Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM February 12,.1993 'TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~. SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION ' · 1. State Farm submitted plans to 'the Building' Division %or Plan Check on Tuesday (2f9). This is a four-story building with basement and penthouse. The gross floor area is 584,000 square feet (13.4 acres) which, will make it the largest office building in the City, surpassing the former Tenneco Office building which contains 228,000 square feet. Building permit valuation is estimated at $49.6 million. Our team of Plan Check Engineers estimates we will be able to review the plans within 20 working days. Postage indicated all the plans and specifications weighed 250 pounds. 2. Other building projects of note include: a. Albertsons has received Site Plan approval to move its Mt. Vernon/ Columbus store across thestreet by demolishing the old Von's Store and building a new '49,400 square foot store. Project valuation is $2 million. b. Von's has Site Plan approval to do $1.3 million of tenant improvements to adapt the existing building next to Walmart to a new store at East c. Homebase has submitted building plans for a new store at Colony Street (off Panama Lane). It is a 100,920 square foot building with a 25,000 square foot garden center. Project valuation is $4.6 million. d. The Cove Apartments at Fruitvale and Hageman have been permitted for 141 units. Project valuation is $8.1 million. 3. Jack Hardisty'has received verbal agreement from the State Department of Fish and Game that they will sign the Implementation Agreement of the Habitat Conservation Plan. He has sent them'and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service another "final" version. We will have to readopt the HCP because of all the changes required by the State, recalculate the fee to support a much more complex system required by the State, determine if it is still reasonable to proceed and approve the agreement if we still want to do this. Then, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will do its official review and grant us a lOa Permit if the plan is acceptable. We should be cautiously optimistic. The State has not been too good at living up to its word on this agreement. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1993 Page -2- 4. The State Department of Housing and Community Development has approved our Housing Element (letter attached). Another millstone passed, what a relief! This has been another tedious, energy-tapping, large effort required by the State. 5. A memo from Ed Schulz is attached in response to a Council Referral about street lights along Old River Road. 6. We have received a report on the URM workshop and field review with the DBPOA from Nels Roselund. It is attached. I feel staff's meeting with downtown representatives has been very beneficial in developing a better working relationship between us. 7. Letters haVe been sent to the DBPOA and Westchester Merchants Association invi~ting them to select representatives to serve on the advisory group approved by the City Council at your last meeting. The Planning Commission will be back in hearings on the Bike Path alignment east of Manor Street on March 18. As reported in the newspaper, a consensus was reached in Planning Commission Committee meetings with 25 representatives of various groups concerned about this matter. The Committee will be recommending that the Bike Path run along the south side of the canal, about halfway, and then run along the north side to the City limits] The Commission is also aware that Public Works staff will be advising them not to use the south side of the canal due to erosion from the bluff and restricted width. 9. The Lancer Drive homeowners, who have requested the City accept their street as a public street, have agreed to build their sidewalks to City standards, contribute $10,300 toward reclamite treatment of it, acknowledge they will receive substandard street sweeping due to the rolled curbs and dedicate the right-of-way. When we have the documents prepared, they will be presented to the City Council for approval. 10. The Hosking Trunk Sewer line is, generally, going well. You asked that we watch Kenko for compliance to standards and regulations. There was an incident reported that a concrete company truck (NOT KENKO) pulled down a power pole and snapped a line. 11. The GET Transfer Station near Valley Plaza is moving forward. A contract has been let to remove asbestos tile from the existing building and demolish it by March 1, 1993. GET is in final architectural design stages and plans should be done by March 1. 12. U.S. Cold Storage has closed escrow on property for its project in the Stockdale Industrial Park. JH.alb Attachments cc: Department Heads, City Clerk -STATE-OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS; TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING'AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ 'DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430 P.O BOX 952053 SACRAMENTO, CA 94252.2053 (916) 323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625 February 3, 1993 Mr./ Dale Hawley City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, ~CA 93301 Dear Mr. Hawley: Re: Review of the City of Bakersfield's Adopted Housing Element update Thank you for submitting Bakersfield's housing element update, adopted September 30, 1992 and received for our review October 6, 1992. As you know, we are required to review adopted housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585(h)) . Our review, has been. faciIitated by a telephone conversation with Stanley Grady, Assistant Planning Director, on February 1, 1993. This letter summarizes the conclusions of that discussion. We are pleased to inform you that Bakersfield's adopted housing element update complies with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The adopted update adequately addresses all of this Department's February 28, 1992 review comments, including the required analysis of units at risk of conversion to market rate pursuant to Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989 (Government Code Section 65583(a) (8) and (c) (6)). The housing element update now includes a more detailed land inventory, a program to ensure land use and zoning consistency, and a program to evaluate the impact of developed density on affordability. We .commend the City for these responses. While the element demonstrates sufficient vacant land, we do caution the City to conserve this non-renewable resource through maximum utilization which, at the same time, could protect the City from some of the problems or disadvantages of urban sprawl. Please'.note that we find the element's allocation of quantified objectlve by income level (pursuant to Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991) acceptable, for the purposes of the current 5 FEB 93 Mr. Dale Hawley Page 2 element'. Nonetheless, 'the element should clearly establish the maximum number of housing units 'by income category (emphasis added) that can be constructed and rehabilitated over the planning period. This requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated below: Quantified Objective New Construction Rehab Conservation Very Low-Income LOw-Income Moderate_income ~ Above Moderate- Income The housing e~ement should be amended to include these objectives when the General Plan is next amended. We look forward to following the City's progress in implementing the housing element when progress.reports are filed with the Department pursuant to Government Code' Sections 65400 and 65585.5. We thank Mr. Grady for his cooperation and assistance' during our reviews. If you have any questions or would like assistance in the implementation of your housing element, please contact Camilla Cleary of our staff at (916) 323-3185. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this .letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director~ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DI , DATE: FEBRUARY S, 1993' SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - RECORD #11315 STREET LIGHTS ON OLD RIVER ROAD - MING AVE. TO WHITE LANE At a recent Council meeting a request was made by a councilmember regarding Street lighting at the subject location. Installation of street lights in new areas is the responsibility of the developer. This section of Old River Road was constructed in the early 1980's with the development of The Oaks. At that time City policy for street lights on major streets with walls was to require lights only at intersections. In 1989 two additional street lights were installed on the east side of Old River between Ming Avenue and White Oak Drive as Part of the improvements for Tract 5024. By this time City policy for street light spacing on major streets had changed to the current policy of one light every 250-300 feet on alternate sides of the street. Installation of additional lights on the east side of Old River would be very costly since all utilities are underground. Any new lights in this area would require new foundations, poles, luminaires and hundreds of feet of underground conduit to power the lights. Additional lights Will be installed on this street to current City spacing standards by Castle and Cooke with the next development adjacent to Old River Road, although no time schedule has been set for development on this side of the street. In addition, as warrants are met, traffic signals with additional lighting will be placed at the intersections of Old River Road with White Oak Drive and Ridge Oak Drive. 5 FEB 93 ~ 22 .c-,"--...'-::.-.?_c.Streeg lights along O}d River Road, between White L~ne ~nd ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL: B~UNNI REVUES. TED THE ISSUE O~ NO STREET LIGHTS ALONG OLD ~I~Eg gOAD~ BETWEEN ~HITE LANE AND ~IN~ AVENUE BACKUP ~AT'E~IAL'ATTACHED: NO DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 01/08/93 the ROSELUND ENGINEERING COMPANY 8453 E. YARROW ST., $. SAN GABRIEl., CA 91770 · TEL: (818) 573-2441 · FAX: (818) 575-2572 January 29, 1993 Bakersfield Downtown ·Business Association c/o Catherine Palla 6615 Kane Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 City of Bakersfield Alan Tandy, City Manager 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Agreement for Workshop on Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Dear Mrs. Palla and Mr. Tandy: , At Mrs. Palla's request on behalf of,the Downtown Business Association and the City of Bakersfield, I met' representatives o? both organizations in Bakersfield on January 28, 1993. The purpose of my visit was:to provide the folloWing structural engineering services: observe representative unreinforced masonry buildings and evaluate them in relation to the proposed Bakersfield! City Ordinance for seismic hazard reduction, and, during a workshop, .to discuss some: principles of strengthening unreinforced masonry buildings with the goal of assisting ihe Bakersfield community in developing an appropriate ordinance for reducing the hazards posed by such buildings in Bakersfield. The report of my visit is enclosed. The structural engineering services described as provided in my report, are the total of the services we have verbally agreed I would provide.- The fee for my services is $1,000. Payment for my fees is requested monthly based on the percent of work completed; all work on this project has been completed. Payment is expected within 30 calendar days of the date of the invoice. I understand that the cost of the fee is to be shared equally by the Bakersfield Downtown Business Association and, the City of Bakersfield. I will send an invoice for $500 to the Downtown Business Association, to the attention of Catherine Palla, and ' send an invoice for $500 to the 'City of Bakersfield to the attention of Alan Tandy. If anything in this letter neec~ to be revised, please give me a call right away. N'elp Rose~r~d Sttctural Engineer ]Engineering for Rehabilitation and Structural Preservation Ithe ROSELUND. -ENGINEERING COMPANY 8453 E. YARROW ST., S. SAN GABRIEL, CA 91770 · TEL: (818) 573-2441 · FAX: (818) 573-2572 January 29, 1993 Bakersfield Downtown Business Association c/o Catherine Palla 6615 Kane Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 ' Subject: Workshop on Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings Dear Mrs. Palla: At your request on behalf of the Downtown. Business Association and the City of Bakersfield, I met representatives of both organizations in Bakersfield on January 28, 1993. During my visit.I observed a number of representative unreinforced masonry buildings, 'evaluated them in relation to' the proposed Bakersfield City Ordinance for seismic hazard reduction, and attended a workshop to discuss some principles of strengthening unreinforced masonry buildings, with the goal of 'assisting the Bakersfield community in deve oping an appropriate .ordinance .for reducing the hazards posed by such buildings in Bakersfield. I visited 5 unreinforced buildings by myself on the afternoon of January 27, and visited 4 buildings with representatives of both organizati'ons on the morning of January 28. In the afternoon of January 28, I made a presentation and participated in a workshop with representatives of both organizations. Bakersfield seems to be unique in the State of California in that major repair and retrofit work was done on most of the unreinforced masonry buildings following the earthquakes of 1952. In many casesl it is clear that the work was intended to improve the future seismic response of the buildings as Well make necessary repairs. I' observed buildings in which a considerable amount of Work of excellent quality appeared to have. been done. However, since the details of the work differ from the more recently developed conventional procedures for seismic hazard reduction (the procedures that have become the basis for seismic hazard reduction ordinances in many other jurisdictions in California), it has not been Clear whether the 1952 work should be accepted as being equivalent to the modern conventional procedures. During my visit to the buildings, I 'attempted to understand the nature of the repair and strengthening work done at each building, in.order 'to be able to evaluate whether the work may appropriately be considered'effective for the purpose of complying with a modern seismic hazard reduction ordinance. Ideally, of course, there would be great benefit for all concerned if the work done following the 1952 earthquakes could be accepted without further evaluation as meeting the intention of the the proposed Bakersfield ordinance. Whether this ideal can be met depends both on the content of the .proposed ordinance, and on the nature of the work that was done; these two matters were the major topics of our discussions during my visit. The moSt widely accepted standard for .seismic hazard reduction for unreinforced masonry buildings, the Model Ordinance recommended by the California State Seismic Safety Commission, is the 1991 edition of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter One (the UCBC). Our discussion of the content of the proposed Bakersfield. ordinance focused on defining life safety issues for seismic hazard reduction in the StrUctural Engineering for Rehabilitation and Preservation Bakersfield - Workshop on UnreinfOrced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings UCBC, and distinguishing between those issues and the issues related to property damage control in the. UCBC. Since any building damage has the potential for being life threatening, our discussion defined life safety issues in terms of risk. The highest risk items of seismic hazard are related to unstable parapets, inadequately anchored walls, instability of walls that are tall in relation to their height, and separation of overhead masonry veneer. Other items addressed by the UCBC (in-plane shear strength of unreinforced masonry walls, diaphragm rigidity, diaphragm shear connections, and veneer that is not overhead)pose lower life safety risks due to earthquake shaking. Cracks and deteriorated mortar in unreinforced masonry walls were separated from the other issues as being building maintenance items; generalizations cannot be made concerning their .. impact on life safety, but they lead to unpredictable earthquake response. There should be an ongoing program for correction of these items, since the Building Code requires that a building be kept in a safe condition in conformance with the code under which it Was built (UBC Section 104 (d)). It seemed clear that those in attendance at the workshop had a consensus that favored adoption of an ordinance that addressed the items that pose high life safety risks. The following is a discussion of my observations at the buildings that are related to that consensus. The work that I observed in 'the buildings I visited seemed to have concentrated on repair of fallen parapets, strengthening of diaphragms and improving in-plane strength of walls; Much of that work related to strengthening of diaphragms and improving in-plane strength of walls was obviously extensive but now very difficult to evaluate for effectiveness since internal details cannot be observed. If it were decided to exclude evaluation of diaphragms and in-plane wall response from the proposed ordinance on the basis of the lower life .safety risk posed by those items, a-major element of the cost for evaluating a repaired unreinforced masonry building could be avoided. I observed one building in which in-plane strengthening of the unreinforced masonry wall by gunite had been done. One of those walls in a position to brace most of the building seemed, even with its strengthening, unlikely to have the capacity to brace the building without damage because of its configuration and its probable poor connection to the building framing. If it is decided to exclude evaluation of in-plane wall evaluation in the provisions of the proposed ordinance, this wall will not be required to be evaluated or strengthened. I believe the wall may be subject to serious damage; though such damage has a relatively Iow probability of being life threatening, it may have a major impact on the owner because of the high cost of repair. This raises an issue that should be included in the community's deliberations on provisions to be included in the proposed · ordinance: if it is decided to exclude provisions that are in the Model Ordinance (a rational decision considering a balance of costs and life safety), the community needs to recognize and accept that there is potential that higher property damage costs may have to be borne by building owners than may be the case if all provisions of the Model Ordinance were adopted. On the other hand, the present cost savings realized by reducing the demand placed on the building owner for retrofit work may be appropriately Considered ample justification for the decision. In the buildings I visited, flaws in the interconnection of walls to the building' framing were observed in every building in which I was able to observe components of the wall anchor system. The flaws included complete lack of effective wall anchors, wall anchors embedded in the walls but not connected to the framing, and wall anchors of insufficient quantity or insufficient strength to restrain walls in strong .earthquake shaking. These flaws have the potential for resulting in walls or parts' of walls becoming disconnected from buildings and falling, during strong shaking, clearly a life safety hazard. Based on Bakersfield -Workshop on'Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings my observations,. I believe an important life-threatening hazard related to wall anchors exists among the unreinforced masonry buildings of Bakersfield, and that it would be prudent to include wall restraint evaluation and retrofit similar to those of the UCBC in the provisions of the proposed Bakersfield ordinance. I 'observed a nUmber of buildings with masonry veneer among those I visited. Evaluation of anchors for veneers will require that they be located by metal detector, and that a few be exposed for evaluation. I~ observed deteriorated mortar in a number of buildings. This condition is commonly found near the base of walls adjacent to driveways and alleys where water is splashed onto the wall by passing vehicles, and adjacent to lawns and watered garden areas. The condition is also found near the tops of parapets where weather exposure is greatest.- The seriousness 'of this condition varies; extreme cases included bricks at the top' of a parapet that were debonded and could easily be dislodged and fall onto an adjacent public way (a life-threatening condition), and bricks at the base of the wall that were loose because of loss of sound mortar nearly a full brick depth into the wall. I recommend that repair of this kind of condition be included in the proposed ordinance. I understand that there are unreinforced masonry buildings in Bakersfield that have been retrofitted by providing support to the ground for all framing that was originally supported on masonry walls so that the the unreinforced m'asonry walls could be considered non-bearing. I understand that such buildings have been considered as not being under the jurisdiction of the proposed ordinance. This procedure sidesteps the intent of a seismic hazard'reduction ordinance and leaves uncorrected important life safety hazards typically posed by an unreinforced, masonry building. I recommend recOnsideration of acceptance of this kind of retrofit procedure unless the evaluation and strengthening of hazardous elements otherwise required for unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings is also done. I was pleased to offer my services to Staff members of the City of Bakersfield and to the Downtown Business Association; thank you for the opportunity. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. I EnZ:jineer copy to: Alan Tandy, City of Bakersfield 3