Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/96_ � � B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION May 17, 1996 1. Attached is a status report on the Chester Avenue Streetscape project. The consultants have recommended some changes which Staffwill be reviewing: In regard to the establishment of the maintenance district, is appears that the improvements will fall under the tier 3 category. We plan to meet with a goup of downtown property owners and then schedule one-on-one meetings with the property owners to discuss the impacts. Current plan is to establish the maintenance district by early fall. We have also received notification from the California Transportation Commission that we have made the Resources Agency's recommended list for projects to funded during FY 1996-97. However, due to the large volume of projects competing for a grant, there may not be sufficient funding for our project this year. We will update you as we get more information. 2. There is a memorandum enclosed regarding a Time Warner system upgrade which is currently in progress in order to provide better service. The upgrade involves placing new equipment boxes ne� to existing ones, and the cable company is doing the project by neighborhood "hubs". There will be a"clean up" process of removing the existing boxes after the upgrade is completed. They have hired additional customer service personnel during this period and have indicated they will also provide shrubbery to conceal the new boxes for customers who may object to the installation in their yards. 3. The County has indicated they want to continue.their cost sharing agreement with us for the Mt. Vernon Greenwaste Facility for the ne� fiscal year. It will go before the Board of Supervisors on June 4th and to Council shortly thereafter. � 4. An action plan has been prepared by Development Services regarding the proposed changes to the site plan approval process as a result ofthe Marketplace legal rulings. It is enclosed for your review. 3-"'� Honorable Mayor and City Council May 17, 1996 Page 2 In response to a Council inquiry, enclosed is an update regarding a citizen complaint about traffic problems on Elm Street. 6. Public Works has examined the possibility of whether we should take ownership of the Gleaners Building at 2030 14th St in order to secure a right-of-way for the future freeway. Since the specific plan for the freeway has not yet been adopted, it would be premature to make a decision based only on the possibility of a future right-of-way. 7. We met with PERS. You may recall that they want to impose a$500,000 cost per year on us to pay the employee share of PERS for our employees with less than six years of service. They aze at least partially backing off in giving us several years to bring MOU's into compliance with such a program. 8. Our block grant was awarded at $217,000 more than we expected and our HOME grant at $87,000. These are over what is programmed in the recommended budget. 9. We met with the museum this week. They would like a five year lease extension at Central Park with an option to purchase. They may put $350,000 to $700,000 into the museum from their own money! 10. In order to attend the Department of To�c Substance Control's hearing on letting us into the expedited program for Panorama, the City Attorney and I may have to miss a budget meeting of Council on the 29th of May. 11. The Municipal League tried to sponsor legislation to ease the annexation process. We sent witnesses - the bill was gutted, so things will stay as they are. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst :--.rJ� • :1� ,.� B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M May 15, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development irecto SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CHESTER AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT As mentioned to you yesterday, Lawrence Moss & Associates, the firm retained to complete construction drawings for the Chester Avenue Streetscape Project has made some recommendations which would somewhat modify the design originally proposed by Urban Design Studio. The most significant recommendation is deleting the use of palm trees except as exclamation marks at the entry point of Chester Avenue. In lieu of palm trees being employed in the median area, the consultant is proposing using trees wluch would offer a shade canopy effect. Also the consultant is proposing to use turf as opposed to shrubbery in planters in order to maximize the greening of downtown. As indicated these are all proposals or recommendations from the consultant. Staff will be reviewing his proposal next week. The emphasis of sta.ff s review will be for cost savings and real, practical solutions for specific sites at which a constraint (utility line or a basement) has been identified. Following staffs review and opportunity to analyze the consultant's recommendation, a briefmg will be scheduled for yourself, the Public Works Director and myself. After this briefing the City will notify the consultant if his recommendations are accepted. With respect to the establishment of the Chester Avenue Streetscape Maintenance District, several models have been worked up in order to establish the most equitable annual assessment. On a preliminary basis it appears that the maintenance of the Chester Avenue improvements fall under the tier 3 of the consolidated maintenance district. Staff is carefully reviewing the elements of the Chester Avenue projects to make sure tier 3 is appropriate. The next step is to establish the conect multiplier or factoring number. Given the wide variety of properties along Chester Avenue this will require careful and deliberate consideration. ������'���� ����AY 15 � u C� 1 ! 1!'6P11V�l3t�k�l�� 6..�{^i�k��.. � � ri' .. Once a supportable model has been developed, at your suggestion we will meet with a working group of downtown property owners to test our thoughts. Following the working group's validation (or modification of the model based on their input), I intend on scheduling as many one-on-one meetings as practical with the affected properiy owners. At present I am planning on concluding this process by late summer and scheduling the establishment of the maintenance district for early fall (at the latest). I will continue to advise you of our progress. cc: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director � FROM B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M Jake Wager, Economic Development Director Donna Barnes, Development Associate�� � .\ � �i ► _�. May 14, 1996 SUBJECT: Status of the Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Grant Application for Fiscal Year 1996-97 for the Downtown Bakersfield Chester Avenue Streetscape We have been notified by the California Transportation Commission that they have received the Resources Agency's list of recommended projects for the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program. It is expected that the California Transportation Commission will make their final selection of projects to be funded during the 1996-97 fiscal year in July. Sixty-two projects made the recommended list for Southern California counties. It is my understanding that many other projects did not make the list. The Chester Avenue Streetscape project made the list receiving a rating of 71 points. We requested $250,000 and were recommended for $200,000. The highest scoring project, Los Angeles Conservation Corps for the Wilmington-Carson Reforestation Project, received 96.67 points and the lowest scoring project, City of Chino for the Central/Edison Avenues/Ayala Bikeway Project, received 70.33 points. The Resources Agency's recommended funding level for southern California counties' projects has a cumulative total of $11,049,773, and a statewide total of $18,970,701. �'he current statewide funding limit is $10 million. Although our project made the recommend project list, due to the large volume of projects competing for this grant there may be insufficient funds for our project this year. City staff has already begun exploring how we can improve our application to resubmit next year. Staff is familiar with other first year applications which were re-worked, resubmitted and funded the second year. We understand that the selection process is very political and subjective, particularly at the California Transportation Commission level, as the City has recently experienced. We will continue to update you on this project. donna.eem � � �'�> ; ��n ��. __ ' �__.____�,,,�._,. , � AY 1 419g� � � _�.�_ � ���� ��F������°� ��=-^�°--. May 15, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: � B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATNE ANALYST III TOUR OF TIME WARNER FACILITIES ��h�� On Monday of this week, I went on a mini-tour of the Time-Warner Communications' new "head-end" facilities. As part of a$31,000,000 upgrade, they have built and aze in the processing of installing state-of- the-art equipment in the new facilities which will include not only a new "head-end" but also "hubs" which will transmit communications throughout Bakersfield and the outlying communities. The areas supported by "hubs" (as many as 20,000 homes) will be upgraded in sections. Time-Warner is currently working in the Rosedale area. The next hub proposed will be in the Wilson/Stine area. From there it is my understanding they will move into the northeast. As part of the tour, I was driven azound to view some of the new boxes which are being installed which houses the new equipment. The new boxes aze being placed above ground, generally next to existing ones. It was indicated that when the work within the hub azea is complete the old boxes will be removed as part of a "clean-up" phase. For those customers who complain about the boxes, Time-Warner indicated they would provide shrubbery to help hide them. They have indicated they are willing to work with homeowners to try to come to equitable solutions even though Time-Warner is allowed to use the right of way for its purposes. The tour showed that Time-Warner, as we(1 as Cox Cable, is involved in upgrading systems. As the upgrades proceed within the City it is conceivable that our residents may be resistant to the new boxes. Boxes encasing "amplifiers" aze lazger than those housing the "nodes." Although amplifiers and nodes serve selected azeas, it is not impossible for the larger (or smalier) boxes to be placed across the street from each other in neighbors' yazds, and this was the case at least once during my mini-tour. This can be compounded by the fact Cox Cable can also place its boxes within the right of way (as well as other utility applications). Mr. Grinstead indicated that they have hired customer relations personnel to work with City residents to ensure that they aze disturbed minimally during the upgrading process. He wanted to keep the City Council informed of the new upgrade, and he was very pleased to be one of a select number of Time-Wamer systems to be upgraded. The new facilities and equipment will place Time-Warner in a position to not only provide better and enhanced service to customers but will also place them in a better position to take advantage of future opportunities, such as "telephony," interactive communications, etc. (m0515963) s T0: FROM: � --� B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works May 14, 1996 D � ector RE: UPDATE ON CITY�COUNTY CONTRACT FOR GREENWASTE FACILITY FUNDING The cost sharirig agreement for the Mt. Vernon Greenwaste Facility operation is working well for this fiscal year. The County has paid over $130,000 for the first six months of operation, and has just been billed slightly over $100,000 for the third quarter operation. County Waste Management staff has also indicated an intent to continue the existing agreement for the coming fiscal year. The only significant modification to the agreement will be deletion of the provision which allows the City to take excess greenwaste to the County landfills for use Alternate Daily Cover (ADC). This is not a major concern, however, because we have successfully negotiated a long term contract with a large scale agricultural buyer for compost material. This means that material which we are currently sending for ADC at the County landfill will soon be turned into compost for the ag buyer. The County intends to take the cost sharing agreement for the new fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors on June 4th. We will prepare it for City Council approval shortly after that. �i KB:smp �/ KBCORMEM.CCCONT.MEM . _' B �!�va����� �; ����� � AY 15 !� � '���� ��ir��A��R'� OFFeC�� � _:� ;. TO: MEMORANDUM May 14, 1996 ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER �i ������,���--° i� �� ���AY � � isss �� ,� . a ��IT� 61li���af�L�:'�'��" FROM: G��—�" STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING - MAY 22, 1996 COUNCIL REFERRAL - OUTLINE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO REMEDY ANY DEFICIENCIES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAY HAVE HAD ON THE MARKETPLACE The ruling on the Marketplace site plan review approval, as I understand it, directly relates to the issues raised in the petition filed by Jill Kleiss. Five of the nine determinations in the court's ruling relate to our decision to approve the site plan for the project. They are as follows: #3 The project is not statutorily exempt. #4 The project is not categorically exempt. #5 The project is not ministerial. #7 The Marketplace is a permitted use in a C-2 zone. #9 CEQA does apply to this project but doesn't obviate previous decisions other than issuance of a building permit without first preparing an EIR. Based on this understanding I propose the following immediate, short-term and long-term actions in response to the ruling on the Marketplace project: I. Immediate Action: It is clear that if we made the same decisions on a similar project on a different site we could be challenged and suffer the same ruling. Therefore one obvious thing we need to do is chan�e the approval process for similar projects. Change to me means modify - not overhaul. The following changes are recommended: A) Revise categorical exemptions in CEQA Resolution 212-92 as follows: 1. 2. Add to Class 3 New Construction or conversion of small structures: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code for change of use of existing buildings and new construction for small commercial and industrial projects. Delete from Class 5 Minor alterations in land use limitations: a. Site plan approvals under Chapter 17.53 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. - . Alan Tandy May 14, 1996 Page 2 B) Revise site plan review ordinance to require environmental review for certain projects as part of the site plan review process for: 1) New commercial or industrial projects consisting of: a) Any single retail store or business with a total gross floor area of 75,000 square feet. b) Any retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet. c) Any addition to any existing retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square feet increasing the total gross floor area by more than twenty percent (20%) or by more than 75,000 square feet, or any addition to any existing shopping center increasing the gross square footage of the shopping center to 150,000 square feet or more. (Note: The above items are adopted site plan review policies. CC resolution 111- 83, and Planning Commission Resolution 55-83). 2. Additions to commercial or industrial projects changing a single tenant building to a multi-tenant building or adding additional square footage or building pads to an existing multi-tenant building. C) Revise CEQA resolution to give responsibility to Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to recommend approval of negative declarations or certify an EIR for site plan reviews. II. Short-term action: There are other changes that should be made that aren't as apparent. They are changes in response to potential weaknesses in our process identi�ed during our review and preparation for arguments before the court. Those items relate to our CEQA resolution and the list of ministerial and categorical exemptions contained therein. We should review and make necessary revisions to the list of categorical exemptions and ministerial projects in the CEQA resolution. III. Lon�-term actions: A broader issue outside of the issues ruled on by the court but related is the authority granted to various departments with respect to the application of conditions to insure compliance with site plan review, resolutions, ordinances and procedures. The following issues should be evaluated: A. Evaluate whether or not it would be beneficial to require PCD zone changes for all shopping centers. ; . • ,. Alan Tandy May 14, 1996 Page 3 B. Evaluate the authoriry granted to various department and division heads to condition projects through site plan review. SG:pjt cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Gail Waiters, Assistant City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney Attachments: Copy of Judges Ruling on the Marketplace Copy of Site Plan Review Resolution used for Threshold for Initial Study m\mat5.13 I ,. 0 � 12�18�95 lY:li �805 931 49�9 H C SL"PERIOR CT � 002�00� ;UPfk�OR COU4T OF ?HE STATE OF CALIFORritA IN AND fOR THE COUNTY O� I(ERN pAT6 HO!ld8 m'` COUaT MET AT g' 3 e_m_ O�ArtiMWi NO. �+ ►Re3E!vT, ►�pN. R ER D R euT1�T T , ��p�E OEPl1T� RER� No . aepo�rt� a e�►iurr T1Tli: SOLPII�iG1EST COl�4�UNITY AGTIQN CCF4MITTEE, tivD Jiu. xL�SS v�. CITY OF BARERSFIII.D, BARERSFIEI.D CI'I7 COUNGIL. E1' AL w►tu� o� n�otwv�o� WRIT QF MANAATE HERE'POFORE SU�tITTID Ru_ lin8: See attached ruling made a part hereof. Copies mailed to counsel on this date./clm ea,�rtr a�c �o.�, MINUTES E, Robert Wright Judy Skousen, Deputy City Attorney Carl Hernnndez� Deputy City Attorney I�rk Tnn�a s�nt1 I'.P(1T9P Al�rtin ���p 229401 RDR � ,12�18�95 1Y:14 �805 8J4 4999 H C SCPERIOR CT ' @�OOJ�004 FROM; RDRV RULING ON MARKBTPLACE CBQA TRYAL LBT A PBRMANBNT INJUNCTION ISSUE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONBRS RESTRAINING Tf� CITY OF BAKSRSFIELD AND RBAL PARTY IN INTBREST FROM pRpCg�ING WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON TF3E PROJBCT CO[�10NZY 1Qrpy1N AS TgB MARKETPLACB, AND PROM ISSII�NG APPROVALS OR ANY FUR'I�R PERMITS F�R 'I'i1B PROJSC"r PRIOR TO C�MPLYING WITH THB RSQIIZRSMENTS OF CEQA. PSTZTIONEAS ARF AWARDSD Z'F�IR COSTS OF SIIIT HF,RBIN. Z'H8 QUSSTZON OF FBTITIONBRS' SNTITLEt�NT TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNBYS FEBS IS RBSERVED TO BE CONSIDfiRED AT SUCH TIMB AS A COST BILL IS FILED WITH TH8 COURT. . pilTx ggGARD TO THT SPBCIFIC ISSUES RAISSD BY T� PARTISS AT SRIAL, THS COURT HAS MADB 'THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS: �. Ti� PBTITION IS NOT BAR.RED BY TH� STATUTS OF LIMITATIONS SBT FORTH IN PRC SBCTYON 21167 (A). THERB WAS p0 FINAL APPROVAL OF SITS PLAN Ca�ITI0N3 UNTIL Ai1C3UST, 1995. 2: RELIEF PURSOANT TO THB PBTITYON IS NOT SARRSD ON GROUNDS OF MOOTNE5 . PETITIONIIt5 HAVE SOUGHT RELY$F BBYOPID COMPLBTION OF .AN EIR AND, INASMi7Qi AS BOTH TI� CITY AND R$AL PARTY IN INTHREST TAKS THS POSITION '1'�iAT THB BIR NOW IN PROCBSS OF PR.BPARATION IS BEIN(3 DONFs AS AN ACCOr9rlODATION, AND NOT BBCAUSF IT IS LEGALLY RBQUIRED. TH8 ISSUB OF TSB NECS93ITY OF PREPARATION OF SIICH A DOCUMBNT WAS STILL HBFORB TI� COIIRT IN TIiIS PROCBF.DING. ��T� PROJBCT Z 3 NOT STA LY UNDBR PRC S$CTIOId 210 S 3. 3 ) . E8 S$CTION 21083 .3 (C) . �'Pi� PROJBCT IS NOT CATSGORICALLY F'ROM CEQA RSNISW UNDSR PR S ONS OP PRC 38CTION �1084(A). APPROVAL OF A PROJSCT TBE 9IZS OF THE MARRBTPLACB� $VFN ��YZNG, SO FAR AS POSSIBLB, STANDAR.DIZ� R8VI8W PROC�URES, DOBS NOT FALL WITHIN 'Pi� CL7ISSYPICATION 4P A�CLASS 5" EXB[�'rION. THE PROJBCT Z3 NOT A"MI R " IINDER PRC SBCTION Z1080 (A . ZO NG ORDINANCS SBCTION 17.53.010, BT SBQ.,PROPERLY ACCORDS CONSIDERABL£ DISCRBTION TO TH5 APPAOVING AUTHORITY, APID BXBRCISB OF THAT DISCRBTION IN THZS MAJOR PROJ$CT RBVIEW OHVIATES THE CLAIM TFIAT APPROVAL OP 'THB PROJECT CONSTITII'IBS A MINISTBRIAL FtJNCrION . 6. FOR RBASONS V�IBLL ARGUED IN Ti� CITX OF BAKBRSFIBLD'S BRIBF, VOLIINTARY PRSPARATTON OF AN EIR AFrTBR CO[�+Q+JSNC�EN'T OF LITIGATION IN TFiIS MATTBR IS NOT RES JUD�CATA. � CONSTRUCTTON OF A PROJBCT SUCH AS THB MARK�TPLACB ON ZTS 12�18�95 12:15 '�805 834 3889 H C SCPERIOR CT �OO��OOi BR�SENT SITS REPRSSSNTS A PERMITTSD US8 IN A C-2 ZONE AS SBT FORZ'Fi IN CHAPTER-1" .24 OF BMC-.. (SEE BMC SE ION 17.04.546i. 8. 'I'I� DOC:RINE OP(�L�AC�FS' DOES NOT 8AR RELIBF IN TEIIS CASB. THB COURT IS NOT pBRSUADSD THAT THB DOCTRINE SH�U� N�� $E APPLIED IN A CFiQA CASE 88CAUS8 OF THB PUBLIC INTSR$ST PURPOSES OF THE LBGISLATION. HOWBVBR, IN THS INSTAN'P CASE THB COURT FINDS Z'FiA`r TH� FILING OF THZS ACTION CONTBMPOR.ANBOUSLY WITH ISSUANCE OF THB BUILDINC3 PBRMIT, AND IN Ti� SAMB MON'I'H AS FINAL SITE PLAN CONDITION CHBCRS, DOES NOT SUPPORT APPLICATION OF Tt� ��IN$• �, THB BVIDBNCE ADDQCSD AT TRTAT. gCOg,D DOBS NOT JUSTIFY THE RBLIBF PBTITIONBRS' PRAYSR. THR FACT CEQA NOT I3EC8SSARILY OBVIATP TSE �B��I� avas v��� • IiEREIN VIA THS ADMINISTRATIVS SOIIGHT YN PAR.AGRAPH 1 OF 'I�38 DOES APPLY TO THIS PROJECT DOES � m J = '-'SOLUTIUN N0. SS-83 RESOLU�. _� OF T?:E PLP.NNING COPti4ISSI0N OF TFi: CT'TY OF LAKERSFIELD AUOPTING ?.DDITIONAL SITE PLAN REVIEW POLICY. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.53.051 0� the Bakersfield Munic'ipal Code, the Planning Commission is required to adopt by resolution Site Plan Review objectives and policies, subject to approval by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the policy set forth below, in addition to those set forth i:, Planning Com•nission Reso�u:.icn Ncs. 21-82, 33- 82 through 37-82, approved by the City Council in its Resolstion No. 57-82, has been found by the ?lanning Com�nission to be consistent with and to promote the purpose of Site Plan Review as set forth in Section 17.53.010 c� the Eakersfield :�un�cipal Coce. N0�4, THEREFORE, °E IT RESOLV�D bs• tze = lar_nir.g Co.:r.:ission of the Ci�y of Bakers`ield as �ollows: 1. T:�at t�,e :clio�•r�n? be added *_o t:�e list o` Si.-° Plan Review pQlicies: Tha�,.in addition to dedications of real property required and except as such share is otherwise assessed or construc�ion in lieu or in excess the=eof recuired, as a coadition of issuance of site plan aopro��al for any major retail project, as defined here_nbelow, ar.d prior to issuance o` any building permit for the project, the applicant for such project, by cash deposit, contract and corporate suretv bond, or irrevocable �r.strument of credit from one or more responsible financial institutions regulate� by the state or federal government and pledging that the iunds are on deposit and c�v aranteed for payment upon the City's demand, and;or dedication or offer of dedication, as determinec by the City Engineer, shall make, or pay its pro�o�tionate share of the cost of, additio:s to, upgradir.g or construction ct public �acilities the need �cr MhicY, is wnolly or partially attributab'_e to t�:e projec�. �, - — ��� the term "major retail p, For purpcses of this policy, project is defined to include each of *.he following: " (1) Any single retail store or business with a�otal gross floor area of 75,000 s�u�.re -�'e�=• �2) F�y retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 �quare feet. (3) Any addition to any existing retail shopping center with a gross floor area of more than 100,000 square,feet increasing the total gross floor a�ea by more than twenty percent (20$) or by nore than 75,000 square feet, or anv additica tc a�y existir.g s:�cpping cente= increasing the gross s�uare footage of the shopping center to 150,OD0 sq::are Feet or more. B. For purposes of t�is policy, a shooping cen_er means any q!'OUD of at least t�.ao businesses on a single cr separate parcels of p-oper _y wnicn croua utilizes c��:�� ea c=r-st=°e � F�'-'�'-�~ facil«ies a^d access. C. •As used herein, "pu�lic facilities" means streeLS, street and bridge (including overpass) widenings, paving, street lights, traffic signs and signals, cLrbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians, mecian irrigation systens and lands�aoing, intersection and access ConstruCtions and reconstructions, ireewey access and exit constructions and reconstructions; water mains, wells, pumping and storage facilities, inclu3ing construction and upgrading to increase fire flows; sewer mains, numping and lift stations; drainage lines, cslverts, sumps, and pun:ping facilities; utility system extension or upgrading; fencing and landscape screening (including irrigation t!�erefor) for any of the foreaoing; transit stops; and any eauipmer.t or facility made necessary by the project and to be used orimarily in relation to the oroject, including the fees and costs for plar.s and speci*"ications for such public facilities. D. Unless the City 2ngineer and the applicant ot�erwise agree, such needs and aoportionment of such costs shall be assessed and made purssaat to the written report of one or more consu�tants hired for such purpose by the City,whose fees and costs are advanced to the City by and are the responsibility cf the app�icant. Unless the applicant and the City Engineer agree upon a consultar.t or consultants, the applicant shall select the consultant from a list of three provided by the City Engineer. If more than one consultant is to be used, the City Engineer shall provide a list of three names for each to be selectec. Such repert shall be prepared in accordance with parameters set by the Ci�y Engineer. �. CCS�S assesse�� �ll�5ldrit n��2�J SAal:� uR�ll CC7=.�=liC- tion of such facilities, be deposited in a special account f.or each nublic facilitv fer which they t�ere assessec. S!�:ould =_ site plan expire u:.3er tne provisions of Section 17.53.060 H. o= a project be abandoned by written notice to the City's Planning Director and Cit� Engineer after approval o� a site ?ian, the dS5AS5'lr_'^ =S ^3C°_ .-.''.�A r :�._ : •°_Ye1:_..:°_= i =..��.::..._:'.0 r3i�_ _.::J�i*:� _ = _... .., COP_SL� t8.^. _ 3�(a. c'_ 3:'GL,_ � .,,..._.._. � _` _ ''_ -'--' -- _.. .. �� = E� _ '-- _ �^_ the public facility, shall be refunded. Such rerund shall be made to the owner of the project as shown on the site olan application on file with the City's Planning Department. Should such ownersnip change after any such assess;nents have been made and �aid, i*. shall be the mutual responsibility of both t^e �or:ne� and t!�e n�w owners to advise the Planning Director of the City in wri;.ing o� the party to whom refund is to be made shoLld the s�te plan expire cr be abandoned. F. Each public facility for which an assessmenL has been made and paid and tne acceunt therefor shall, until t?�e facility's cor.structica, be reviewed by _the �ity Council at a noticed hearing each.year after the 3ate of payment to assess t::e continuing need for such facility. The owner of any nrcject assessed may.petition the City Council at any time for a deter*_^.iaaticr. that such i�eed no l�nce< <xists. Should it be determined by t�e City Council that such r.eed no longer exists, or should an1� facility for which an assessment has been made a.^.d paid r.ot be � , f,r construction within ten (l�) yca=s bLdgete3 by ..he C'ty � following payment to tne City and construction began or purchase order issued within one (1) year thereafter, the amount asses�ec therefor, including an�• interes*_ earned, shall be refunded. �, The timiag oL construction of such pubiic facilities shall be at the sole ciscretion of the City. g, Assessnents imposed hereunder may be appealed in accordance with Section 17.53•�60 I. I. For purposes of tr.is policy, it is recognized that sequential development on separate but adjacent parcels may - -- = -- - _ic_� _-�••- -'� ^� � � _ �s= =a:_ -_ _ __-> _-c� �- ----� - ��:'i� - __�: e'i_. .,__.`. � .. � � ^ j retail single deveiop�rent on any sucn Darcel coastit•1Les a T� o= • �he tcta'_ squa=e �ootaae project as aeiined above. Accord�ngly, ef a'_1 reta�l '_acili�ies co~s=�ucte� er. �o b? constructed c:� _ �isio:, parce�s cre`te� '-n :.ne cou=se o� one su�di�:ision or resubc=' ' . i uu�Cc�S __� � _�,� �tl:_,:S:S Or :�iO='? �.��: C~ _.._i.j.G .�.. . . of one o_' � . � this pclicy,�be considered cumulatively to determine whetner tne minimum reauirem°nts �o cc^stitute a major retail pr�7eC� z=e met. The obligations imposed hereunder shall be deferred as to �;,+ �. :i��=�a1�. �.,a �u:':�11zi.1V2�_ �'J2iOt. sL�7 :.'.:°e�h�lc? �ny ce��ele�� _ . . •- and �ne ap�'_icanr fo: site pla:: a��rovai there_or shal'_, as a condition oi aporoval, cor.tract wi�h the City to pay his �reportionate share of any coasultant's fees an3 assessments deter:nir.ed after applicatioa for site plan approval on behalf of a project which, when added to those proceen=ng it within the shopping center, exceeds the th_eshold, a^d evidence of such ccatrao� shall be recorded against the property. The need for public faciiities shall be determined o:� the basis of a iully built-out sno�ping center G::1 � C::CC' ?SSCcg:'1^I:tS ::d`7°_ been 3��OLt1GR2� � •'�Z"mc�t Gi �i1 ap�ortioned shar? srall be ma�� a condition of si*_e olan approval for each subsequent develop�nent �•�:.thin the shopping cent°r. Z, It is recoTmenc�d th=_t the time li.��its speci�ied in Chapter 17.53 be ex�endec °cr projects as to which a censuitant is hired, as provided above, proviced thaL sucn exte�sion �hail not exceed ninety (90) days. 3, That t:�e Secre�ayo u'_` the Plan^irg Comr.tission is hereby directed to forwarc this Resolution to the City Council for approval o_° the Site Pla^ Review objectives and policies set forth herein. , 4, That the above Site Plan Review objective and policy shall be considered in effect and sha11 be utilized in tne review of site pians fer majer *_-etail projects as to wnicn detailec `ir.al construc�ion crawings a:�c otYier related GCC1SilEA�s nave no= been submitted for plan checic and building permit prior to - �r�-..._r , -�0��. Z H�REBI CE�TI'Y �:G: :.he -�_egc�nc Resol:::.io:. .:as aassec an� adoote? by tne : iarning Ccnur.is=ion G� tf12 Ci�y o� ;.a -? -+c.oi; �7 �.nc-c'�-- �+°_._. �.� t1:2 i�i.': C2�' C= 3a::__.,=ie_ a:. rec-__`� __ �_ P.ucus` '_9E3, by ��� -o'__.,.:i.-_ _c=_ c��'_ �..�e: �, 'r,lE� : NOES: Di:TiD : �,JS : nro 7-13-83 7-19-83 8-C2-83 8-10-33 8-12-83 s-is-s3 ABSENT: pL,�:'tiI:1G =0?.Lr.;I�SIG?v Q= Tri� �.i i_ G: 3i•.i�: i< %� =L+�✓ DEi4EY SC�rLES, Secretary Planaing Director r ?.>, TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT • B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director May 15, 1996 Response to a citizen's concern, Mr. Carlos Lozano, re: ELM STREET traffic. Attached is an update concerning correspondence received from Mr. Lozano which addresses a couple of concerns; in particular, (1) Mr. Lozano is requesting information on speed bumps, and (2) a solution to the speed problem on Elm Street. Tra�ffic Engineering stafi is speeding issue and as soon as status report will be provided. REF8242.001 .mro Attach. conducting an investigation on the the data is received and reviewed, a Copy: Bob Price, Mayor Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond, Ward 2 –� °----�-.,..-_ �,,--. —�_.. � �;i, ���°%� � ___..� � � ,. ,� � ; � AY � 5 � : ,� ��N MANAGER'S OFF(���q ,�,..... _ . -�'a,� � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: April 30, 1996 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ���'� SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO INQUIRY BY C. LOZANO IN LETTER TO MAYOR REGARDING ELM STREET TRAFFIC. A copy of a letter to Mayor Price was forwarded to me this week to respond to a complaint of speeding on Elm Street. I was also contacted by Councilmember Demond who received a copy of Mr. Lozano's letter and advised her that we will be responding to the referral. I have reviewed the area in question regarding the perceived speeding on Elm Street in the 2800 block. The road is separated by a large planter/divider over most of the length of the street. Appropriate warning and speed signs are present. I have directed my staff to investigate the speed on the street by means of a speed and volume counter to be placed in the area. This will record the hourly volumes and speeds of traffic. With this information, the Police Department can more effectively patrol the street during the time of day that there seems to be the highest incidence of speeders. We will also review the data to help us determine if there is a traffic engineering problem or if it is just speed violators. Mr. Lozano's letter also mentions the possibility of placing speed bumps on the street. Application packages are available from Traffic Engineering which outline the City policy and requirements for speed bumps. These are available by contacting Mr. Brad Underwood at 326-3993. I will keep you informed if changes are proposed. cc: Mayor Price Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Underwood, CE III, Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineering File - Elm Street slw: P:1DA7A�WP\19951c lozano.ref y �'i: '1., � - April 23, 1996 The Honorable Robert Price Mayor of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mayor Price: C;'�J�o,;o Q�� ,L�'`� ��G�: aQ� 5�� � P�O � The object of this letter is to bring to your attention the excellence of two of your police officers. On Tuesday, April 16, at about 9:00 p.m., I had a prowler at my home. 911 responded immediately and kept me on the line until Officers Glen Grundeis and Scott McDonald arrived. They went about the total search of house and garden professionally and thoroughly, until they were certain that my place was secure and that there was no danger. Both officers were courteous, concerned, and pleasant. Not often do we take the time to praise those who serve us, but these officers were so outstanding that I just had to write, for their performance reflects positively on your administration. ��-- . A further point. My home is the fourth from where the division of Elm Street ends and there is a curve with a 20 mph sign. I have almost been hit while backing out of my garage by � cars zooming by at almost 35 mph. On one occasion recently, I was driving north on Elm ` Street at 25 mph when an irate man went around me stopped and invited me out of my car to fight. He was 6 feet tall and must have weighted 190 pounds. My question specifically is: to whom or what office do I, and several of my neighbors, turn to � so as to have a stop sign or speed bumps installed, and thus prevent a probable accident. ! Since Beech Street had stop signs installed, drivers now use Elm Street to rush toward 24th � Street. May I hear from you at your convenience? Cordially, �� �����-.- %�-'���� Carlos Lozano'�� ,� � � �� ,� �� , ,, � , � �. ��,. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORAND ALAN TANDY - CITY MANAGER RAUL ROJAS - PUBLIC WORKS May 16,1996 GLEANERS B UILDING - 203014TH UM 'OR ) ********************x*a****************aa**a********a**�******a************************* Public Works staff has reviewed the proposal of owning the existing GI ane ers Building to provide for future right-of-way for the Cross-town freeway. A Cross-town freeway specific plan line has not yet been adopted, and while the Gleaners Building could be in the proximity of a final adopted specific plan line, it would appear to be premature to base a decision regarding ownership of the property on the benefit derived from its possible use as a future freeway. If the property can be leased for parking, then ownership should be analyzed with that in mind with the resulting protection of the possible right-of-way viewed only as an added benefit to the ownership. � _ . _'�_e� ' �� � ' AY � 7 '� .� �Y �����_.�. ����c� � ��,� ,� �� _ � � �� B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Community Development Deparhnent M E M O R A N D U M May 15, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Deve opment Direct r SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REQUEST BY HOUSING AUTHORTTY OF THE COUNTY OF KERN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM. On Apri122, 1996 your office received a letter from the Housing Authority of the County of Kem (HACK) requesting the placement of a Supplemental Cooperation Agreement on the May 8, 1996 Council Agenda. In approving the agreement the City would be assigning it's authority for Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds to HACK. On Apri123, 1996 my department received by interoffice mail the HACK correspondence. On the following day a call was placed to HACK by myself and George Gonzales. In the course of our discussion with Dorene Ruiz, we asked her to provide a full descriprion of the program being proposed by HACK. By this point, City staff was akeady awaze of the $4 million allocation cap for Kern County as determined by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). In fact, this information was made available to all interested parties during March 1996. In discussing the $40 million request proposed by HACK in the Supplemental Cooperation Agreement, it was apparent that Ms. Ruiz was not current on the workings of CDLAC. When pressed on the $40 million dollar request, she indicated that HACK would settle for a smaller allocation (in the range of $20 million). During this same conversation we indicated to Ms. Ruiz that it was unlikely that given our need for additional information and time to evaluate the proposed program that we would be able to place their request before the City Council on May 8, 1996. She indicated that May 22, 1996 would still work for them. In subsequent conversations, Ms. Ruiz continued to insist that assurances had been received from CDLAC that more than $4 million was available and that projects from the same county were scored based on housing needs. Both of these statements were in direct conflict with our understanding of CDLAC's policies and practices. This was in fact bome out in a conversation that George Gonzales had with Fred Smith of CDLAC on May 10, 1996. Mr. Smith indicated that the total allocation available to Kern County for both Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRB) and Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) was indeed m . <. �� $4 million. Mr. Smith also indicated that while applications must demonstrate a housing need, it has been CDLAC's practice that if multiple applications aze received from different agencies within a single county then the allocation is evenly divided between the applications submitted. Thus in this round of allocations if both HACK and the City submit an application, each agency can expect to receive a$2 million allocation. On May 1, 1996 I received a letter (Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested) from HACK. In this letter Ms. Ruiz was able to clarify a number of points we had raised in our Apri124 telephone conversation. However, a number of other points still needed additional clarification. Also contained in the HACK letter was a request for information regarding the Kem Cities MCC Program. I responded to HACK's request on May 8, the same day I received a follow-up request from HACK. Contained in my May 8 response was a request for additional information. On this same day, I spoke with Ms. Ruiz by telephone and indicated our need for the additional information. I also expressed to her my confidence of our ability to sit down and review their request for approval of the Supplemental Cooperarion Agreement in order to develop a staff recommendation for the May 22, 1996 City Council meeting. Ms. Ruiz made no mention of the Housing Authority's intent to be present at the City Council meeting that evening, although she did indicate their awareness of staff s request for the MCC Program. At no point prior to April 22, 1996 did the Housing Authority make any effort to discuss with City staff their interest in seeking an MRB Allocation. Had they done so, staff would have advised them of the City's intent to apply for an MCC Allocation. Staff would also have been able to advise HACK of CDLAC's current policies and procedures. The failure to consult with the City in advance coupled with their lack of knowledge of changes made in the bond allocation process and offering the City only minimal information on their proposed MItB Program had the inevitable result of sowing discord and chaos. In January 1995 I advised you by memo of repeated instances in which I indicate that "If there is any issue in respect to our relationship with the Housing Authority it is the last minute/never- mind-the-details request that we have seen repeatedly from the Housing Authority". In that same memo I go on to state that "their inability to consult with us in advance, coupled with an apparent di�culty in providing us with sufJ'icient time leads has periodically placed us in some awkward situations". It appears that history continues to repeat itself.