HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/96
.-;:- -c' ~~1;. ~ .
','
--
B A K E R S F I E L 0
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 1996
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER I1T be-r d-3,
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Attached from Development Services is a memorandum summarizing the January
10th meeting attended by Þlanning Department staff and representatives of
the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. Representatives from
the District will give a presentation at the January 24th Council workshop
on the subject of park fees in the north. ,~
2. John Stinson will be off for about a month. His wife had hip replacement
surgery this week. We're told that it went well.
3. My annual evaluation comes up in mid-February. I will be getting you a
packet of information in advance of that date and wi 11 schedule an
executive session for that purpose.
4. The land swap between Castle & Cooke and the Kern County Water Agency on
properties to the west of the city currently is off. That was going to
result in a large annexation of land area and a reconfiguration of water
storage areas. It could possibly be resurrected, but it has, for the time
being, fallen off of the agenda.
5. As .you know from the media, we met with Panorama property owners this week.
We have separately sent to you the proposed mitigation plan for the ash
behind the homes, which we believe is an appropriate course of action to
take. We are now awaiting the County's response on that subject which
could either be a yes to that plan or directives to modify it. As we have
reported to you previously, the methane removal sys'tem', which was the
source of the most immediate previous media coverage of this area, is
functioning extremely effectively and is showing excellent results in the
test wells.
6. Carroll Hayden, the new Human Resources Director, will begi n work on
Monday, January 22nd.
7. We had our staff budget kick-off meeting this week. While Council will not
see the product for some period of time, we are actively working on the
1996-97 budget.
-
~
.,...- ~..
'.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 19, 1996
Page -2-
8. There is a notice enclosed regarding a small ceremony we will be having to
acknowledge the unplugging of the old computer system and show some
appreciation for the hard work that went into the development and
installation of the new hardware and software.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Carol Williams, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
MEMORANDUM
January 11, 1996
--- //
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager , - -.
FROM: Jack Hardisty. Development Services Director /,/>r---
SUBJECT: North Bakersfield Recreation & Park Districr-/ .
January 24, 1996 Council Workshop Presentation
This memo summarizes the January 10, 1996 meeting attended by representatives of the District
(Henry Agonia, Colon Bywater of the District and Teri Bjorn, Legal Counsel) and Planning
Department staff. The topics of the meeting were to update us on the District's discussion with
the County, and the District's January 24, 1996 Council workshop.
County Status: The District has been meeting with County Planning over the last
several months to address the County's concerns about the nexus document. The District has
responded, and now Ted James, County Planning Director will be coordinating a meeting with
building industry representatives, District, City and County representatives, tentatively scheduled
for the afternoon of Jan. 24, 1996.
Workshop: The topic of the workshop is the District's request to the City and County
to change the park land and development requirements for the District, so that their park
requirements are the same as the City's requirements. The 15-20 minute presentation outline is
as follows:
Teri Biorn:
1. Overview of the District's request.
2. Relationship of the City's ordinance and General Plan requirements and the
District's request.
3. Explain how the District's request would provide consistency among City, County
and District park requirements.
4. Update of on-going discussions with County and building industry.
Henry A~onia:
1. Financial summary of District.
2. Explanation of unmet park and recreation need with increased population.
2. Focused discussion on park development fee request.
3. Case Study Example.
IE:
CC: Ginnv Gennero. Deputy City Attorney
Stanley Grady. Planning Director
IMNOR
., ^
_. . .-.-
- -------- ---- --------- - ---
"
II, II
MEMORIAL SERVICES
FOR THE
PRIME COMPUTER SYSTEM
Visitation and a Memorial Service are scheduled
from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm to honor the passing of the
PRIME Computer System on Friday, January 26th.
Services will be held in the
Management InformaJion Services Division,
located on the basement floor of City Hall.
Alan Tandy will deliver the eulogy at 2:30 pm.
The PRIME System is survived by the following
MIS staff members, Bob Trammel, Mike Kennedy,
Joy Collier, Jim Devlin, Ava Evans, Jay Green,
T.S. Liew, and Diane Villalovos.
They, among others, were very close to the PRIME,
and words cannot express what this departure means to them.
Light refreshments will be served.
(Out of resped for the PRIME, approprÜJte funeral attire is suggested.)
-- Ii
f-""¡;~
.(
:' . BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
OF KERN COUNTY
BIR 6901 McDIVITI DRIVE, SUITE C
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 - 2047 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 8051832-0258
January 12, 1996
~
Mr. Craig Pope, Director
Transportation Management Department
2700 'M' Street, Suite 400
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
Re: Transportation Impact Fee Program, Phase II
Dear Craig:
The Building Industry Association of Kern County Planning and Land
Use Committee and Board of Directors have discussed, at length, the
Transportation Impact Fee Program, Phase II. There are several
basic concerns that must be resolved prior to the BIA taking any
position regarding this fee increase.
FIRST, BIA MUST FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROJECT LIST. New devel-
opment is responsible for its impacts, yet there are transportation
improvements which raise serious qu~stions as to whether these are
"existing" deficiencies. For example, Stine Road between Ming
Avenue and Stockdale Highway is not a newly developing area. The
project list indicates lane additions and canal culvert expansions
at this location. Hughes Lane between Ming and Terrace Way is also
included, yet this is already impacted by "existing" traffic. Union
Avenue improvements could not be described as "new growth" and
Mount Vernon between Casa Loma Drive and Belle Terrace seems to be
strictly an improvement for sewer farm access. These are only some
examples, however, the BIA does seriously question new growth's
responsibility to fund "existing" transportation problems.
There also remains some question as to how much of the impacts are
new growth compared to internal growth. New growth can be calcu-
lated based on the numbers of building permits issued. Community-
wide growth rates can also be calculated. It is the BIA contention
that new development should not be responsible for the full cost of
regional improvements when new development is not responsible for
the full community-wide growth statistics.
SECOND, BIA WOULD LIKE THIS FEE TO BE LOCKED IN FOR 10 YE~RS. If
this is a long range project list which will accommodate realistic
growth projections, it should not change. Having this fee vulner-
able to unpredictable increases year after year is not -aRf.~~§~~D'- .,
-~--
t ;
,., i h Iqga: t
.,¡'" \.' \. 'u t
v ....
,.~~--
,-.--.- ,~---.,...,..,
----
----~-
I ,~
, '~
-7
of,
Craig Pope
January 12, 1996
Page two
THIRD, BIA MUST FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WOULD NOT
BE SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THIS NEW FEE STRUCTURE. According to BIA
members experienced in commercial development, cost comparisons,
provided by staff, for the new proposed fee versus old fee, are not
necessarily "real world" scenarios. The possibility of rendering
a commercial project infeasible is a concern to BIA and should be
to the city and county as well. This understanding needs to be
confirmed with commercial development interests.
FOURTH, PAYMENT OF THIS FEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT CLOSE OF ESCROW
OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. This fee proposal is a significant
increase over the existing impact fee. Delaying the payment as
long as possible would help lower costs for the builder and ulti-
mate user of the property. The county has indicated a willingness
to delay payment, we request a similar willingness from the city.
BIA has also requested of city staff, that we receive the most
current accounting of all Transportation Impact Fee monies
collected and the projects completed with these funds to date.
The issues described in this communication must be resolved to the
satisfaction of the BrA Board of Directors prior to any considera-
tion of the proposed Transportation Impact fee increase and
accompanying program.
Sincerely,
, ~/
I /7 . / .
.&~(¿Z/u';W~ - ~¿É~
-'
Barbara Don Carlos-Martin
Executive Vice President
:bgs
cc: Kern County Board of Supervisors
Joel Heinrichs, Kern Co. Admin. Officer
--- -_u--
I ,/ BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
".c
OF KERN COUNTY
BIA 6901 McDIVITT DRIVE, SUITE C
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 - 2047 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 8051832-0258
January 11, 1996
The Honorable Robert Price
Mayor of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Phase I, Specific Trails Plan
Dear Mayor Price:
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Kern County, I
wish to express our sincere appreciation for your support in
seeking a more broad based funding method for the Kern River
Parkway Specific Trails Plan. Now is the time to set in motion a
more equitable manor in which to develop and maintain community
benefit amenities. Thank you for your support.
Also, I wish to apologize to you for quoting an incorrect
development impact fee figure. Although several fee formulas
were proposed (copie~ included), I understood from the Executive
Summary (copy included) that the impact fee would be $190. There
was no indication, during the Planning Commission hearing, when I
quoted those numbers, that the fee was different. No one was
more surprised than I, when Mr. Hardisty quoted the lower figure.
This does not, however, change the position of the BIA regarding
these fees and assessment district.
I pride myself in always being completely truthful and accurate
with any information I provide to your council and I'm not sure
when the fee amount was specifically decided (or changed). Obvi-
ously, I was not included or notified, consequently I am also
much the wiser from this experience.
Please accept my apology and gratitude for being sensitive to
the plight of new home buyers.
Sincerely,
~ I
Barbara Don Carlos-Martin .,,- --,- .1
Executive Vice President RECE~\lCD I
q U " !ì...1-
J~N ~ 6 ¡99ô ¡
~
r
I. i
~ "
¡I CITY MANAGER'S OFr-'Cr::
~,- ~
.
. ""'"
'(:.
Page Al-IO
b. Standard for calculating improvement costs.
Table III-!: Standards Used to Calculation Improvement Costs
ONE FAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY NOTES
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT
Standard for Includes standard for both paved
All Trails 65 square feet 52 square feet and unpaved multi-use trails.
(Use in Formula C) "
Standard for Represents standard for only
~ Support FacUlty 6 square feet 5 square feet support facilities.
(Use in Formula D)
9. Examole of Formula F.
,- FORMULA F
Fonnula for Trail Improvement Fee'
Standard for Trail Trail Improvement Amount of
per Type of X Cost per = Improvement Fee
Dwelling Unit Square Foot Required Cor Trails per
Dwelling Unit
Examples: (Round to nearest whole dollar.)
. 65 sq.ft/OF du X $1.39/sq.ft = $90.35 (or $90.00 per One Family du)
. 52 sq.ft./MF du X $1.39/sq.rt. = $72.28 (or $72.00 per Multi Family do)
STP.CAL (P~ JIUIt! 19, 1995)
~ --- _...,,- --- --------- --- - -- - - ~-----
-- ' -
. ~
f
Page Al-12
8. Example Total Amount of In-lieu Fee for Dedication and Improvement.
Amount In-lieu fee + Amount fee for = Est. Total Fee for
for Trail & Facility Improvement Trail aDd Facility
dedication (est.) Dedication & Improvement
Examples.
One Family Dwelling Unit:. "
$25 + $190 = $215 per One Family DU * (est.)
(Land) (Trails & Facilities (* rounded tOl1earest whole dollar)
Improvement)
Multi Family Dwelling Unit:
$20 + $155 = $175 per One Family DU * (cst.)
(Land) (frails & Facilities (* rounded to nearest whole dollar)
Improvement)
..
STP.CAL (Prrport:d ltlllt: 19. 1995)
.' ..._-
.
I '
'! ----'¡-
,.-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SPECIFIC TRAILS PLAN
Purpose: The purpose of the Specific Trails Plan is to implement the policies of the
Kern River Plan Element and other elements of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
such as the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Parks Elements. Adoption and
implementation of the Trails Plan achieves several goals of the General Plan: 1) provide public
access to and along the Kern River with a comprehensive trails system; 2) provide alternate
modes of transportation; and 3) provide for an integrated circulation system.
Summary: The Specific Trails Plan identifies trail alignments and support. facilities
and provides for acquiring land dedications, improvements, maintenance, and development
standards for multiple use trails. Multi-use trails include use by pedestrians, hikers, equestrians
and bicyclists. Support facilities provide public parking areas to access trails. Policies of the
Specific Trails Plan require that new residential development provide its proportionate share of
land dedication or payment of in-lieu fee for trails and support facilities and improvement.
The Specific Trails Plan sets the general policies and development standards. Each identified
benefit area to be served by a trails plan is designated as a "phase" of the Specific Trails Plan.
A!, trail plans are identified for certain areas, the Specific Trails Plan will be amended to include
each subsequent phase. For example, Phase 1 covering northeast Bakersfield, in the general
vicinity of Alfred Harrell Highway, Rancheria Road, Highway 178 and the Kern River has been
included as a subsection of Chapter 2.
To ensure consistency, concurrent amendments to the KRPE and Circulation Element may be
needed to incorporate portions of the proposed trails system, The city engineer will revise or
prepare engineering design standards to reflect development standards of the Trails Plan.
Iml)lementation: The Specific Trails Plan is proposed to be adopted as a planning
document by which all new residential developments must be consistent. Implementation of the
requirements are similar to the city"s park land and park development requirements. An
ordinance would be adopted requiring the residential development's proportionate share of land
for trails and support facilities be dedicated or an in-lieu fee paid at the time of recordation of a
final subdivision map. A fee based on a developmenfs proportionate share to construct the
trails and support facilities would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. A
resolution would be adopted setting the fee in accordance with the Specific Trails Plan formulas
which calculate a development's proportionate share.
For the Phase 1 planning area, it is estimated that the fee for a one family house to be $25.00 for
a fee in-lieu of land dedication and $190.00 for development costs (for a total of $215.00 per
house). For a multiple family unit, the fee in-lieu of land dedication is estimated at $20.00 and
$155.00 for development costs (for a total of $175.00 per unit).
\STP.EXS 1 June 19. 1995
I
~ .
-
B A K E R 5 F I E L 0
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(80S) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR' CITY ENGINEER
January 12, 1996
Dennis Karnowski
3813 Troutdale Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93312
SUBJECT: REFUSE PICKUP SCHEDULE FOR HOLIDAYS
Dear Mr. Karnowski:
Thank you for your letter regarding refuse pickup scheduling. I
received calls from other citizens expressing the same confusion,
and I must admit, I should have stated clearly in the ad published
in the Bakersfield Californian that this schedule pertained to
residents receiving service from City crews only.
Since you are picked up by a private refuse hauler (Varner
Brothers), your pickup schequle for the holidays is indeed
different. The landfills are closed four (4) times per year: New
Years, July 4th, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas. During those
weeks, you will receive double pickup on Thursday.
This fact will be made clear in the next ad, before the 4 th of
July.
Your comment regarding the landfill schedule is also well-taken.
City crews used to work on Christmas and other holidays, when we
maintained a 6-day per week pickup schedule. However, with
automation, the City-provided service now operates 5-days per week
instead of six, in order to save money. And the contractors will
be automating in the future.
If you have any questions, or are in need of additional
information, please call me 326-3114. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Since::M
~~ MO~~~ Waste Superintendent
c: Alan Tandy, City Manager -,"..
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~_. RECE\VED
r '"
\ JAN" I h 1996,
L- j
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICF
-=-.-
--
.- ___n