Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/96 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 5, 1996 FROM: /~w-~/~LAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJEC~T: GENERAL INFORMATION . 1. We won in court on the issue of the Sunland Refinery and moving the flare. The judge ordered them to have it relocated so we could occupy the property by July 8th. 2. The Citizen's Advisory Committee completed its review of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Fire Services Study on Thursday, June 27, 1996. The Committee concluded that: · Four members were in favor of recommending consolidation to the elected bodies (Attachment A); · Five members were in favor of supporting the attached six recommended improvements (Attachment A); · There will be a minority report from Committee Member Conni Brunni who supports establishing a fire authority (Attachment B). The Committee will be making its oral presentation to the County Board of Supervisors at its July 9, 1996 meeting. The Committee will not be available for the City Council meeting of July 10, 1996, July 24, 1996, or August 7, 1996. Since the Committee's presentation will be at a workshop, staff is proposing that they make their presentation at the September 11, 1996 meeting. This will enable staff to also provide Council with its comprehensive analysis and recommendation regarding the findings of the Fire Study. 3. The County has furnished us with their annexation information packet which is now available to the public. A copy is enclosed. 4. Staffmet with representatives fi.om the LEA on Friday, June 28th. The notes from that meeting are enclosed. The major topics discussed centered on our concerns about their fees for various services. We also discussed the "Big Box" site on Mt. Vernon. The County will withdraw their 'previous request for a setback, as there are no laws or regulations which make it a requirement. 5. The Housing Authority has asked to have the Council consider the supplemental Cooperation Agreement that had previously been submitted to Council on May 8th. Their application for a single family mortgage revenue bond is due to be submitted on July 15th. We have sent correspondence to them indicating that we will consider their request at the July 24th Council meeting, since the submittal deadline is not until August 1 st. Honorable Mayor and City Council July 5, 1996 Page 2 6. There is a memorandum enclosed from Water Resources summarizing the recent domestic water increase by California Water Service. 7. An update on the URM Incentive Program is enclosed from Economic and Community Development. Also enclosed from EDCD is a status report on the Commercial Facade Grant Program. 8. Enclosed is the request from the North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the revised ordinance regarding park development and improvement within the boundaries of their district. 9. Responses to Council referrals are enclosed, as follows: · Removal of structures within Panama Lane Right-of-way for widening project; · Update on the designation of scenic corridors; · Update on the potential land swap of the Panorama Hills Park site; · Traffic speed study at Elm St. in the 2800 block; · Repair of westbound lane at White Lane and Highway 99; · Repair wire hanging from street light at 414 1 lth St.; · Policing of traffic at Elm and 24th St. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst General Informati°n The Citizen's Advisory Committee completed its review of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Fire Services Study on Thursday, June 27, 1996. The Committee concluded that: · Four members were in favor of recommending consolidation to the elected bodies (Attachment A). · Five members were in favor of supporting the attached six recommended improvements (Attachment A). · There will be a minority report from Committee Member Conni Brunni who supports establishing a fire authority (Attachment B). The Committee will be making its oral presentation to the County Board of Supervisors at its July 9, 1996 meeting. The Committee will not be available for the City Council meeting of July 10, 1996, July 24, 1996 or August 7, 1996. Since the Committee's presentation will be at a workshop, staff is proposing that they make their presentation at the September 11, 1996 meeting. This will enable staff to also provide Council with its comprehensive analysis and recommendation regarding the findings of the Fire Study. METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD FIRE SERVICES STUDY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT June 28, 1996 The Metropolitan Bakersfield Fire Services Study Citizens Advisory Committee endorses the recommendation contained within the Study that the Bakersfield Fire Department consolidate with the Kern County Fire Department. The Citizens Advisory Committee recommends that should consolidation not be approved by the governing bodies of the County and City, then the following actions are to be taken. 1. Consolidate the functions and management of the Emergency Communication Center under one entity. Transfer City employees to County. 2. Consolidation of ail training programs and functions under one entity and with one training officer. 3. Integrate the functions of fire prevention, fire safety education and arson investigations between the two entities. 4. City and County Hazardous materials response teams establish like protocols and train together frequently. 5. Develop standard operating procedures to be used for joint response incidents. 6. Develop a method to j ointly, s~a~e equipment to incur savings due to economies of scaie. Support: Oppose: Honorable members of the (City Council/Board of Supervisors), the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Fire study has examined several drafts of the Tri Data consultant's report, toured various fire facilities, met with staff, the consultant, and discussed all of the information available at several public meetings. We appreciate the opportunity to present our findings and some constructive recommendations to you today. It is our hope that both elected bodies will adopt this report in its entirety and act to implement the report's findings recommendations: 1. The, existing service delivery system works well, makes efficient use of the available resources and is reasonably cost-effective. 2. Most of the significant cost savings that could be achieved through consolidation have already been achieved through the JPA. 3. The existing emergency service delivery system could function more effectively through a higher level of cooperation and coordination between the two fire departments. This approach would improve performance when units from the two departments respond to the same incidents. 4. Increased cooperation and coordination would improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of non-emergency programs, administrative services, and support functions. The two fire departments perform many parallel functions in different manners. Effectiveness could be improved and some modest cost savings could be achieved. 5. Termination of the JPA would require large expenditures by both organizations to duplicate existing resources or result in a serious decline in service levels to both City and County areas. 6. The objective of an efficient and cost-effective service delivery system can be achieved with two service providers or with a single service provider.~ The existing system is reasonably efficient and cost-effective. 7. Most of the recommended actions to increase the efficiency of non-emergency programs, administrative services, and support programs could be achieved through cooperation or functional consolidation. Many of the recommended improvements can be implemented under the JPA relationship. 8. The histories and organizational cultures of the two fire departments and the relationships between the City and County governments are impediments to further progress toward the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. These factors are evident in the existing system. 9. The maintenance of the JPA relationship requires a significant effort by both fire departments and both jurisdictions. The current system requires considerable ongoing effort to maintain the relationship and to deal with every issue and decision that involves both organizations. This challenge could be made easier by developing more specific criteria for planning and decision making. Several improvements are recommended: a. Increase the level of operational coordination for emergency services. b. Consolidate the Emergency Communications Center under one organization. c. Implement several improvements in hardware and software in the Communications Center. d. Fully integrate standard operating procedures, including training and practicing. e. Work more closely together in fire prevention, public fire safety education, fire investigations and hazardous materials management programs. f. Work toward increased cooperation of administration and support functions, including joint purchasing to take advantage of economies of scale and volume discounts. Increase the level of coordination in planning, particularly through the adoption of service level standards, fire stations location planning criteria, apparatus and equipment specifications and other areas. All of these recommendations will require specific direction to be given from both elected bodies with monitoring of performance and sanctions for non-compliance. One added option is a citizen's fire authority to nurture and oversee the sensitive relationship between both jurisdictions involved in the JPA. In order to minimize inherent political overtones as much as possible, members of the citizen's fire authority should not be past or present fire department employees, their spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, brothers, sisters, nieces or nephews.' Any fire authority should have no taxing authority, and members should serve without compensation. While the fire authority would recommend budgets for city and county resources to be allocated to protect and serve the JPA area, final budgetary approval and oversight would remain with the City Council and Board of Supervisors, respectively. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION // / / LAFCO HISTORY The end of World War II saw California experiencing a tremendous population increase, which resulted in the sporadic formation of cities and special service districts. The results of this development boom became evident as more of California's agricultural land was converted to urban uses. Premature and unplanned development created inefficient, expensive systems of delivering public services using various small units of local government. Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr., responded to this problem in 1959 by appointing the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make recommendations on the "misuse of land resources" and the growing complexity of overlapping, local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission's recommendations on local governmental reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of Local Agency Formation Commission, or "LAFCOs", operating in each county except San Francisco. OBJECTIVES OF LAFCO TO ENCOURAGE THE ORDERLY FORMATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES LAFCOs review proposals for the formation of new local governmental agencies and changes of organization in existing agencies. In California there are 57 LAFCOs working with nearly 4,000 governmental agencies in 57 counties, 500+ cities, and 3,000+ spe. cial districts. Agency boundaries are often unrelated to one another and sometimes overlap at random, often leading to higher service costs to the taxpayer and general confusion regarding service area boundaries. LAFCO decisions strive to balance the competing needs in California for affordable housing, economic opportunity, and conservation of natural resources. TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES LAFCO must consider the effect that any proposal will produce on existing agricultural lands. By guiding development toward vacant urban land and away from agricultural preserves, LAFCO assists with the preservation of our valuable agricultural resources. TO DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL Urban sprawl can best be described as irregular and disorganized growth occurring without apparent design or plan. This pattern of development is characterized by the inefficient delivery of urban services (police, fire, water and sanitation) and the unnecessary loss of agricultural land. By discouraging sprawl, LAFCO limits the misuse of land resources and promotes a more efficient system of local governmental agencies. LEGISLATIVE ACT A section of the California Government Code exists to provide LAFCO with its powers, procedures and functions. This law give LAFCO power to "approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally" proposals concerning the formation of cities and special districts, and other changes in jurisdiction or organization of local governmental agencies. In reviewing proposals, LAFCO is required to consider certain factors such as the conformity between city and county plans, current levels and need for future services to the area, and the social, physical and /" economic effects that agency boundary changes present to the community. /t LAFCO is also given authority to make studies of existing ,/' governmental agencies in an effort to improve the efficiency of urban / services. CALAFCO The California Association of LAFCOs, or CALAFCO, was formed in 1971. CALAFCO serves as an organization dedicated to assisting member LAFCOs with technical resources that otherwise would not be available. The Association provides statewide coordination of LAFCO activities, representation before the State Legislature and other bodies, and a structure for sharing information among the various LAFCOs and other governmental agencies through the State. The Association is governed by the Executive Board composed of thirteen (13) LAFCO Commissioners: four city members, four county members, three public members, and two special district members. In addition, a LAFCO Executive Officer and a LAFCO Legal Adviser serve voluntarily in these capacities for the Association. To accomplish CALAFCO's objectives, the Executive Board utilizes a number of committees comprised of LAFCO Commissioners and staff members serving on a voluntary basis. Such committees include the Newsletter publication committee, legislative committee, workshop program committee, and Executive Board nominations committee. CALAFCO also sponsors an Annual Conference and a number of workshops throughout the year. Answers to frequently asked questions AnneEation '~s a process tflat ts used to mcorporate an area ?' ' ' ' '"~' ;~.~ ...... · ~ '~ reqmroments'must ~e met m' order for.. tlie proeeedin$-- --to--~e lfan anne~tion pro~ased by a dty consists of 75 acres or into a city, spedal distri~t or serv&e area, A city or special : ! "I ' . ',aq~ted and filed by the Commissior; ~i . less, the city mare muil a bearing ~tice to each affeced disoict may propose to annex territory in order to provide ' ~ ., . .~.: .,,~ . .. ~. property owner. Brds notification is in adaqtion to tl~ such seraices ~s water de~very~ sewer ~ccess~ parks emd ~:~ ~ ~i~!~T~mninati~nby ~eCommissi~n . ' ~'-.,':::~,~.v,.'~. ;.;.~ '~ ~,~. :. otl~er notil?tat~on' ' " requirements: recreation programs, and street ~gfaing ' ~ ~'''''~ ; ~ " ' that area. These types of sero$zes ,re general~J funded by :i ~ ~I~ !T~'~ reviews the materials required to accomp,~ (.~:. ':;~i: , Protesting ah'~ation. ~roposal property taxes or specialassessment~. . '~,!~$~47:. tI~ resolut~# fi~l ~ the 3~nm~ bo~ ol a :~ ' ' ;?A";~i/~:'~,anar:maY.aPProve,'mo~fi)eq-''' "or d~' the poropo~al fob . ' '.'~ ;) ~l, kittenandoral p/o~ ,re received by the city during Wl~en an ant~ation is proposed, tl~ qffected goverranent "'~:~i~!~i~tior~ ' Bie ~ alwaufl considers a proposed ~_ ~ : tlle lmblic lmuit~.' Wdtten protests may also be mailed or entities must agree on whether or not a property tax '~'~!~"':~'~ ......... ' - ~i~:'aiin~ation dudng a pub~c raeeting and persons affected by an .'... lumd-carded to ti~e city cler~ pdor to the conclusion of the fund tIte seroiees to be provided It is"~-pOPsible for a ~',f'". !~ i ~" moeting. ;lhe oommission will also consider written materials 'location of tfie property, tl~ signature of the property detachment of territory from a dty, special district, or ' ? [ Mmatted by perso~s affected by a propased annex~tion in ; ~;r'~.~ /O~tA~r and t~ d'ate tf~ proto, st ~po. s sid~a~. serv~ area to be proposed B~e process and laws governing advance and during tfie pubbc meeting. ~ i~ (? :"::' ~,. . LocalAgeacy Formation Oommiss:~n .. an~xat~n proposal to certain ter~ and com~t~. · Commissionadoptsaresolution.t$6ichstatestheapprovalofthe 1. q~e city must order the territory annexed In Califomia, tbe annexation process and requirementdare proposed annexations and any moP~tions, terms or condltions ": . without an elec~n when protests are less t~at governed by State law wfiich is administerd and rBulated imposed.. Tl~e documents are tl~n retamed to tfie city or special ~ ' ":~'25% of the rBisteredvoters in the territory and in each tamnty by a, I. ocal Ageney Formation Commission. district proposing the annexation, and no furtber modifications 7' "less than 25% of tlie landowners owning less ;Each Commission i~ composed of two dty councilmembers, can be _~__._; ~n an annexation proceeding, tlie entity proposing . ~ ' that 25% of the assessed value of the land in · two numbers of the county boardofsupervisors, andone the annexation is known and rgcerred to as the conducting ~ territory. pubic member. In K~rn County, an executive director and autho~ty. ' ' abninistrative staff provide tl~ support needed by tI~ :, ," '.-:;',::;:?' 2. ii'~G '.!;t~ ~tymast ca6an election on tI~e questionof " '. ':.'~;.; .!ess ehan 5o%) of t~e voters or landou,ners Bi~'~ is.'responsiblefor ensuhng that tile laws W~tIdn 35 days of the .Comau~n adopting its re~/u~n . ' boundaries and seroice provision for each proposed annexation for:pub~c bearing, generally rqerred .to as '3. 50~ or more of the registered voters r for it to be approveK a 'protest I~affng; B~e Imuiag must be conductednot less'than " ' tI~ annexation proceeding 15 days nor more that 60 days fivm the date the ~ . :].~; cannot be resubmitted to annexation get startede ~ ;.~: adopts its resolution..: ~ ' ~ ..... ' .': .: ,'.' ~ for one year. : ,.~' .. y~; ~ , .... . . · ..'A prop :e~y~ .?Imer(s)may inttiate an amu;xation to a ci~ by ~ B~e hearing date musf be ~.notieed; wl~h mea~ t&' "" ) ~e "~f authority to approve or fa~g a ~ Generally, t~ pm'tion is filed with a ~ {.~1 su~ect matter of the hearing nmst be pub[~sl~l in , .~.i.However, the petition ma!l also be filed Ptr~.. ?: andposted, ina place tl~at is aecek6ble to the ~'(~ith t6e ~n, although tly. s avenuc is rarely ial(en ~. buIE, tin boar. din city ludl. In some cummsmnt~, ·., *." and tbe corresponding e~peas; q~e most frequcnt mi~bod amu~tion without a public hearing or eleetiom ,, may be addressed the to fo~: . / William Turpin, Executive ~r - Commission ',~":~ . . 2700 "M"Street "~z.'... · :!~:, .Ba~er~_~, ~93301 .. '" (805) 862-8950 ~ .''~ ' :v~. AdelKlein, Director of Policy 90rn County Administrative ~ 1113 Truxtun Avenue ~a[(.er. rf-ie~ ~ 93301 (8o 8 1-x 71 JOEL A. HEINRICHS SCOTt JONES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Assistant County Administrative Officer WILLIAM C. DOUGLAS Employee Relation.~ Officer KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE June 27,1996 ' Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Alan: Enclosed for your information is the annexation information packet the County now has available to the general public. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Adel C. Klein Director of Policy Analysis enclosure i:\klein\anx\ geninfo\packet.at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-2371, FAX (805) 325-3979 COUNTY OF KERN A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO ANNEXATIONS COLINT~ OF KERN A ClTZZF~N'S GLLIDE TO ANNEXATIONS IN'I'RODUCTION COUNTY OF K~RN ^ CITIZEN'S GLIIDE TO ANNEXATIONS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION API~ICATION FOR ANNEXATION COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEbTTAL O,._UAMTY ACT I. AF¢O FROCEEDINGS m, 3 BRFORR ~ BOARD OF 8UPRRVI~OI~ COUN'I~ OF KERN, STATE OF C. av-rFORNIA RESOLUTION . op~se ~e , ~u pm~ pm~t ~e a~on, me ~~on ~t ~ ~d ~on 2. NOW, ~~, BE ~ ~L~D u f~: . · ..... ; "' con~ a s~c ~~on p~ u~n ~e ~t of ~ ~ ~d 3. ~e ~ of K~ d~ not op~e ~e ~~ of ~~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ u~n ~mU~. ~9~239 B A K E R.S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TAN-DY, CITY MANAGER ~ i~ FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ DATE: JULY 1, 1996 SUBJECT: LEA Meeting of Friday, June 28, 1996 We recently met with the LEA to discuss a variety of issues, outlined below is a brief synopsis of the meeting. The first items discussed were cost factors for LEA services. We had previously related to them our concern over their per hour rate, time per event, current comparisons for our refuse trucks, contract refuse tracks, the permitting of facilities, the Panama landfill, and the greenwaste facility. The cost factor they returned to this meeting was a $26 per truck fee for inspection of city trucks Only, which could be established immediately by means of a memorandum of understanding. The $26 per truck fee did not include contract hauler vehicles, and we were not given the impression they were gOing to include them. We also inqUired about the cost figures regarding the permitted facilities in the City, such as the landfill and the greenwaste site: The LEA indicated they had not looked at those costs and when questioned whether they would, their response was they would be doing it throughout the year. No commitment was made on their part that they would be reducing the costs of those permits. They also mentioned their hourly billing rate went from $80 per hour to $75. City staff asked whether the LEA hourly rate would be lowered for the City because of the proximity of the City facilities to LEA headquarters. The LEA stated "anything is possible, however, we are currently being billed for actual cost anyway". We discussed issues regarding the billing of four years worth of charges that the City had asked for accounting details. They mentioned they had given a breakdown to us. We have asked for that information again to see all supporting documentation of those charges, that information will be given to us in the next meeting. At this point no substantive movement on this issue. A fourth issue was discussion of the Mount Vernon site (the Big Box Site) regarding the memorandum that was received by the City. We recently had a meeting to discuss that issue and the Count~,js going to withdraw their past letter and issue a new letter to the City which basically states that th[qr facility is nearby and we should be aware of that. We also indicated that there are no laws or regulations for a required setback. The setback issue was just something they would have liked to have seen incorporated into the plan, however, there are no real requirement~ upon the City. ' ~ cITY MANAGER'S OFFtCE! Issues remaining to be discussed include the Rosedale Bum Dump update, the greenwaste and compost facility permit update, the gas probe locations, how the LEA will handle furore issues that have arisen from the City's past experiences with the bum dump, and the overall closure of the landfill. In addition, we will be discussing issues concerning communications, timeliness of responses, 'and guidance to the City relative to the City not paying the LEA for reports which are required to be revised or prepared over again. BAKERSFIELD July 2, 1996 Paul J. Castro, Executive Director Housing Authority of the County of Kern 525 Roberts Lane Bakersfield, CA 93308 Dear Mr. Castro, In response to your fax received today and following my discussion with Randy Coates earlier this morning, I contacted Carolyn Lutton with the California Debt Limitation Allocation Committee. Ms. Lutton has informed me that the deadline for submittal of an approved Supplemental Cooperation Agreement to CDLAC is August 1, 1996. This additional time will make it possible to consider your request at the July 24th Council meeting as I had originally intended. I have discussed this with the City Manager and he concurs. In preparation for that meeting may I suggest that a meeting be scheduled which would give all concerned parties the opportunity to discuss and fully understand HACK's intent with respect to the proposed MRB. I propose that a meeting be scheduled for next week. As an additional note It should be clear that your agency's contact with us throughout May and June was limited to a single letter in response to our request for information. Yours truly, / ~~.~,..___~ ~ John F. Wager, Jr: Economic Development Director cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager ; dlt:jw9 hackmrb.ltr ' City of Bakersfield · Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Avenue · BaKersfield · California 93301 (805) 326-3765 · Fax (805) 328-1548 · TDD (805) 324-3631 MEMORANDUM July 1, 1996 TO: Florn Core, Director of Water Resources ~-~ FROM: Patrick E. Hauptman, Water Superintendent SUBJECT: EvalUation of recent domestic water rate increase by California Water Service Effective June 11, 1996, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized a domestic water rate increase to California Water Service Company, Bakersfield District. We have compared this rate increase to the previous water rates which were effective from January 1, 1996. Please refer to the attached spreadsheet which compares the quantity rate, service charges and flat rates. In order to interpret what this means to the average California Water Service customer (in and out of the City limits), we have assumed a typical single family residential service with an average lot size of 8400 square feet, and the average winter and summer water use of 1400 cubic feet/month in the winter and 4400 cubic feet/month in the summer. The average cost for the metered service connection during the winter months will be approximately $16.53/month and approximately $37.47/month in the summer months. The fiat rate charge is $29.89/month. It is important to note that approximately 85% of the service connections to California Water Service Company use the residential fiat rate Service. If you compare the recent rate increase to the January, 1996 rates, this reflects a $1.01/month (+6.51%) increase during the winter months and $3.27/month (+9.56%) increase during the summer months. The average monthly increase will be $2.06/month (+8.50%). The monthly fiat rate increase is $4.25/month (+16.59%). Rate increase comparison for California Water Service Company - Bakersfield tariff area Rates effective January 1, 1996. Rates effective June 11 ,'1996. PERCENT General metered se;vice INCREASE/ Per month P.U.C. fee 2) Char;la Per month Surcharges 1) P.U.C. fee 2) Charge Per 100 cu. ft. $0.6135 I 0.0092 I $0.6227 $0.6546 I $0.0330 J $0.0103 I $0.6979 12.08% Minus Sewice charge: Surcredit 3) 5/8' x 3/4' meter $6.70 0.1005 $6.80 $6.70 ($0.0400) $0.0999 $6.76 -0.60% 1' meter $10.80 0.1620 $10.96 $10.50 ($0.0400) $0.1569 $10.62 -3.15% 1-1/2' meter $14.50 0.2175 $14.72 $19.20 ($0.0400) $0.2874 $19.45 32.14% 2' meter $19.20 0.2880 $19.49 $25.40 ($0.0400) $0.3804 $2.5.74 32.O8% 3' meter $37.00 0.5550 $37.56 $48.00 ($0.0400) $0.7194 $48.68 29.62~ 4' meter $49.00 0.7350 $49.74 $65.00 ($0.0400) $0.9744 $65.93 32.5'/~J;, 6' meter $83.00 1.2450 $84.25 $111.00 ($0.0400) $1.6644 $112.62 33.69% 8' meter $121.00 1.8150 $122.82 $1 68.00 ($6.0400) $2.4894 $1 68.45 37.16~ 10' meter $147.00 2.2050 $149.21 $196.00 ($0.0400) $2.9394 $198.90 33.31% Residential fiat rate sewice Rates (lot size) Per service I Plus 1-1/2% Total Per 8ewice Plus Plus 1-1/2% Total connectionI P.U.C. fee 2) Charge connection Surcharges P.U.C. fee Charge Per month Per month 4) 6,000 sq. ff. or less $21.90 0.3285 $22.23 $24.47 $1.0500 $0.3828 $25.90 16.53"X, 6,001 to 10,000 scI. ft. $25.26 0.3789 $25.64 $28.24 $1.2100 $0.4418 $29.89 16.59~ 10,001 to 16,000 scI. ft. $31.49 0.4724 $31.96 $35.23 $1.4900 $0.5508 $37.27 16.61% 16,001 to 25,000 ecI. ft. $39.87 0.5981 $40.47 $44.66 $1.9700 $0.6995 $47.33 16.96~ For ea. additional residential unit $15.39 0.2309 $15.62 $17.19 $0.7900 ,~,0.2697 $18.25 16.83~ 1) Due to under collection in balancing account, $6.028/100 Ccf for 12 months from June 11, 1996. To recover an increase in federal income taxes, $0.004/100 Ccf for 12 months from June 11, 1996. To recover lost revenue expenses, $0.001/100 Ccf for 12 months from June 11, 1996. 2) An increase of 1.5%/100 Ccf to amortize the under-collection in the balancing account. 3) To refund an amount for the injures and damages reserve account, $0.04 per service connection for 60 months from June 11, 1996. 4) Varius surcharges and a suroredit to recover under collection in the balancing account, an increase in federal income taxes, to refund an amount for the injuries and damages reserve, and to recover lost revenue expenses. P:\123-DATA\CWS- RATE.WK3 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM July 3, ~ TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager /fi' ' /' /~") FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director~,,=~ '~ SUBJECT: Update on URM Incentive Program Eight projects have been completed through the URM Incentive Program. The program has paid a total of $33,551.47. The average reimbursement is $4,193.93. There are 12 additional projects that have been given Notices to Proceed, meaning we are holding $60,000 in reimbursements (12 projects x $5,000 maximum reimbursement). There are 37 other projects that are still eligible for the program but all requirements for their approval have not yet been completed. Should each of these 37 projects be approved and move forward, an additional $185,000 would be reimbursed (37 projects x $5,000 maximum reimbursement). If each of the 12 projects that have Notices to Proceed are completed, and each of the 37 projects still pending proceed, they would require $245,000 be earmarked for their reimbursement (see chart below). There are $184,000 dollars remaining in the program account. We will continue to monitor the program's activity and, if necessary, request additional funds. (8) projects URM completed $33,551.47 (12) URM projects with Notices to Proceed 60,000.00 (based upon $5,000 each) (37) eligible URM projects that need to complete 185,000.00 (based upon $5,000 each) requirements Total $245,000.00 Funds available $184,000.00 attachment i; CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID FOR URM REIMBURSEMENTS (July 3, 1996) Name Address Reimbursement Edwin W. Wilson 2526-2530 Chester Avenue $5,000.00 Ralph L. Smith Trust 1918-1920 Eye Street $5,000.00 Marvin E. Lipco 1207 19th Street $5,000.00 Sam V. F. Samllo 1330 19th Street $5,000.00 Otho M. Koontz 1928 19th Street 600.00 Paul A. Dennis 801 18th Street $4,744.62 Carroll D. Thorp 822 18th Street $5,000.00 Jo & Christine Banducci 1025 18th Street $3,206.85 TOTAL 33,551.47 AVERAGE AMOUNT OF MONIES PAID OUT FOR URM REIMBURSEMENT 4,193.93 NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO PROCEED Location Address Maximum reimbursement Former Casa Moore 1017-1023 Baker Street $5. 000.00 Jerry's Pizza 1817 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Tandy Leather 2019-2021 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Red Wing Shoes 2025-2029 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Guarantee Shoes 2101 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Granada Furniture 2407 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Patton's Discoum Furniture 2509 Chester Avenue $5 000.00 Medical office 1914 Tmxmn Avenue $5 000.00 American Business Machines 821 18th Street $5,000.00 Golden Carrousel 1407-1409 19th Street $5,000.00 Musica y Electronica Mexico 1419 19th Street $5,000.00 Creative Photography 507-509 East 19th Street $5,000.00 SUB-TOTAL 60,000.00 37 Accounts @ $5,000 that are still eligible but have not yet completed all required submittals 185,000.00 TOTAL 245,000.00 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM July 2, 1996 TO: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director '1 FROM: ~//~an Fulton, Development Associate SUBJECT: Commercial Facade Grant Program Status We have received three Commercial Facade Grant applications from the Wellsprings facility at 1100 Union Avenue (formerly the Senior Village at the Bakersfield Inn). These applications represent the three businesses operated at the site: the Board and Care, a convenience store and a beauty salon. The Wellsprings management is requesting facade funds to patch plaster and repaint the exterior, restore the signage and improve the landscaping. The remaining Commercial Facade Program funds total $20,472. Although we do not have bids yet for this project, it could, for all practical purposes, use the balance of those funds, with a small program savings of $972. We have requested some additional information, but the project looks like it will go forward within the next 30-45 days. facade.mem/gen.8/jf ,; i i"J JL' 3 1996 . '!C~TY tVtAN~GER'$ OFFIC::. North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Galo~y Avenue, BaI~ersfield, California 93308 (805) 392-2000 To: Barbara Patrick, Chairman Kern COunty BOard Of Super~!so~ From: Walt Johnson, Chairman North Bakersfield Recreatioh and Park District Date: June 28, 1996 Re: Adoption of Revised Ordinance Concerning Dedication of Land, Payment of In-Lieu Fees or Both for Land Within the Jurisdiction of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, and Adoption of Ordinance Concgrning a Fee for Park Development and Improvement for Land Within the Jurisdiction of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park ~ District I. Introduction North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District requests Board of Supervisor's support of the two proposed ordinances attached hereto. Please schedule them to be considered by the Board of Supervisors at your earliest convenience. The first ordinance concerning dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees or both for the purposes of acquisition of park and recreation land, for land within the jurisdiction of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District (the "District"), is intended to replace and repeal~ existing Chapter 18.96, Sections 18.96.10 through 18.96.102, of the Ordinance Code of the County of Kern. The second is concerning a fee for park development and improvement, for land within the jurisdiction of the District. Through adoption of these ordinances, the District seeks to bring consistency to standards for park and recreation land requirements for the District and meet the policy requirements of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, Western Rosedale Plan and North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District 2010 Park and Recreation Master Plan. Similar ordinances have been approved on June 26, 1996, by a unanimous vote of all seven City Council Members. The adopted ordinances do not become effective until the Board of Supervisors approves similar ordinances. Additionally, if the supervisors haven't adopted the ordinances within ~ix months the approval of the ordinances by the City Council bec)mes~~,%[~ Your prompt action is therefore, greatly appreciated. June 28, 1996 Page 2 II. History of the Park Standard Ordinances In 1986 the District adopted a three acre per 1,000 population park acreage standard in conjunction with approval of the Park and Recreation Master Plan 1986-2000. This standard was established after appropriate public hearings and input as well as input from other public agencies. The Quimby Act, Government Code Section 66477 et seq., authorizes a three acre per 1,000 population standard without further justifications or hearings. Consistent with this adopted standard, the County adopted Ordinance No. G-5190 on February 20, 1990, covering land within the jurisdiction of the District, and providing for a three acre per 1,000 population standard. Shortly after the County's adoption of Ordinance No. G-5190, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern jointly adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The 2010 General Plan was adopted on March 7, 1990, by the City of Bakersfield, and on March 12, 1990, by the County of Kern. The 2010 General Plan adopted a 2.5 acre per 1,000 population standard as a minimum for local parks, but authorized higher standards for special park districts. The City of Bakersfield, in subsequently adopting Ordinance No. 3317 on September 19, 1990, maintained the 2.5 acre per 1,000 population standard. The City of Bakersfield subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 3327, setting a park development fee, on November 7, 1990. The Board of Directors of the District on May 17, 1993, reduced the park acreage standard to 2.5 acres per 1000 people to be considered with a revision to the Park and Recreation 'Master Plan. ' Formal adoption of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District 2010 Park and Recreation Master Plan on June 19, 1995, resulted in the final adoption of the 2.5 acre standard. As a result of the various ordinance adoptions, a number of inconsistencies exist between City and County standards. The County's Ordinance No. G-5!90 is based on a three acre per 1,000 population standard which is inconsistent with the currently adopted District standard. Additionally, the ordinance is based on a fixed amount which does not reflect varying land values within the District nor the increasing land costs. A more appropriate method to collect in-lieu fees is based on a formula, as follows: number of dwelling units X .0025 (factor representing 2.5 acres per 1000 population) X average persons per dwelling unit (APPDU) X fair market value per buildable acre, and is determined by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated or purchased or of the property on which the in-lieu fees are to be collected, as determined by an appraisal acceptable to the District. June 28, 1996 Page 3 Fixed land cost of the existing County Ordinance G-5190 has become unworkable in light of today's land values, as compared to the more flexible fair market standard based on an appraisal. III. Need for Consistency in all Parts of the District As discussed above, the residents of the community need and deserve consistency between park dedication and fee standards throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. ~ Various goals, policies and implementation measures contained in the 2010 General Plan also emphasize consistency among all areas within the jurisdiction of the 2010 General Plan, as well as allowable types of fees which should be considered to meet park requirements. For example, Goal No. 5 on page XI-7, Chapter XI, Parks, of the 2010 General Plan states: "CoOrdinate development of park facilities and trail systems throughout the plan area which enhance the center's concept and compliment unique visual or natural resources." Thus, consistency of standards and development is emphasized within the 2010 General Plan. In addition, Policy No. 3, page XI-8, states: "Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and or ~in-lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas (I-l) ." Thus, fees to provide improvements are affirmatively encouraged under the 2010 General Plan. As another example, Implementation XI-13, l(b), encourages the City and County to: "(i) Identify funding strategies to pay for acquisition of new parks with funds reserved from the following sources... - Developer'assessments (through use of~ Quimby Act or other similar funding mechanisms)..." The Western Rosedale Specific Plan Implementation Measures also encourage the adoption of a park development fee: 4.13.2 Park Facilities North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District The proposed project will result in an impact to the provision of park facilities by NBRPD. The Specific Plan Parks Policy Implementation requires the dedication of land or payment in-lieu fees for future park locations. The leqal/requlatory requirements and the June 28, 1996 Page 4 Specific Plan Parks Policy Implementation will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 4.13.4 Mitigation Measures Leqal/Requlatory Requirements A. In-lieu fees shall be collected through the land division process as .required by the Kern County Land Division Ordinance. B. New.development shall apply the provisions of the Quimby Act as provided for in the Kern County Land Division Ordinance. Specific Plan Policy Implementation. The Specific Plan shall: require consultation with the appropriate park agencies and require the dedication of land or payment in-lieu fees for future park locations; establish the administrative and legal mechanisms to allow for the creation of benefit assessment districts, community facilities districts, and special taxes for the development of community center; identify funding strategies to pay for acquisition of new parks; conduct studies to evaluate publicly owned lands and utility rights-of-way for use as public recreation facilities; work with the private sector to promote development of outdoor recreation and sports proqrams and private and commercial recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements. IV. Inadequacy of Current County In-Lieu Fee Formula and Lack of Park Development Fee As discussed above, current County Ordinance No. G-5109 is based on a fixed land acquisition cost. This has become inadequate to acquire needed park land, as current land costs vary substantially from area to area and the cost of land has steadily increased. For example, in December of 1991, land costs to purchase Emerald Cove Park located at the southwest corner of Patton Way and Hageman Road were approximately $30,000 per acre. In May 1993, the first portion of the Jenkins and Hageman park site cost $18,879 an acre. With the approval of the Riverlakes Agreement on April 16, 1990, the maximum land cost is $37,500 per acre for the park site set aside for the District to purchase to serve the Riverlakes development. On January 7, 1994, the District acquired the Polo Grounds Almondale Park site at a cost of $355,161 or $29,401 per acre plus assessments. The final portions of the Mondavi Way Park site, 4.61 acres, was acquired at a cost of $30,057 per acre. June 28, 1996 Page 5 A fee structure using a formula will adjust for various land costs and population densities and is therefore more equitable to all. Additionally, park improvements and recreational amenities are needed to create recreational opportunities within the District. The proposed park development ordinance will provide basic development to parks to make them available for recreational use. These. improvements include: street development, utility construction, grading, irrigation, landscaping, off-street parking, walls, if required, sidewalks, children's play areas, multi-use play courts with lighting, security lighting, picnic shelters and family picnic facilities, multi-use play fields without lights, turf volleyball, park furniture, restrooms and associated improvements. Development does not include aquatics facilities, community centers or lighted sports fields or court game complexes. A park development fee will provide basic development of Parks or about 54% of the cost to meet the park and recreation needs of new residents. The District through other funding sources will need to generate about 46% of the construction costs for a completq system. Development of a typical District park within the County jurisdiction, including the items referenced as basic improvements, is estimated as of June 1995, to cost $86,313 per park acre. This is the contribution that is proposed for collection by the development fee ordinance and leaves the District with the financial responsibility to fund aquatics facilities, community centers and lighted sports fields and major court game areas through other methods. ~ For every 400 person increase in District population (the population required to generate the need for an acre of park land), the District will need to find an additional $74,000 to construct the aquatics facilities, community centers and lighted sports fields and courts. This cost is based on the following assumptions: 1 Ball Diamond with lights per 5,000 population at a cost of approximately $150,000 per diamond. 1 Aquatics Facility to serve approximately 20,000 people, estimated to cost approximately $800,000. 1 Community Center to serve a population of 20,000 people, conservatively estimated to cost $2,000,000 to construct. Court Games to serve a community of 20,000 people estimated ~o cost $300,000. June 28, 1996 Page 6 Breakdown share of costs per capita: Ball Diamond - $30 X 400 = 12,000 Aquatics Facility - $40 X 400 = 16,000 Community Center - $100 X 400 = 40,000 Court games - $15 X 400 = 6,000 $74,000 Funding for these facilities is not included in the proposed development fees. It is quite likely many of these facilities will not be built, although expanded use of school sites will help accommodate the recreational opportunities and reduce the cost to the community. A much more workable solution for land acquisition bases the in-lieu fee on fair market value determined by an appraisal. This mechanism not only assures adequate funds to acquire and develop parks within the District's boundaries, but further incorporates flexibility into the ordinance so that the Board of Supervisors does not have to continually update the per acre cost maximum contained in the current form of ordinance. V. Conclusion The District feels that the time has come to address the need for consistency within the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2910 Plan area. Residents of this area should receive facilities consistent with those required by the various planning documents initiated to direct and mitigate development. The City of Bakersfield portion of the Metropolitan area outside North Bakersfield boundaries is currently receiving the prescribed facilities. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District areas in the City with the implementation of the ordinances recently adopted will also be provided with park facilities. The County areas, if unchanged, will be deficient in development and to some extent deficient in funding for land acquisition. The District seeks the support of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in bringing consistency to District residents. Enclosures cc: Kern County Board of Supervisors Bakersfield City Council Members Joel Heinrichs, County Administrative Officer Ted James, Kern County Planning Department Alan Tandy, City Manager Jack Hardisty, Bakersfield City Planning Department Bruce Divelbiss, County Counsel Judy Skousen, City Attorney. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 18.96 TO THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, CONCERNING DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF IN-LIEU FEES OR BOTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARK AND RECREATION LAND. The following ordinance, consisting of seventeen (17) sections, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on the day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California (SF2~L) ATTEST: SUE LASITER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors' By , Deputy Clerk THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF KERN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on and after the __ day of , 1996, and shall be published once in The Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation, published and printed in the County of Kern, State of California, together with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against the same. Book No. Ord. No. Section 2. RECITALS AND PURPOSE 1. In 1965, the Quimby Act was established by the Legislature of the State of California (Section 11546 of the Business and Professions Code) in order to enable cities and counties to enact ordinances to require residential subdividers to provide'land and/or in-lieu fees for park and recreation purposes; and 2. In 1974, the Legislature substantially amended and recodified the Subdivision Map Act and placed the provisions of said Act into Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code, commencing at Section 66410, with the result that former section 11546 of the Business and Professions Code became Section 66477 of the Government Code; and 3. Before a city or county may avail itself of said Act, it must have a general plan containing a recreational element with definite principles and standards for the park and recreational facilities to serve the residents of a city or county; and 4. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern has adopted a general plan to serve the residents of the County containing such a recreation element; and 5. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has adopted and revised a Master Park and Recreation Plan (the "Master Plan") with definite principles and standards to serve the residents of the District; and 6. The purpose of this Chapter is to implement the principles and standards of the Master Plan in order to assure the continued- availability of adequate recreational land and facilities to serve the residents of the District, to promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing an orderly process for the dedication, reservation and acquisition of park land within the District, pursuant to the authority granted by said Act, and to establish consistency of standards for the dedication of park and recreation land and the payment of in-lieu fees for District land whether located in the County or the City of Bakersfield; and 7~ Based upon the standards contained in the District's Master Plan, it is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that two and one-half (2-1/2) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within the District be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. Section 3. Chapter 18.96, .Sections 18.96.10 through 18.96.107, is hereby added to the ordinance Code of the County of Kern, to repeal and replace existing Chapter 18.96, Sections 18.96.10 through 18.96.102, to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.96 PARK LAND DEDICATION, NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Sections: 18.96.10 Definitions. 18.96.20 Park land reservation and dedication authority. 18.96.30 Requirements. 18.96.40 General standard. 18.96.50 Requirements for dedication. 18.96.60 Formula for dedication of land. 18.96.70 Formula for fees in-lieu of land dedication. 18.96.80 Criteria for requiring both dedication and fee. 18.96.90 Determination of fair market value. 18.96.100 Determination of land and/or fee. 18.96.101 Credit for private open space. 18.96.102 Time for dedication and/or fee. 18.96.103 Disposition of fees. 18.96.104 Developer improvements. 18.96.105 Access. 18.96.106 Sale of dedicated land. 18.96.107 Exemptions. 18.96.10 DEFINITIONS In addition to words and phrases defined herein, the following words and phrases in this Chapter shall have the following meanings: A. "Advisory Agency." The Board of Supervisors shall constitute the Advisory Agency for all proposed subdivisions pursuant to Section 18.96.40. The Planning Director, or his designee shall constitute the Advisory Agency for any existing parcel development. The County Engineer, or his designee shall constitute the Advisory Agency for any parcel map waiver. B. "Developer" means any person subdividing property or developing existing single parcels. c. "District" means the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, a local public agency separate and distinct from the County of Kern. D. "Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit" (APPDU) means the number of persons per dwelling unit by unit type as determined by the most recent available federal decennial census. E. Ail other words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth in the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66410 et seq.) and Title 18 of this Code. 18.96.20 P~RK LAND RESERVATION AND DEDICATION AUTHORITY A. The Advisory Agency shall have the authority to locate, require reservation, dedication of real property or a fee in-lieu, or a combination thereof, and development fee pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted concurrently herewith, for the purpose of supplying pu~ parks and recreation facilities pursuant to this Chapter. This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Section 66477 of the Government Code of the State of California. The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of fees is required by this Chapter are in accordance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (the "General Plan"), the Recreation Element of the General Plan, and the Master Plan. 18.96.30 REQUIREMENTS A. Subdivisions. At the time of approval of the tentative map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver dividing land for residential use within the jurisdiction of the District, the Advisory Agency shall determine, pursuant to this Chapter, the land required for dedication, reservation and/or in-lieu fee payment. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver, the subdivider shall-dedicate, reserve land, pay a fee in-lieu, or a combination thereof, at the option of the County, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in this Chapter. B. Development on Existing Parcel. At the time of approval of a permit to build a residential structure, including but not limited to a single or multiple family structure or mobile home, on land within the jurisdiction of the District, an owner shall pay a fee for park or recreational purposes in accordance with the same standards. Such payment shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit in accordance with the standards and formula contained in this Chapter. The Advisory Agency may, in its discretion, accept dedication of land in-lieu of payment of such fee, if such land alone, or combined with adjacent park land, will meet the requirements of Section 18.96.60(A)of this Chapter. 18.96.40 GENERAL STANDARD A. It is hereby found and determined the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that: 3 1. Two and one-half (2-1/2) acres of real property for each one thousand persons (calculated at .0025 acres per person) who will reside in the County as a result of proposed development be devoted to park and recreational purposes. a. All new single and multiple family residential developments, including subdivisions, parcel maps and single parcel developments within the County, shall be subject to this Chapter. b. The amount of land dedication or fees paid is based upon the residential density set forth in Section 18.96.60 herein, which shall be determined on the basis of the tentative map or building permit, and the average persons per dwelling unit. 18.96.50 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATION A. Lands to be dedicated or reserved for acquisition for park and/or recreational purposes shall be suitable, in the opinion of the County, in location, topography, environmental characteristics and development potential as it relates to the intended use. The primary intent of this section shall be construed to provide the land for functional park and recreation units of community or neighborhood service. B. If the Developer provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this Chapter. 18.96.60 FORMULA FOR DEDICATION OF LAND A. The Developer shall dedicate land so that a park and its development shall be sufficient in size, topography and design that bears a reasonable relationship to serve the future inhabitants of the subdivision and be consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 1. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: TABLE 1 Park Land Dedication Formula Number of Amount of Dwellings Units X .0025 X APPDU = Park Land Dedication 2. The average person per dwelling unit shall be maintained by the Planning Director and may be amended from time to time based on the most recent available federal decennial census. 3. For the purposes of this section, the number of new dwelling units shall be based upon the number of buildable parcels indicated on the map, when in an area zoned for' one dwelling unit per parcel. When all or part of the subdivision is located in an area zoned for more than one dwelling unit per parcel, the number of proposed dwelling units in the area so zoned shall equal 75% of the maximum allowed under the zone. Subsequent development of additional units shall require payment of in-lieu fees or dedication of land pursuant to this Chapter. In the case of existing parcel development, the number of new dwelling units shall be based upon the same criteria as stated for subdivision maps. In the case of a condominium project, the number of new dwelling units shall be the number of condominium units. 4 18.96.70 FORMUL~ FOR FEES IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION A. General Formula. When a fee is to be paid in-lieu of land dedication, the Developer shall, in-lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the unimproved land which would otherwise be required for dedication pursuant to Section 18.96.60. 1. The amount of in-lieu fee shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: TABLE 2 In-Lieu Fee Formula Number of Fair Market Dwelling Units X .0025 X APPDU X Value Per Buildable Acre B. Fees in-lieu of land, fifty parcels or less. If the proposed subdivision contains fifty parcels or less, and does not meet the requirements of section 18.96.80(A), or if development of an existing parcel is proposed, the Developer shall pay a fee equal to the unimproved land value of the portion of the park required to serve the needs of residents of the proposed subdivision or property to be developed as prescribed in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of this Section 18.96.70. C. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes in subdivisions of fifty parcels or less or existing parcel to be developed, where the Developer proposes such dedication voluntarily and the land is acceptable to the Advisory Agency. D. Use of money. The money collected herein shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring necessary land and developing new parks or rehabilitating or improving existing parks or recreation facilities which will'reasonably serve the subdivision or other development. 18.96.80 CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING BOTH DEDICATION AND FEE A. 'When only a portion of a designated park site is located within land to be subdivided or existing parcel to be developed, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.96.70 shall be paid for the value of any' additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 18.96.60. B. When a major part of a park site has previously been acquired by the County and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision or existing parcel to be developed to complete the site, such remaining portions shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.96.70. Such fees shall be used for the improvement of the park and recreation facility or' for the improvement of the park and recreation facilities serving said development. 18.96.90 DETERMINATION OF FAIR M~RKET VALUE The fair market value of park land to be dedicated or of the property on which in-lieu fees are to be paid shall be determined' by a written appraisal report prepared and signed by an appraiser acceptable to the County. The appraisal shall be based on the value of unimproved real property for the land to be dedicated for park purposes serving said subdivision or other development, or if no specific park site has been identified, then the appraisal shall be based on the value of the land to be subdivided or developed as unimproved real property~ The appraisal shall be made no more than 90 days prior to the recordation of the final map for subdivisions, and no more than 90 days prior to obtaining a building permit for development of an existing parcel. If mutually agreed to in writing by the County and Developer, an appraisal made within one (1) year prior to recordation of the final map in the case of subdivisions, or application for a building permit in the case 5 of existing parcels, may be used to determine fair market value. The subdivider shall notify the County of the expected submission of a final map for recordation. If more than one (1) year elapses before filing the final map, the County may order a new appraisal. The costs of all appraisals shall be borne by the Developer. 18.96.100 DETERMINATION OF L/~ND AND~oR FEE A. Whether the Advisory Agency requires land reservation, dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in-lieu thereof, or a combination thereof, shall be determined by considering the following: 1. The adopted Park Element of the General Plan; 2. The topography, geology, soils, access, location, and general suitability of the land in the subdivision available for dedication; 3. The size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication; 4. The feasibility of dedication; and 5. The location of existing and proposed park sites and trailways. 18.96.101 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE A. The Advisory Agency shall determine whether credit for private open space may be given. Except for the provisions of Section 18.96.101(B), no more than seven-tenths of one acre (0;7 acre) per one thousand population credit may be given for private open space within a subdivision or development providing the following standards are met: 1. Yard, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required by the zoning and building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such credit; 2. The private ownership and maintenance of open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, covenants or restrictions approved by County Counsel; 3. The use of the private open space is restricted and preserved for park and recreational'purposes by recorded covenants, easement or other instrument approved by County Counsel, which run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the Board of Supervisors; 4. The proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location of the private open space; 5. The facilities proposed are: a. In substantial accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, or adopted community or specific plans; b. Appropriate to the recreation needs of future residents of the development; c. Substantially comparable to the park and recreation lands otherwise required to be dedicated in meeting the recreation needs of the residents; and 6. The facilities provided by private open space shall be developed and maintained by the private property owners. B. The Advisory Agency shall determine whether one hundred percen~ (100%) credit may be given. Credit for the full amount of park land dedication and/or in-lieu fee shall be based on the Developer developing and constructing a park Site in accordance to County standards, including the facilities specified in the Parks Element of the General Plan. 18.96.102 TIME FOR DEDICATION AND/OR FEE A. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or parcel map waiver, the Advisory Agency shall determine the land required for dedication. If the Advisory Agency requires in- lieu payment by the Developer, the Advisory Agency shall set the amount of land upon which the in-lieu fee will be based at the time of final map approval. B. Prior to, or concurrently with, the recordation of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or certificate of compliance, the Developer shall dedicate the land free of encumbrances to the District, and/or pay in-lieu fees, as required by the Advisory Agency. Where the Advisory Agency has determined that fees shall be paid in-lieu of, or in addition to the dedication of land, the in-lieu fees shall be set based on the land dedication requirements as established at the time of tentative map approval using current fair market unimproved land values at the time of final map approval with the formula set forth in Section 18.96.70 and using the process for determining fair market value as set forth in Section 18.96.90. C. At the time of issuance of the first residential building permit for existing parcel developments or other residential developments not requiring Advisory Agency review, the Planning Director, or his designee, shall determine the amount of land to be dedicated and/or whether in-lieu fees shall be paid. For such developments, the Developer shall adhere to the same requirements as in Section 18.96.102(B). D. The Developer shall pay said fees in accordance with the following schedule: 1~ For any approved subdivision for which fees are required as set forth in Section 18.96.70, fees shall be paid in their entirety prior to the recordation of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or certificate of compliance; or 2. For existing parcel development, fees shall be paid on a lot-by-lot basis and prior to the issuance of any building permit for any residential dwelling unit located on the parcel. E. Open space, covenants, easements or other instruments for private park or recreation facilities shall be submitted to the County Engineer and approved by County Counsel prior to the recordation of the final subdivision map Or parcel map and shall be recorded prior to or contemporaneously with the final subdivision map or parcel map. 18.96.103 DISPOSITION OF FEES A. Fees paid pursuant to this Chapter shall be paid to the County Treasurer and shall be deposited in a special fund. Money in said fund, including accrued interest, shall be expended solely for the purposes enumerated in this Chapter. B. Collected fees shall be committed by the District within five years after receipt of such fees or within five years after the issuance of building permits on fifty percent (50%) of the lots created by a subdivision, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if such fees have not been so committed, the District shall, without any deductions, authorize the County Treasurer to distribute and pay unused fees to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. 7 C. The Finance Director shall, based on information provided by the District, render reports to the Board of Supervisors annually on the fees received, the deadline for commitment thereof, the expenditures made and fund balance. 18.96.104 DEVELOPER'IMPROVEMENTS The value of park and recreation improvements provided by the Developer to the dedicated land shall be credited against the fees or .dedication of land required by this Chapter. The District reserves the right to accept or reject such improvements prior to agreeing to accept the dedication of land, and to require in-lieu fee payments should the land and improvements be unacceptable. 18.96.105 ACCESS Ail land offered for dedication shall have access to at least two existing or proposed public streets. This requirement may be waived by the District if the District determines that public street access is unnecessary for public safety, the maintenance of the park area or use thereof by residents. 18.96.106 SALE OF DEDICATED LAND If, during the ensuing time between dedication of land for park purposes and commencement of first stage of development, circumstances arise which indicate another site would be more suitable for park or recreational purposes serving the subdivision and neighborhood (such as receipt of a gift of additional park land), the land may be sold or traded for other land upon the approval of the District. The resultant funds from a sale shall be used for purchase and development of a more suitable park site. Surplus park land sold shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter. 18.96.107 EXEMPTIONS \ The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: A. Commercial, retail, office, and industrial subdivisions and uses with no residential development or uses. However, in-lieu fees shall be required where a residential dwelling unit is constructed in conjunction with commercial or industrial subdivisions. B. ' Condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old and where no new dwelling units are added. C. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodel or replacement of a residential structure, provided the replacement structure is the same type of unit, does not create additional residential units, and is substantially the same size as the structure it replaces. D. Subdivisions or developments for which park dedication requirements have previously been satisfied and evidence of such satisfaction, acceptable to the County is submitted. However, subsequent division of such parcels may require dedications and/or in- lieu fees set forth in ~his Chapter. o0o i I (A22~ORDI 8.96 ORDnanCE ~0o AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER TO THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, CONCERNING A FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT. The following ordinance, consisting of six (6) sections, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on the day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California (SEAL) ATTEST: SUE LASITER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By , Deputy Clerk THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF KERN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on and after the day of , 1996, and shall be published once in The Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation, published and printed in the County of Kern, State of california, together with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against the same. Book No. Ord. No. Section 2. RECITALS AND PURPOSE 1. In 1965, the Quimby Act was established by the Legislature of the State of California (Section 11546 of the Business and Professions Code) in order to enable cities and counties to enact ordinances to require residential subdividers to provide land and/or in-lieu fees for park and recreation purposes; and 2. In 1974, the Legislature substantially amended and recodified the Subdivision Map Act and placed the provisions of said Act into Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code, commencing, at Section 66410, with the result that former section 11546 of the Business and Professions Code became Section 66477 of the Government Code; and 3. Before a city or county may avail itself of said Act, it must have a general plan containing a recreational element with definite principles and standards for the park and recreational facilities to serve the residents of a city or county; and 4. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern has adopted a general plan to serve the residents of the County containing such a recreation element; and 5. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has adopted and revised a Master Park and Recreation Plan (the "Master Plan") with definite principles and standards to serve the residents of the District; and 6. There are inconsistencies between developments within the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern in that the City of Bakersfield has enacted, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001, e__t seq., a fee for park development and improvement; the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern desires to create consistent treatment of developments within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (the "General Plan") by creating a similar fee for. park development and improvement; and the fee established by this ordinance is for the purpose of developing, improving and enhancing public parks and recreational facilities serving residential development; and 7. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed because the fee is calculated in relationship to the number of people residing in the development and the current estimated cost of constructing a park and; 8. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for parks and recreational facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed because new residential dwelling unit development creates or contributes an additional demand for parks and recreational facilities; and 9. It is necessary to provide for developed parks to satisfy the additional demand for parks and recreational facilities at the level of service required by the General Plan; and 10. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of parks and recreational facilities or portion thereof attributable to the residential development on which the fee is imposed; and 11. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing and imposing a fee as a method for financing the development, improvement and/or enhancement of public parks. Section 3. Chapter , Sections through , is hereby added to the Ordinance Code of the County of Kern to read as follows: CHAPTER FEE FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT, NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Sections: Definitions. Implementation. Collection of fees. Setting of fees. Adjustment of fees. Exemptions. DEFINITIONS In addition to words and phrases defined herein, the words and phrases in this Chapter shall have the following meanings: A. "Development" means any activity requiring approval, or permit which physically disturbs or alters a site, including grading of or construction on any parcel of real property. B. "District" means the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, a local public agency separate and distinct from the County of Kern. C. "Enhancement" means any development and/or improvement to upgrade, improve or rehabilitate an existing or proposed public park to better serve the public. D. "Improvement" means any street work or utilities to be installed on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways and easements, and which are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in a subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs. E. "Dwelling unit" means any building or portion thereof, which contains one kitchen, and is designed and/or used to house not more than one family, including necessary employees of such family. IMPLEMENTATION A. The County will collect a park development, improvement, and enhancement fee for each new dwelling unit within the jurisdiction of the District, except for those dwelling units exempted under Section B. The County will hold said fees collected by it in a separate trust account, including accrued interest, for payment of park development, improvement and/or enhancement for public parks and recreational facilities. C. Said fees will be imposed and collected at the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first for new residential construction, on a per unit basis, according to the fee schedule set by the Board of Supervisors. Fees may be paid Prior to the date of final inspection or the date of certificate of occupancy if a developer so desires. D. Payment of said fees will satisfy County conditions of. approval placed on projects with regard to park development, improvement and/or enhancement which have not been previously satisfied. COLLECTION OF FEES A. The park development, improvement and enhancement fee shall be paid in full, in cash, at the date of final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. Said fee may be paid at the time of building permit issuance if a developer chooses. Said fee may be paid by cash, pledged certificate of deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, or performance/surety bond if a developer wishes to pay said fee prior to recordation of a final subdivision map 3 tract or parcel map. Ail but cash shall be made payable upon demand by the Public Works Director. B. The Board of Supervisors shall, based on information provided by the District, make findings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in said account within five years after deposit of the fee, or within five years after the issuance of building permits on fifty percent (50%) of the lots created by a subdivision, whichever occurs later, to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. These findings need only be made for monies in possession of the County and need not be made with respect to letters of credit, bonds, or other instruments taken to secure payment of the fee at a future date. C. Except as provided in Section , the District shall authorize the county Treasurer to refund to the current record owner or owners of lots, or units of the development project or projects on a prorated basis the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee, and any interest agcrued thereon, for which need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to this Chapter. The County Treasurer may refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenues by direct payment, by providing a temporary suspension of fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of california Government Code Section 66001. The determination by the Board of Supervisors of the means by which those revenues are to be refunded shall be a legislative act. D. If the administrative costs of refunding unexpended or uncommitted revenues pursuant to this Chapter exceed the amount to be refunded, the Board of Supervisors, after public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant to California Government Section 6061 and posted in three prominent places within the area of the development project, may determine that the revenues shall be subject to this Chapter and which serves the project on which the fee was originally imposed. SETTING OF FEES The Board of Supervisors shall, by resolution, establish the fee required under this Chapter, on a per unit basis. ADJUSTMENT OF FEES The Public Works Director shall, based on information provided by the District, submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors with updated, new or additional information regarding the fee amount to be collected for each new dwelling unit. A public hearing shall be conducted if the Board of Supervisors determines that the fee schedule should be adjusted. EXEMPTIONS The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: A. Commercial, retail, office, and industrial subdivisions with no residential development or uses. However, fees shall be required where a residential dwelling unit is constructed in conjunction with commercial or industrial subdivisions. B. Condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of. t~e subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old and where no new dwelling units are added. C. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodel or replacement of a residential structure, provided the replacement structure is the same type of unit, does not create additional residential units, and is suDstantially the same size as the structure it replaces. D. Subdivisions or developments for which park development, improvement and/or enhancement requirements have previously been satisfied and evidence of such satisfaction, acceptable to the County is submitted. However, subsequent division of such parcels may result in additional fees set forth in this Chapter. o0o 119'~2960~ORD .2 Judy K. Skousen CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY A~I'ORNEY ,~ ~-~ ASSI~A~ Cl~ A~O~EYS ~ C<:~;'A~' - ~m D.~I ~ C. M~o Mien M Shaw Walt~ H. Po~, ~ ~. ~eo~ CITY OF B~RSFIELD ~EP~ CITY ~O~EYS OFFICE OF ~E CI~ J~i~ ~ 1501 ~ A~ C~I H~d~z III B~~, CA 93301 Vir~a G~o LAWOFFICE ADMINIST~TOR ~HO~: 805-326-3721 Fmce~ E. ~ompson FACS~: 805-325-9162 July 3, Ms. Dorothy Henson 655 Panama Lane Bakersfield, California 93307 Re: Removal of Structures Within Panama Lane Right-of-way Dear Ms. Henson: This letter is to confirm discussions at a meeting you had Friday, June 28, 1996 with Ward 7 City Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Jack LaRochelle and Ted Wright of the Public Works Department. As you are aware, Panama Lane will be widened within existing street right-of-way, along with reconstruction of the local streets in the area as part of an overall on-going improvement plan for. the Panama #10 annexation area (bounded by Panama Lane, Lowry Street, Nadeau Street, and Encino Street). As was discussed, you have several older structures that are within the right-of-way of Panama Larie that must be removed so the project can proceed as planned. The City agreed to remove and dispose of these structures, as well as any other items or debris that are on the property. The existing chainlink fencing located east of the structures will be relocated southerly to the right-of-way line,_and.a new chainlink fence will be installed from the west end of this fence to Lowry Street. A concrete drive approach into your property from Panama Lane (located at your existing driveway) will also be installed with the Panama Lane improvements, and the area between this drive approach and your existing driveway pavement will be paved. This work will be accomplished at no charge to you, neither now or in the future (this will not be a charge that will show up on your taxes). The removal of the structures must begin by September 15, 1996 so that the street construction project can be completed prior to the beginning of the rainy season. Therefore, any items you have stored within the right-of-way area that you wish to keep must be removed by this date so that they are not inadvertently removed by City forces. RECEIVED Ms. Dorothy Henson Page 2 July 3, 1996 Should you desire, the City will also pursue vacation of the right-of-way area noted as "Future Alley", which crosses the south side of your property as shown on the tract map for this area. PG&E will be moving the gas meter for your residence, currently located along the east side of one of the structures, and this will also be accomplished at no charge to you. Should the above not reflect your understanding of the meeting on June 28, 1996, kindly so advise immediately. Should you have any questions, please contact Jack LaRochelle of the Public Works Department at 326-3724, or the undersigned at 326-3721. Very truly yours, MICHAEL G. ALLFORD Assistant City Attorney MGA\bsb cc: Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Ward 7 Jack LaRochelle, Public Works Department Luis Peralez, Public Works Department $:~UBWORKS~ETTERS",HENSEN.LTR MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ FROM: FRANK FABBRI, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0008166 (SULLIVAN-WARD 6) DATE: JUNE 27, 1996 This is an update on the above referral which deals with designating certain streets as scenic corridors into the City with special landscaping. Since the Urban Development Committee met to discuss the issue on February 15, 1996, the Community Services and Public Works staff has met on several occasions to. gather information for the Committee. The Park and Landscape Designer in Public Works is preparing a map outlining the major, streets and drafting preliminary landscape concept plans for the proposed scenic corridors. We will keep you inform as to our process. cc: Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Ted Wright Design Engineer .Don Hoggatt, Park and Landscape Designer File: wf8166 ' i,. ,JUL 2 1996 !C~TY MANAGER'S OFFiCI:' MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ FROM: FRANK FABBRI, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL UPDATE WF0008190 (SMITH-WARD 3) DATE: JUNE 27, 1996 This is an update on the potential land swap of the Panorama Hills Park site. Lee Andersen, Don. Anderson and myself met with Mr. Heisey, Gordon Foster and their engineer Mr. Delmarter last month to discuss the new appraisal and the configuration of the proposed park site. There were several concerns with a street alignment which has been resolved with the City Traffic Engineer. The attached letter, dated May 22, 1996 to Mr. Heisey from Don Anderson outlines the process we are pursuing. If we are able to stay on schedulD the exchange agreement will be on the Council agenda in late July or early August. We will continue to work with Mr. Heisey and keep you informed as to our progress. cc: Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager ,~Greg Klimko, Finance Director Don Anderson, Real Property Agent Virginia Gennaro, Deputy City Attorney I Attachment File: wf8190 BAKERSFIELD May 22, 1996 Walter F. Heisey, President ACE Financial Corporation 315 East 18th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 SUBJECT: P-36 - PARKS - Panorama Hills Park - Exchange of Properties Dear Mr. Heisey: I checked with the City's Traffic Engineer, Steve Walker and he confirmed that the future street adjacent to the west side of the proposed park site will need to align with Stone Canyon Street. For your information, the process from here is: Please review the attached exchange agreement and forward your comments, if any, to me by July 1st. · Concurrently, your engineer prepares a legal description for the City's review and incorporation into the exchange agreement (Exhibit "A"). You may have him forward it to me directly to save time. I would like this by July 1 st to. give our stafftime to review it. The Planning Commission will be asked to find the proposed exchange consistent with the 2010 General Plan at their July 18th meeting. · If I receive your comments and legal description by July I st I will schedule this matter for the City Council's July 24th meeting. If the City Council approves the agreement then City staff will seek the State's approval of the exchange. If necessary, we may. seek your assistance in this matter. Upon receipt of the State's approval we will consumate the transaction per the exchange agreement. As always, please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions. Si~erely, Real Property Agent Attachment cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Leland J. Andersen, Community Services Manager Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director Frank Fabbri, Park Superintendent Virginia Gennaro, Deputy City Attorney City of Bakersfield · Property Management Division · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3061 · Fax (805) 324-7483 B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City ~Ianager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director~ ~[.~'~~ DATE: July 3, 1996 i SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO COUNCIL REFERRALS Enclosed please find responses to the following Council referrals: Referral Record # WFO0082 76 A traffic speed study was performed on Elm Street in the 2800 block. (DeMond) Attached is a copy of the memo regarding a speeding problem concern and the additional signing that is recommended, as well as the recommendation that the Police Department be provided with the speed information to help them enforce the speed limit. Referral Record # WF0008252 A request to repair the westbound lane at White Lane & Highway 99 overpass with crack sealing material. (Salvaggio) AIl potholes and utility cuts on White Lane between Hughes Lane and Wible Road were patched on June 28, 1996. This portion of White Lane is also scheduled to be crack sealed in October 1996. iCi'l'Y ~A~,AGER'$ OFFIC~i; BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: June 18, 1996 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM:STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER/~~ SUBJECT: DIRECT COUNCILMEMBER REFERRAL - SPEEDING ON ELM STREET, 2800 BLOCK, MR. CARLOS LOZANO As requested by Mr. Carlos Lozano, via Councilmember Demond, a traffic speed study was performed on Elm Street in the 2800 block. INVESTIGATION: Our study showed that only about 2400 cars per day use this segment of Elm Street. The average speed northbound was about 34 mph in a 25 mph zone and the average speed southbound was about 28 mph in a 25 mph zone. About 8 percent of the cars exceed 40 mph while about 18 percent exceed 35 mph. The speed limit is consistently exceeded between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm. RESOLUTION/RESPONSE: - The 2800 block is near a curve area of Elm Street. Additional signing for curve warning with a speed advisory is proposed to augment existing signs. - The Police Department will be provided with our speed information to help them more effectively enforce the existing 25 mph speed limit. - Additional 25 mph signs will be installed where appropriate for all of Elm Street. The street will continue to be monitored, as are other streets in the area, for other improvements as may be needed. No additional action is proposed at this time. cc: Traffic Engineering File - Elm Street corridor (north of 24th) slw: P:\DATA\WP\1996\EImWard2.Ref MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 3, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REPAIR THE WESTBOUND LANE AT WHITE LANE & HIGHWAY 99 OVERPASS WITH CRACK SEALING MATERIAL. COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0008252 / 001 COUNCILMEMBER SALVAGGIO, WARD 7 On June 28, 1996 the Street Division patched all potholes and utility cuts on White Lane between Hughes Lane and Wible Road. In addition, This portion of White Lane is scheduled to be crack sealed in October 1996. City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE REQ/JOB: WF0008252 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 7/01~96 REQUEST DATE: 6/12/96 SCHEDULE DATES CREW: START: 6/12/96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 6/24/96 FACILITY NODES GEN. LOC: WARD7 FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCIL REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: WHITE LANE/HIGHWAY 99 OVERPASS REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF REPAIR THE WESTBOUND LANE OF THE WHITE LANE/HWY'99 OVERPASS WITH CRACK SEALING. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: WHITE LANE/HIGHWAY 99 OVERPASS Category: PUBLIC WORKS TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* REQUEST DATE: 12/96 CREW: SCHEDULE DAT START: ~12~96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 24/96 GEN. LOC: WARD1 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCIb ~TMT~ REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - CARSON ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: STREET LIGHT/414 llTH STREET REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** CARSON REQUESTED STAFF REPAIR THE WIRE HANGING FROM THE STREET LIGHT AT 414 llTH STREET. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: STREET LIGHT/414 llTH STREET Category: PUBLIC WORKS TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS INSTRUCTIONS T~ ~'£~T LIGHT LOCATED AT 414 llTH STREET IS ONE OF 15 NEW LIGHTS BEING INSTALLED IN THE CARNATION TRACT. THESE LIGHTS WILL BE HOOKED UP BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC STARTING THE WEEK OF JULY 1, 1996. START DATE /__/__ COMPLETION DATE City of Bakersfield PAGE 1 WORK REQUEST REQ/JOB: WF0008255 / 001 PROJECT: ~ CREW: CHED E DAT~12~96 GEN. LOC: WARD5 ]/ ~ TY NODES FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCI~ ~TMT~ REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - ROWLES ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: SPEEDING ON ELM ST/24TH ST REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO POLICE DEPT*** ROWLES REQUESTED STAFF MONITOR SPEEDING ON ELM STREET, NORTH OF 24TH STREET. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: SPEEDING ON ELM ST/24TH ST Category: POLICE SERVICES DEPT TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: POLICE SERVICES START DATE / /__ COMPLETION DATE / /__ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 ~REQ/JOB: WF0008255 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 7/01/96 REQUEST DATE: 6/12/96 CREW' SCHEDULE DATES START: ~/12/96 LOCATION: COMPLETION: 6~24~96 GEN. LOC: WARD5 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: COUNCI~ ~T~T~ REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - ROWLES ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: SPEEDING ON ELM ST/24TH ST REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO POLICE DEPT*** ROWLES REQUESTED STAFF MONITOR SPEEDING ON ELM STREET, NORTH OF 24TH STREET. JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: SPEEDING ON ELM ST/24TH ST Category: POLICE SERVICES DEPT -TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: POLICE SERVICES START DATE /__/ COMPLETION DATE / /__