �f� ...�.!'/ r.'� ,� . Page 7 , , 12—Oct-95 ._ ❑ STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 (916�445-8498 DISTRICT OFFICE: ❑ 100 W. COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 201 BAKERSFIELD,CA 93301 (805�324-3300 October 13, 1995 Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE, Chairman BUDGET E�ECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION ' �G 9 I 9 1�� . � ;i p°��--- - _ , _ _ _ . '.�:al� C �� `� F 4 � �.� __ , � ._ . , _,�_.,,��, _ ,.�_,�:�- -`'� ' - _ - -1 Earlier this session, you wrote to express your concerns regarding AB 318 (Katz), relating to municipal water and power rates. . I would like to update you on the status of this measure, as well as let you know why I voted to support the measure. AB 318 matches the rates paid by consumers to the cost of providing water and/or power services by limiting the rates that may be charged by a municipal water and power agency to an amount sufficient to cover operating costs and prohibiting such an agency from using revenue generated by water or power rates for costs unrelated to the agency's powers and purposes. The measure would allow transfers of surplus funds from a municipal water and power agency to a municipality if voters approve such a transfer and allows the collection and transfer of a municipal utility user tax by an agency to a municipality that has adopted such a tax. If a water and power agency transfers funds pursuant to either of these exemptions, the transferred funds may only be used to supplement the city's funding for law enforcement. Transfers between a municipal water and power agency and a.city constitute a hidden tax on ratepayers. If local officials want additional revenues for general purpose . programs, they should raise the money directly and not overcharge utility ratepayers through excessive water and power bills. AB 318 requires local officials to be more upfront with their constituents, voters, and utility customers. Printed on Recycled Paper .� October 13, 1995 The Honorable Bob Price Page 2 AB 318 was passed by the Assembly on June 1, 1995. The measure was double- referred by the Senate to the Local Government Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Water. The measure was not heard before the Legislature adjourned on September 15, but may be heard when Session reconvenes in January. I hope this information has been helpful and that you will continue to keep me informed on state issues which affect the City of Bakersfield and the constituents of the Thirty-second Assembiy �isfrict. Sincerelyi ...�'�""T"..� .. i�u�.� TRICE HARVEY Assemblyman, Thirty-second District tiM .,,� ❑ STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 (916�445-8498 DISTRICT OFFICE: ❑ 100 W. COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 201 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805�324-3300 Ociober 13, � 995 The Honorable Bob Price Mayor of the City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE, Chairman BUDGET ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS _, GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION � y�� `�� ,� eG� U�` o�� ' �S ��C?� � Dear Mayor Price: , � : . Earlier this session, you wrote to express .your concerns regarding AB 318 (Katz), relating to municipal water and power rates. I would like to update you on the status of this measure, as well as let you know why�.l voted to support the measure. AB 318 matches the rates paid by consumers to the cost of providing water and/or power services by limiting the rates that may be charged by a municipal water and power agency to an amount sufficient to cover operating costs and prohibiting such an agency from using revenue generated by water or power rates for costs unrelated to the agency's powers and purposes. The measure would allow transfers of surplus funds from a municipal water and power agency to a municipality if voters approve such a transfer and allows the collection and transfer of a municipal utility user tax by an agency to a municipality that has adopted such a tax. If a water and power agency transfers funds pursuant to either of these exemptions, the transferred funds may only be used to supplement the city's funding for law enforcement. Transfers befin►een a municipal water and power agency and a city constitute a hidden tax on ratepayers: If local o.fficials want additional revenues for general purpose pcogcams, they should raise the, money directly, an,d not overcharge utility , � ratepayers through excessive water and power bills. AB 318 requires local officials to be• moce upfront with their constituents, voters, and utility customers. Printed on Recycled Paper � � October 13, 1995 The Honorable Bob Price Page 2 AB 318 was passed by the Assembly on June 1, 1995. The measure was double- referred by the Senate to the Local Government Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Water. The measure was not heard before the Legislature adjourned on September 15, but may be heard when Session reconvenes in January. I hope this information has been helpful and that you will continue to keep me informed on state issues which affect the City of Bakersfield and the constituents of the Thirty-second Assembiy District. Sincerely, ��r1I�� TRICE Assemblyman, Thirty-second District � � STATE CAPITOI `�% SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 �916�445-8498 DISTRICT OFFICES: ❑ 100 W. COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 201 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805) 324-3300 ❑ 821 WEST MORTON AVENUE, itC PORTERVILLE, CA 93257 (209) 783-8152 October 17, 1995 �.. � ., fi��XY#�x�Y�x : �1`i�e�YS.C��xx�e $TA� ., � �i�/ Ol1/44Of.119 �� , .. C1 .,:°; ,T D �i !'.i Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 Truxtun �venue Bakersield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: M �ti�� `r�. AR�VEY :h` COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE RULES WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE HEALTH As part of an ongoing effort to reform California's regulatory process, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) will be holding a public meeting on Thursday, November 2, 1995, atl �9:00 a.m. in the Bakersfield City Council Chambers loeated at 1501 Truxtun Avenue: , The meeting is being held in response to Governor Wilson's Ex"ecutive Order (W-127-95) calling for reform of regulatory processes throughout state government. Industry representatives, elected representatives, academicians, and the interested public are invited to meet with Secretary James Strock and the top officials from Cal/EPA's Boards and Departments to discuss regulatory reform issues. As an active member of our community, you are already aware of the difficulty many businesses have encountered while trying to comply with California's rules and regulations. This meeting represents a positive first step in developing a public/private partnership to create an environment for business retention, success and growth. In the event you are unable to attend the Bakersf ield meeting, I am> enclosing a copy of Cal/EPA's meeting schedule. Your input is vital to reforming the permit process and improving the economic climate in California. I look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely �. � � ". T ce Harve; � � Meinber ' the �AssembTy TH:cr ..._.. •,:.; �-- _ �:; ' . , � - ; ; �CT I � 1995 � �-_ ._--- _--- - - - -� �vH�� ilttia�'v.� 4..` , _.._. �y�' � :4 ".. Printed on Recycled Paper f� ..:::,...... � .... � � ' ....:.;,...<:.�n.�:,.:. ..:. . ..... ..r„•:::5::>::. . . . ..::.:,:>a ::....: : ��: .... .. ... . .. . . .:.::. �� .: :. , .. .,,. ,; , n:y:y v1.. .. ':��''i' : ��.�: , � �: �:',Ii:� �: r::::..: � :: �. .. r. ..: .: ., •.�.:..,. .. � .�: ::�:.:� . :•• .:.:.... ::.� :::.. ....... . . .. .:: .:..� ::::.;.. �.�.��: , • . .. . .. .. : : ..:.. ... . .: : : . . :. . �, .: � .: : :.. �..:. . : ' � . ' : . : . . � . �" ........:�. �..: ... ! :•.: �. ;.,;; �.:.:� ... :::: ... ..: ... .. . :.. � . . . . . .. ... ... .......... . . .. '�:i,'. .:::...:: ...... .. `..,;.....,.:..:��>�.:..::;:,� .:.:.;:.: .: �; :. .: .. . �,;. ... . . � . ,. , .... . . � :. m �� •, , ... . . . . ,, . . . , ..,. � ,.. .. . � � .� �°'s;v�%i�i:' .. • � � �Y:;,:;i' .. • ... y �' �� r � ;. �>�. '� �: : �.��: :: �K ::�r:�t :�,: � 1�. �� ;<Y. ,.... , ... .. - --- --- - -- ��:�:<:::; •. ::r.� :.v1c'.::<i::::1:::>:':,�::1;��::L�i R�Fa'�'! � � � `NIfl7'.C7` `,Y711 t � . �.:,,,::;:,...:,: �� ('t"-:C�.'f:1'°.'�"?I.� T. ,......;::: ;:.,.,Y In responsc to Governor P�te Wilson's Executive Order (W-1Z7-95} calling for reform of reguiatory procssses throughout state gavernment, the California Environmental Protection Agency {GaUEPA) vvi11 host- - i a week�long series. of public meedn�s to seek comment on environmez�tal reguiatory r�fQrm programs. The sub}�cts include: initiatives to mave from prescr�ptive to compliance-based zeguiativns; overlapping federat, state, and Ioca�i regulations; and crosscutting regulatory issues among the Agency's Baazds and Departments. All stakeholders -- environmental organizations, industry representatives, electetl representauves, academicians, and the interested public -� are invited to m�et with Secretary Strock, YTndersecret�y Pandol, azid the top officiai,s frorn CaUEFA's Boazds and Departments to discuss these atnd ocher regulatory reform issues. SCH�pULF AND L(JCATION OF MEETINGS 4 Mo�day, October 30 • San Diego 8oard of Sup�rvisors' Chambers 1600 Pacific H;ghway, �310 (619) 531-5600 ■ Tuesday, Octobe� �1- Inland �mpire Loma Linda City CounCil Chambers 2554� 6arton Road (9og1 �99-zsYa ■ Wednesday; November 1- San Fernando vafley Glendale City Council Charnbe�s 613 East Broaclway (8l$} 548-2094 ■ Thursriay,, Novem�er ? Bakersfteld City Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue (805} 3z6-375T ■ Friday, November 3 Walnut Creek Ciry Cauncii Chambers 16b6 N. Main Street {510) 943-5800 ■ Fo� additional information about the meedngs, pEease calf (916) 3.23-2520. The meetings aze scheduled to begin at 9;00 a.m. Persons interested in addressing the meeting shoulci fill out a speaker requ�st form on the date of the meering. �'ublic comment will be iimited to five minutes per person. Written comments are encauraged and. may be submitted at any of the meeting sites, or may be mailed to CaUEPA, SSS Capitol Mall, Suite 235, Sacramento, CA, 95814, up until 5:00 p.m„ Friday, November 3, 1995. Public and written camments will be summarized and made available for further review via CaUEPA's Internet Home Page (http://vvww,cahwnet.gov/epa) and.other published.communications by De�emb�r 1, I995; CaVEPA will formally respond to the comments by Pebruary 1, 1996. � BAKE �F��o�o�.>��5, � � U p �� LIFO TO: MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources anager SUBJECT: EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR - KERN RIVER October 19, 1995 Hats off to Raul Rojas and the Public Works staff for their quick response and repair of the trunk sewer line crossing under the Kern River channel. The primary contractor, Valverde Construction, Inc., did an excellent job in mobilizing to the job site with the men and equipment necessary to complete the repairs promptly. Although complicated by the e�ctreme length of the river crossing and the high groundwater encountered early in the project, no spills or contamination occurred during the repair and replacement of the sewer line. The early detection and repair avoided what could have been a potentially serious collapse of the sewer line under the Kern River. Due to the diligence and quick response of the repair team, river flows were restored and groundwater recharge operations resumed this week, taking only a little over two weeks to complete the repairs on this complex project. GB:sr QC i I 9 I�� ;r � _ _, Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266 ;. . , � ��_� B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department )ack Hardisty, Director October 18, 1995 Phyllis Hawkins P.O. Box 40565 Bakersfield, CA 93384-0565 Dear Ms. Hawkins: Stanley C. Grady ' Planning Director (805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327-0646 Councilman Salvaggio forwarded your letter to the Planning Department advising us of your problems and urging us to make sure the same situation would not occur at the future northwest Von's store near Hageman Road and Coffee Road. My first concern was over your situation and how we might try to improve it. You have complained that the bright lights interfere with your sleep, the noise from unloading of trucks in the early morning (e.g., 3:00 a.m. and 3:40 a.m.) keeps you awake and the street sweeper working between 4:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. has bothered you. I have spoken to the Von's manager and he told me that he has arranged to turn off the row of parking lot lights along the property line between your apartment and the store. He is looking for a better filter and shielding system to control the light. Von's has also planted a row of eucalyptus trees along the property line to eventually mitigate the lights and visibility between the properties. Delivery of products to the store has been stopped between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and the street sweeper has been ordered not to go behind the store before 7:00 a.m. T'hese accommodations should make it quieter and improve your chances of sleep. These might be improved upon by planting of evergreen trees on your side of the wall to complement the Von's tree planting pattern and by the use of blinds, drapes or shades on windows exposed to the commercial side. As to your concerns over the relationship between Vons and the residents at the intersection of Hageman and Coffee Roads, I have also reviewed those plans with staff. They are placing special notes on the plans to emphasize control of light, boundary wall and landscaping. There should also be less of an issue with neighbors since the commercial to homes relationship was set up by the Laborde Specific Plan and both the homes and shopping center are being built at about the same time. City of Bakersfield • 1715 Chester Avenue • Bakersfield, California • 93301 � : � � October 18, 1995 Phyllis Hawkins Page 2 Thank you for calling attention to these problems. Since we have the plans in for final check this stimulated a more focused review of the details along the back of the project. I also hope the operational changes agreed to by the Von's store on White Lane have made your life more comfortable. Sincerely, �CK HARDI/ S1� Development s�rvices Director XC: Mark Salvaggio, City Councilmember Alan Tandy, City Manager JH/ld LPH� Re[erral #15153 CITY OF �� CA l.l F O R N I A 6��1G�1��104�7 �[�G?M06f�� [�P�1(�1�RGl�l�i� P�I��S �Ob0�0�G� � . � � �ntc. cmr � � Y^ � 199a October 16, 1995 Polly Wanen, Executive D'uector Bakersfield Senior Center, Inc. 530 Fourth Street Bakers�ield, CA 93304 SUBJECT: Landscape Maintenance Services You recently received a copy of the transfer agreement between the City and the Bakersfield Senior Center under separate cover. Section III E(2) of this agreement states that the City shall provide $4,200 for landscape maintenance for a 12-month period. The agreement also states that the Bakersfield Senior Center shall retain a landscape contractor to maintain the landscaping area of the property (as defined in the agteement) within 90 days of the agreement's execution date. Until such time as the Senior Center retains a landscape contractor, the City shall provide such services for a fee and that fee will be deducted from the $�,200. As of September 30, 1995, $1,952 has been expended by the City on the propert}�s landscaping area. During the upcoming winter months, the costs to maintain the property's landscaping area will be significantly lower because less landscaping maintenance will be required. This $1,952, plus any expenses incuned by the City after September 30, 1995, will lower the $4,200. Therefore, this letter serves as both a reminder that the Senior Center should pursue hiring a landscape contractor and an update of the $4,200 contribution. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ��nle�-�!�,° FRANK FABBRI. PARKS SUPERINTENDENT cc Alan Tandy, City Manager Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager Greg Klimko, Finance Manager Jake Wager, Economic Development Director Janice Scanlon, Deputy City Attomey Delores Buddell-Teubner, Assistant to the City Manager s:parks:letter:lmssc �; OCT 9 � 1995 1�� i�`___�_l,,�=�.:�.:i�.o�.: �.°::. 1 ii� C U IIV hL"�'14b"w�.+L,. ��. t E� \.� �� i.__�.nm. " �__ - � _ . .. . . . . _ _,. ._ 4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 (805) 326-3701 � ' �f � �� t � �� ■ � �� California Cities Work Together League of California Cities 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 •(916) 658-8200 October 10, 1995 To Mayors and City Managers Re: Recent Survey Information About Tobacco Regulation `-- �.: ;; ��T �� 6 1995 �rr9�`; :�'�,`°yi '.'', ,._ ,_.� ., The League is pleased to send you the enclosed three documents related to the League's participation in California Smoke-Free Cities. California Smoke-Free Cities is a partnership of the League and The California Healthy Cities Project, funded by Proposition 99 revenues. • The latest Bulletin in the California Smoke-Free Cities series, which documents local activity and public sentiment since the enactment of AB 13, the new statewide standard governing workplace smoking. • Excerpts from "A Survey of California Adults on Population Health Issues", by the Field Institute, June 1995. A more complete summary of the survey was sent recently to city managers and is available by request from the League or from the California Center for Health Improvement. • A summary of the findings from the California Adult Tobacco Surveys, 1994 through June 1995, by the California Department of Health Services. The three documents express the dramatic extent of public support for tobacco control and demonstrate the effectiveness of local policy making on this issue. For more information about local tobacco policies or for additional copies of these materials, please contact Clark Goecker or Kyra Emanuels at the League, 916/658-8250. � , CALIFORNIA , � SMOKE-FREE ..... .. ........... ... _.... ..... CITIES September 1995 Issue 5 Sponsored by California Healthy Cities Project (916) 327-7017 in partnership with the League of California CiNes (916) 658-8200 Managed by the Western Consortium for Public Health Developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section using funds generated by Proposition 99 Local governments are still out in front on totiacco control. ♦ 121 cities had smoke-free restaurants or workplaces, or both, BEFORE the Governor signed_ AB 13, the state law banning smoking in enclosed workplaces. ♦ 39 cities enacted strong tobacco control ordinances in 1994 alone, before the state standard became effective on 1/1/95. ♦ 23 local governments have enacted ordinances EXCEEDING THE STATE STANDARD since 1/1/95. The public enthusiastically supports smoke-Free indoor air. ♦ Almost 90% of nonsmokers and 70% of smokers feel that indoor worksites should be smoke-free. 1 ♦ 91% of nonsmokers and 57% of smokers prefer to eat in smoke-free restaurants and cafeterias. � ♦ Nearly three quarters of all households (73°Io), including 34% of those with smokers, completely ban smoking at home. ' ♦ 71% of California adults believe that government efforts to reduce smoking in California have been successful. 2 ♦ Most Californians perceive a decline in smoking and a quarter of them credit tougher smoking laws. 2 ♦ Californians favor permitting local governments to regulate health-risk behaviors, but also see the value of statewide health regulations. 2 � / L Local and state smoking regulation has been overwhelmingly trouble-free. ♦ Only 16% of adult Californians currently smoke. 2 ♦ Overall compliance with the new state law is excellent; the law is largely self-enforcing. 3 ♦ The vast majority of ca11s from the public from December 1994 through February 1995 were from people or businesses inquiring how to comply with the law. 3 ♦ Enforcement is driven by a complaint about an apparent violation. 3 3 ♦ Only a small number of violators are persistent; most are quickly responsive to warning letters. ♦ Implementation of Labor Code 6404.5 (AB 13) heightened public concern that preexisting local laws be enforced. 3 ♦ The costs for enforcing local smoking ordinances are negligible; the laws are considered largely self-enforcing. 4 The public wants to discourage tobacco use by youth. ♦ Large majorities of Californians support each of the following possible laws aimed at discouraging smoking by minors: 2 a Increasing penalties to retailers who sell cigarettes to minors (88%) -P Banning cigarette advertising on billboards (71%) L:r -o Banning the sale of cigarettes through vending machines (75%) -o Requiring retailers selling cigarettes to be licensed as they are for alcoholic beverages (73%). Sources: (1) Jan. - June 1995 California Adult Tobacco Survey conducted by the California Department of Health Services (2) The Field Institute May/June 1995 survey conducted for,the California Center for Health Improvement (3) California Smoke-Free Cities April 1995 survey of local health deparnnents (4) California Smoke-Free Ciues December 1994 survey of city managers ,. � The Field Institute Survey May/June 1995 --Tobacco-Related Excerpts -- INTRODUCTION Data from the Field survey can help legislators, educators and the public as they consider public policy issues which influence the health and well-being of the people of California. The purpose of the survey is to help the reader form judgments about the value as well as the popularity of pursuing government actions which aim to curb the unwanted effects of unhealthy behaviors and to create conditions that can improve health and well-being. Results of this, the first in a series of surveys over the next five years, indicate that Californians believe that good health depends upon the compatibility of personal, community and government responsibility. Californians recognize the importance of this concept and look forwazd to public policy improvements that can set a supportive context for improving health and well-being. In the last five years, Californians have witnessed a remarkable shift in tobacco control policies at the local and state level. The Field survey conf'irms that the public welcomes such efforts by government to play its historic role in protecting public health through public policy initiatives. ABOUT THE SURVEY The Field Institute survey was commissioned by the California Center for Health Improvement (CCHI), a California-focused and Sacramento-based health policy and education center. The Center is supported through a grant from The California Wellness Foundation as one part of its Health Improvement Initiative. One thousand five hundred and ten (1,510) Californians were surveyed during May and June 1995 about their views on several issues that influence the health and well-being of the people of California. "A Survey of California Adults on Population Health Issues," examineii the influence of unhealthy behaviors such as alcohol abuse, smoking, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy and what public policy can do to improve matters. This document highlights findings related to tobacco use. pg. 1 of 3 � �yr The Field Institute Survey May\June 1995 FINDINGS Californians recognize the value of healthy behavior as a means to prevent wasting lives and money. • The vast majority of Californians (83%) rate not smoking as "very important" in reducing preventable illness and death. • Most Californians (77%) covered by health insurance support insurance companies' requiring health plan members who engage in unhealthy behaviors like smoking to participate in treatment programs in order to keep their coverage. • Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Californians recognize that their own health insurance is more expensive because of people in the plan who smoke. • A large majority (71 %) favors requiring such abusers to pay higher rates for medical insurance. • Though approximately half of California adults (53%) believe that individual smokers should bear the responsibility of paying the additional health care costs associated with smoking-related illnesses, almost half (45%) indicate that tobacco companies should be responsible as well. Californians recognize that smoking patterns in California have changed in the past 5 years. • One in six California adults (16%) currently smokes. •. While there is a general perception that smoking among the zotal California public is declining, most California adults (63%) believe that smoking among teenagers is on the increase. • More than half of California adults believe that teenage smoking leads to an increased likelihood of illegal drug use later. pg. 2 of 3 , � �` � t The Field Institute Survey May/June 1995 Californians support government policies to discourage smoking. Eighty-eight percent (88%) support increased penalties to retailers who sell to minors. Seventy-ftve percent (75%) support banning the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. Seventy-three (73%) support requiring retailers who sell cigarettes to be licensed. Sevenry-one (71 %) support banning cigarette advertising on billboards, public transportation and at sports arenas. Among current smokers, more than half would support these rypes of laws to discourage smoking. . State and local government actions to reduce smoking have been successful. • Californians rated state and local government efforts to reduce smoking as the most successf'ul of efforts to reduce seven harmful behaviors. • Thirry-five percent (35%) rank tougher smoking laws and regulations, or better smoking cessation and prevention programs as the major reason for change in the number of Californians who smoke. Californians support two separate types of state actions that could produce substantial tobacco-related state revenue. • If taxes have to be raised, increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes is the only means acceptable to a large majority (80% and 77% respectively) of Californians. • Sixty four percent (64%) favor a law that would allow state government to sue tobacco companies to recover state health care expenditures associated with smoking-related illnesses. c: \wp51 \articles\fieldrpt.#6 pg. 3 of 3 1�.� � �I .(�� r� � �i�hat Californians Believe About Environmental Tobacco Smoke A Summary of Findings California Adult Tobacco Surveys 1994 and Jan.-June,1995 Tobacco Control Section California Department of Health Services August, 1995 �. � `�� - � - About the Survey The attached is recent information from the California Adult Tobacco Survey (CATS), an ongoing collaborative effort of the California Department of Health Services and the California Public Health Foundation. The survey, which is conducted by the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) Unit of the California Department of Health Services' Cancer Surveillance Section, consists of behavioral, attitudinal, and demographic questions regazding tobacco use and policy in California. Over 4,000 telephone representative interviews aze conducted annually in either English or Spanish. For additional information on the CATS, please contact the Tobacco Control Section of the California Department of Health Services at (916) 327-5425. a Tobacco Control Section California Department of Health Services A -; _ :,� i n � Restaurants and Cafeterias Should Be Smoke Free ► From 1994 to 1995, the percentages of non-smoking and smoking California adults who feel that all restaurants and cafeterias should be smoke free have increased, respectively, from 79.8% to 83.3% (among non-smokers) and from 52.3% to 56.9% (among smokers). The Percentages of California Adults Who Feel That All Restaurants and Cafeterias Should Be Smoke Free ioo so � 60 � a a� U ry 40 20 0 Smoker Non-smoker Total � 1994 p 1995 (first 6 months) Source: 1994 and 1995 Califomia Adult Tobacco Survey (CATS) PreparcA by: Tobecco Control Section, Califomia Department of Health Services, 1995 ► In 1995, almost eighty percent (78.9%) of California adults feel that all restaurants and cafeterias should be smoke free. Tobacco Control Section Califomia Department of Health Services ra ♦ �G Californians Prefer To Dine in Smoke Free Restaurants ► From 1994 to 1995, the percentages of non-smoking and smoking California adults who prefer to eat in restaurants that are smoke free have increased, respectively, from 88.8% to 91.3% (among non- smokers) and from 46. 6% to 57.1 %(among smokers). - The Percentages of California Adults Who Prefer to Eat in Restaurants That are Smoke Free ioo 80 � 60 � a� U �. Q, 40 20 0 Smoker Non-smoker Total � 1994 p 1995 (first 6 months) Source: 1994 and 1995 Califomia Adult Tobecco Survey (CATS) Preparcd by: Tobacco Controi Sxtioq Califomia Deparunent of Health Services, 1995 ► In 1995, over eighty-five percent (85.6%) of California adults prefer a smoke free dining experience. Tobacco Control Section Califomia Department of Health Services ;� �� I ' � 4 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Causes Lung Cancer in a Non-smoker ► In the first six months of 1995, compared to 1994, the percentages of smoking and non-smoking.California adults who believe that ETS causes lung cancer in a non-smoker have increased up to 86. 6% of non-smokers and 61.2% of smokers, thereby bringing the total percentage of California adults who feel this way to 82.4%. The Percentages of California Adults Who Feel That ETS Causes Lung Cancer in a Non-smoker ioo so � 60 a a� v a 40 20 0 Smoker Non-smoker Total � 1994 p 1995 (first 6 months) Source: 1994 and 1995 Califomia Adult Tobecco Survey (CATS) Preparcd by: Tobacco Control Section, Califomia Department of Aealth Services, 1995 ► Even a majority of smokers agree that their smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers. Tobacco Control Section California Department of Health Services � � ;s ^ _ _, . � • Environmental Tobacco Smoke Harms the Health � � of Babies and Children ► From 1994 to 1995, the percentages of non-smoking and smoking California adults who feel that ETS harms the health of babies and children have increased, respectively, from 94.8% to 95.3% (among non-smokers) and from 82.8% to 85.9% (among smokers). ioo 80 � 60 � a a� U a 40 20 0 T6e Percentages of California Adults Who Feel That Inhaling ETS Harms the Health of Babies and Children n� Q QS Z -- - .... .. Smoker Non-smoker Total � 1994 p 1995 (first 6 months) Source: 1994 end 1995 Califomia Adult Tobecco Survey (CATS) Propared by: Tobacco Control Section, Califomia Department of Health Srnices,1995 ► Over ninety-three percent (93. 7%) of California adults feel agree that ETS is harmfr,cl to the health of babies and children. Tobacco Control Section California Department of Health Services � << a - �_ �^ s, - � � Work Sites Should Be Smoke Free ► The percentages of non-smoking and smoking California adults who feel that all indoor work sites should be smoke free have increased from 87.7% in 1994 to 89.8% in 1995 (for non-smokers) and from 66.4% in 1994 to 70.0% in 1995 (for smokers). The Percentages of California Adults Who Feel That All Indoor Work Sites Should Be Smoke Free ioo 80 � 60 � a a� U �y 40 20 0 Smoker Non-smoker Total � 1994 p 1995 (first 6 months) Source: 1994 snd 1995 Califomia Adult Tobacco Survey (CATS) Prepared by: Tobacco Control Section, Califomia Depertment of Health Services,1995 ► In 1995, seventy percent (70. 0%) of smoking California adults agree that all indoor worksites should be smoke free. Tobacco Control Secrion Califomia Department of Health Services CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION OCTOBER 1995 1201 K STREET. SUITE 1740 CCRC UI�D�►TE The Commission will soon begin holding hearings on its preliminary recommendations. Hearings will begin in late October and run through early December. We will be sponsoring both on-site hearings and video conferences. The video conferences (with the assistance of the League of Women Voters and Pacific Bell) will allow Commission members in Sacramento to discuss the recommendations with people participating in designated locations listed on Page 3 of this newsletter. We invite and encourage you to attend. We hope these different types of hearings will provide greater opportunity for involvement by those interested in our activities. The dates, times, and places of the hearings and the video conferences are listed in this newsletter. The September issue of CCRC NEWS contained the Commission's preliminary recommendations. If you did not receive a copy or wish to have additional copies mailed to you, please contact us. The Commission's recommendations, and other related information, also may be found on the World Wide Web througr� the State of California Home Page. The Commission's preliminary report is being prepared and will be published in late October. For further information prior to our hearings, please contact DeDe Lind at (916) 322-4121. pAG� 2 OC�O�IEIR d 995 NOT[CE OF 1'UBL[C HEARINGS Tuesday, October 24, 1995 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Building 505 Van Ness Avenue, Auditorium San Francisco ♦♦�♦ Friday, November 3, 1995 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. County Administration Building 1600 Pacific Highway, Rooms 302-303 San Diego ♦��♦ Thursday, November 30, 1995 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. California State University Office of the Chancellor 400 Golden Shore, Auditorium Long Beach ♦♦�♦ Thursday, December 7, 1995 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 1201 K Street Seventh Floor Meeting Room Sacramento If you are interested in speaking at one of the above hearings, please contact the Commission office at (916) 322-4121, and we will add your name to the agenda. For historical purposes, the Commission requests that oral testimony be accompanied by a written copy of your testimony. If you are unable to attend the public hearings, you may submit your comments in writing to the Commission either by mail or over the Internet. Written comments will be given the same consideration as oral testimony. CALI�ORNIA CONSTI��.RYION REVBS�ON CON&NiNSSION N�AG� 3 OC�OBER 1995 vIDEO CONFERENCES The California Constitution Revision Commission, with the assistance of the League of Women Voters and Pacific Bell, will be cosponsoring a series of video conferences on the Cammission's preliminary recommendations. All citizens are invited to attend the public forums listed below and discuss the recommendations with members of the Commission.. For each of the five video conferences, members of the Commission will be present at a video conferencing facility in Sacramento. The remote sites will be located in schools and libraries that will be participating in the video conferences through Pacific Bell's Education First Initiative. Date Time Location Cit Wednesday, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Mendocino High Mendocino November 1 School Thursday, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. McLane High School Fresno November 9 Tuesday, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. West Valley College Saratoga November 28 Tuesday, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Century High School Santa Ana December 5 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Pasadena Public Pasadena Library cc.�c � �o:ES o�v��,r.�� We are,pleased �o a�nourice tltat the Califnrnia Cnnsfiitution Revis:ion Comrnisszon, working with the California State Library, has its awn Horne Page c�n th+e Irifernet and of#ers !a.nfvrrimatiori from the Comrnissinn over the "inforrnation highwa�r."; Yr�u' wi�ll find ,the CCRC Home `I*age #hrough the newly revised Galifornia ' Home Page (http:!/www.ca�gav) which grovxdes an easy-ta-use electranic gateway �a state iriform�Eion and s�rvices. The California Constitution �evision Commissian`s Hvme Page rnay b� �ound in a. general guide to stat� gavernment_ called:"Your Government;" the subjecfi and agency index -"He11o, May We , �e1p Yau;"` and a listing af stafe elec�ronic resvurces -"Califarnaa . Sfate :Governnnenk Servers. " CCRC INTE.�NET ADD.RESS�ES tslb.�ksilva@ts3.teale.ca.gov. . tslb.rl�moratt�ts3.teale.ca.�ov.; ` CA�9FOIRNVA CONS�&��IITqON REVISION COIlNNYNSS90N .. . � , . . - . - . . . � � . .. -:� . _ , , . , . . , . ' ... � . ', . � . . , . :� . . • ' > - . . . � . . - ' . . . . � . - � , , . . • . _ I �� ' . _ . � . . ' . ' . . . . � . . . . - . � . , . I - ptltltlOtlOt}btluntl . .� � . � . � ' � � _ . � . , . � . . . . ' � ,� � . � ' . . �1� � ��P 5 , - ' , � �. - �;��:� �� . _ � i � ��FS � '. � " ` _ - � o. I �I ;n �i�� , _ � � � c � �g�� tld . �Q� .. �I , ��J�4�6U �„� , � � � : , �`'- - -9° ,;, �p � C : ��c ,�� ;�s�', �.., � � O "� �� IIa�„ p� ' � N � ,�� ':o � � fl� ' � � . ' ` ' :c>. � .� . - . �sy�� o " � . � ` . �:� �E - . ' �'�- - � aa . , , cn N . � Q .�:., B • . , , � :� p U % ,f � , ��ty�� - . Q� . . ' , ' . ; .. ' / . . � � : i .. ' , . � . . . � �O O � . � ' . - . . � . . - � � . . � . - .. � . . . Q V +" - , � ,��'��-5��. �; .. r . . . , - ' . � , . Q . . , . , . . . . . . , .. . , � � - � . � � . ' (� �(n . � � ' � � . (.,-xbaocc� ; � � . ; . � � . .. � - ' ' . � . . . � � N� : . . . , � . � . . . - � . - .. � , � , � ' ._ ' . . � � � 7 (� - � . ! i=� C N i - � ' , Q� M � �?� ; ; , > � Q _ �II 0 �'� . � � _ . . , - . . . i � � , I • ��i� � ..0 � � . . . . , C �6+ � � p� w K� �, �� - . _ i > Q . ,� U .� � ,. , . , Q Ci � (�' � �.. � ,-,' . r a . ..i - . cu..aE 'U L.. C k , _ G W � 'L7 . � O `� O � 41 Q� +�+ r+ .N o.� . . � 1- �U �t y _ :N ;-' .� . - ' � n ��.. ` , , _ � C � �.-� ' ' E � C , , , �,w�M m , o�o. 4. . . � , U�� ' ; . � [ �. � y °- �- ' c � o � . . � �� q +� c .x , o ._ � , '.,� •,.+ �'I �D � . '. - � d t� +- ai � '> � � , Z � � . . . . � � � " ' ".. _ O � � � _ ��.� . , � -o �— � � - M , . . - . . j a.� . �,_ ` � c LL . , - -�n � � _ I •C - : oE� � , � c � � � = ` ' ' U � ;> _ O �' . ; . : � c� a> , , � � � . . � � � � , . . . � .. � . . . -. . � � � �� - � � CI Q .0 � CV ' `� '+-� �O ` ". - � � ' � ' _ 'Z _ U�.� O°: , . , - a� c .. cn , � � ° . � �.V � � � _ - - ; ��o..:'� . „ �� f , - . �� ,N (� a � �, �� U � � , , . ' �' T o O ' - " . ' . - o o �' ' . O -' = , �� - „ . �� z n� � � . , :. - � � = '. . ' I--- � . . � c o �'. , �, UQ , `. �U , c N tn cn �c0 c � Z � ' . � , . ; � , . ,. o�� ,V.0 �, V o. ' � � j �, � � I � . . .' . . ' ., �. - . , ' � ... . .c� �r C . , . . Q V O ! � . , t., y vr ' , , • . . . Z � . � . . . . _ . . . T . � L � - � : . � . _ � ! Q� n.N O w . ' ' . .. �'�+�Oc;' ' � y +�-� � -� N � � �. . , C �.. � N , - - J Y • ' , , p•7,jCrj U : : . - _ _ �. �. � � :� i o N � � � . ��m - � � � � � 1- �a. a _ - ! , . • , ' , - . .. • � _ , , _