The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/09/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 9, 1993 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN T AND~c~I TY~MAN~ E~R SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. There is a memo enclosed on the redevelopment capture as it finally came out from the State. They took less money than we had anticipated in our budget, so we will have some additional money to reallocate for downtown projects. 2. A summary of the trailer bills that Trudy Slater extracted from League material is enclosed for your information. We will be in the process of computing the meaning, to us, in specifics, of most of these items. There is no horrendously bad news; in fact, much if it represents incrementally positive news. 3. There is an interesting article enclosed from GOverning magazine. It shows Bakersfield, even at the 1990 population, as being the 97th largest city in the country. Our current population would place us 80th. One element that you may find to be of interest is that, of the 100 cities, we have the 96th lowest ratio of employees to population; meaning that we are lean and mean, even before the downsizing that has occurred. 4. We met with Ken Peterson on the Fire Fund issue, this week. He seems receptive to continuing dialogue. 5. There is a status report on revenue from transportation impact fees enclosed. 6. There is a letter enclosed from the Federal Communications Commission indicating that the increase in the cable franchise fee, which we already initiated, is acceptable under their rules. 7. There is a thank you note enclosed on behalf of a fundraising entity for West High School. We accommodated them with respect to a problem on a fireworks stand that was raising funds for athletics. 8. There is a response to a Councilmember's request for information regarding the North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District's request to allow the collection of park development fees within the City's portion of the District. As indicated in the background material, the City has some concerns about equity between City residents and residents in the unincorporated portion of the District in requiring development fees. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL July 9, 1993 Page -2- 9. There is a memo enclosed from Public Works regarding the status of the Kern River Freeway Route Adoption Study. Apparently, due to a recent lawsuit involving CalTrans, the project may be on hold for a lengthy period of time. This is the result of a conflict between CalTrans employees and contract engineering firms. There are efforts being made in both the Senate and Assembly to address the outcome of the lawsuit without delaying current CalTrans projects, such as the Kern River Freeway. Staff will research and be making recommendations for support of proposed legislation which could "unclog" this mess. We are, likely, not the only city affected by this decision and we will monitor other jurisdictions' actions in this matter. 10. As I will be gone next week, John Stinson will be authoring this memo. John and Henry will be available to handle any concerns that you may have during the week. They will have the points on my itinerary where I currently know I can be located, in the event of an emergency. The biggest news we expect next week, of course, is the construction cost estimate on the hotel. I plan to be in communication with the office about that when it is received. AT. al b Enclosures cc: Department Heads City C1 erk FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D,C. 20554 .J~ Z 9 ~ IN REPLY REFER TO: 44'10 -CJ Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager " City of BakersZield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: Thi~ is in response to your letter in which you ask whether the City of Bakersfield may raise its franchise fee during the rate freeze imposed by this Commission. As you will note from the enclosed News Release; the Commission's rate freeze 'is'applicable to rates charged by cable television system operators. The question of whether to raise the. franchise fee at this time is within the discretion of the franchising authority consistent with its franchise agreement and local law. Sincerely, Ronald Parver Chief, Cable Television Branch Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau Enclosure Nm~meeMmlommtkm202/632~50~ FEDEAAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMI~ION 1919 M STREET, N.W. 33541 WASHINGTON, D.C. 205~ . J~e 11, 1993 FCC Defmrs I~l~ntation of ~le Semite ~te ~lation · Until ~o~r 1, 1993 ~d ~~ ~te Freeze Until Nov~r 15, 1993 ~~t 92-266 The FCC has deferred the effective date of its regulations implementing rate regulation of cable service adopted pursuant to the Cable Television and Cons~er Protection Act of 1992 ("Cable Act of 1992") from June 21, 1993 until October 1, 1993. The Co~ission's rate regulations were adopted in RePort and Order ~nd Further No~ic~ of Proposed Rulemakin~, ~ Docket 92-266, FCC 93- 177, released May 3, .1993. The FCC took this act.ion on reconsideration on its own motion of the Report and Order. The FCC deferred' the effective date of all regulations adopted in the RePort and Order. Effective dates for rules not involving rate regulation, adopted in other proceedings, remain unchanged. The FCC based its decision On resource constraints. The Co~ission stated that even without the additional a~inistrative responsibilities imposed by the C~le Act of 1992 it. is facing a substantial budgetary shortfall for Fiscal Year 1~993 potentially requiring furloughs of all FCC.employees. The Co~ission found that the Congress.has taken initial steps to provide a supplemental appropriation to the FCC for Fiscal Year 1993. However, the Co~ission will not be able to access additional funds for an additional period of time after the supplemental appropriation is adopted. Therefore, the Co~ission found that it would be unable to implement cable rate re~lation on June 21, 1993. In addition, the Co~ission observed that a deferral of rate regulations would provide franchising authorities and c~le operators additional opportunity to ensure a smooth transition to ~=t~ regulation Accordingly, the FCC determined that it. would est~lish an effective date of October 1, 1993 for cable service rate regulation. The FCC stated that it would continue to work with the Congress to assure the avail~ility of funding necessary for full implementation of the Cable Act of 1992. In order to prevent rate'increases pending'implementation of the Co~ission's rate regulations that could potentially undermine congressional intent that cable service rates remain reasonable, the Co~ission extended its current freeze of cable service rates from August 3, 1993 until Nove~er 15, 1993. The rate freeze was established in order, 8 FCC Rcd 2921 (1993), clarifi~, 8 FCC Rcd 2917 (1993). The rate freeze applies to rates for cable services, including the provision of equipment, other than premium channel or pay-per-view services, offered by systems subject to rate regulation under the Cable Act of 1992. Action by the Commission June 11, 1993, by Order (FCC 93- 304). Chairman Quello and Commissioners Barrett and Duggan. -FCC- For further information contact: Jennifer A. Manner (202) 632-7500. FEDERAL COMMUNiCaTIONS COMmiSSION WASH I NGTON OFF~-.E OF T,HE CHAIRMAN Statement of Chairman James H. Quello The FCC today is issuing a Public Notice announcing the deferral of the effective date of cable rate regulation until ~October 1, 1993. The cable rate freeZe will also be extended. This extended date is necessary to provide time. for the FCC to complete the detailed administrative processes and to plan for additional resources when supplementary funding is finalized. It will also allow time for the FCC to act. on numerous requests for. reconsideration and to establish cost of service standards. The COmmission will Soon issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rule'Making to establish cost of service standards. The deferred date will also provide cable operators, particularly small systems, time to adjust to the new regulatory requirements. Casfl & Cooke HOMES, INC. June 29, 1993. Alan Tandy Bakersfield-City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Alan: Just a note to thank you for your assistance regarding the West High School 4th of July fireworks stand. Through your guidance and assistance, the booth was approved. As this project generates some $4,000 to $6,000 of funds available to the school for.the athletic programs, the ~approval of the stand is a great benefit! Again, thank you for your assistance, and ifI can.return the favor please do not hesitate to call upon me. ~ ./ ! - . ~Y' m3/~v/b'' ¥icexFre~ident ~_~9~imcrcial/Industrial , LTR3-48.JHC:slb I0000 Ming Avenue (93311/· P.O. Box 11165 * Bakersfield, CA 93389 · (805) 664-6000 · FAX (805) 664-6199 MEMORANDUM July 7, 1993 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager /,,,,,~,~, FROM: Jack Hardisty, Planning Dir SUBJECT: North Bakersfield Recreation~ Park District Correspondence Regarding Park Development Fee In response to Councilmember Brunni's request, I have attached the pertinent correspondence between North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District and the City regarding the District's request for the City to approve collection of the park development fee within the City areas of the District. I have also included a copy of a memo from Leland Anderson, Community Services Manager, which briefly summarizes this issue. JE CC: Leland Andersen, Community Services Manager S:\MALPK 8 JJL 9'~ ~ Q MEMORANDUM ' November 9, 1992 TO: ALg2,1TA_NDY - CITY I~2,1AGER FROM:' LEE ANDERSEN - COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: NORTH OF THE RIVER P3~,K DEVELOPMENT FEES - UPDATE (Council Referral ~10996) At the Council meeting of October 21, 1992, Councilmember Brunni referred the issue of North Bakersfield .Park and Recreation District's (NBRPD) request to implement a park development fee within the NOR area to Community Services Department. On November- 5, 1992, the Planning Commission Parks Committee met with NBRPD to discuss this matter. Following is an update of that meeting and the status of their request. The NBRPD's request is essentially two issues: 1) Change the Method. for Calculating Fees In Lieu of Park Land, and 2) Request for Pa~k Development Fees. Issue 1: Change the Method for Calculating Fees In Lieu. of Park Land. North Bakersfie~dRecreation and Parks District (NB) has requested the: City to amend the park land ordinance (Quimby Act) to allow NB to use a fair market land value method rather than-the current, flat rate method in calculating the amouht of fees paid in lieu of dedicati6n of park land. City Response: City staff indicated that we would be supportive of the change to a fair market value method. However, staff and the Planning Commission Parks Subcommittee has strongly recommended NB pursue the 'same ordinance revision with the County, to ensure equitable application of the .requirement. The City (outside the NB boundaries)uses a fair market land value method. NB prepared a proposed revision of the ordinance, which · was reviewed by City staff in August, 1992. City staff responded With comments suggesting changes to meet certain requirements of State law. NB has not yet submitted another revision address to the City's comments. 'DEC CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Issue 2: Request for Park Development Fees. NB is requesting the City, pursuant to CEQA, find that new residential development has a significant adverse impact on NB's ability to provide for the development of parks and that the City adopt a park development fee to be collected on each new residential unit within NB's boundaries in'order to mitigate the impact. The City currently collects a park development fee on each new residential unit located outside NB's .... boundaries. City's Response: Over the past 'several months, staff has been in discussions with NB to assist them in presenting their case. In accordance with CEQA, it is NB's duty to submit e~idence supporting the finding that there is a significant adverse impact. To date NB has not presented adequate evidence for'the City to make such a finding. Weare currently waiting for their response. The primary issues are: a) NBneeds to definethe "threshold. of significance" (i~.e.,, define.."significant adverse impact" on park development as a result of new residential development). · .... b) What iS~the capacity of NB to meet the "threshold"? What is .the shortfall in meeting the "threshold", if-any? Need for a fiscal analysis clarifying NB's abilities to fund park development.. c) Equity and fairness between City and County areas within NB's district. Any change in requirements must be equally applied to all areas within NB's boundaries. d) Address a possible public perception of "double taxation" ~as a result of a park development fee in addition to NB's property tax revenues. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 326-3700, or Jenny Eng at 326-3043. /lg cc: Jack Hardist¥, Planning Director Jenny Eng, Park Planner North akersiield l ecreation & P rk Distric$ 405 Galox:. A ,enue, Bal ersfizid Cai [grnia 93308 (805) 392-2000 MaY 24, 1993 MAT 6 1993. · ' CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD Jennie Eng, Park Planner ~ANNING DEPARTMENT City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1501 Truxtun.Avenue ~ Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: "Threshold of Significance" Dear Jennie: Thanks for your recent correspondence' requesting that this District provide documentation regarding the "threshold of significance" for park development within District boundaries. The District on two separate occassions has prepared documentation showing what is interpreted to be.the "threshold of significance". Apparently the District does .not have an understanding of what needs to be provided to show this threshold. This District has previously presented three year budget statistics with two years actual and an estimated current budget year with discussion of future projections. Details of that presentation included sources of revenue and expenditures related to the 'District budget. It is felt the District has made a good faith effort to provide the information the city requested. Obviously, the infOrmation presented to the city haS not satisfied the city definition of "threshold of significance". Thus, city assistance is needed to work through this study. The city has offered this District assistance in meeting requirements to show the "threshold of significance". This letter is to formally request specific information that must be presented to the city in order to satisfy city requirements that will truly define the Park District "threshold of significance". As explained by phone, the District is in the process of 'updating it's park and recreation master plan. This revision may include a Change in park acreage standards to 2.5 acres per 1000 population.' The District would .like to establish what the "threshold of significance" is as part of the master plan update. Please send a written outline of those items which must be addressed to satisfy city requirements so that they can be addressed in the park master plan update process. This District will gladly show the "threshold of significance" once a good understanding is obtained regarding what must be provided to properly meet city requirements. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. The District looks forward to receipt of an outline so that we may proceed to resolve this issue. Thanks so much for your help. Sincerely, Colon G. Bywater Planning and Construction Director CGB:bc BAKERSFIELD ---- - PLANNING DEPARTMENT JACK HARDIS'I"Y. Director' ~$01 TRUXTUN AVE. :~AKERSFIELD. CA 93301 May 6, 1992 Colon Bywater. Director Planning and Consu'uction 405 Galaxy. Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Subject: Park Land and Development Fees Dear Colon: This letter is in response to your request regarding park land and park development requirements from new City residential development occurring within the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. Your request includes two issues: 1) park land in-lieu fees: and, 2) park development fees. I will address each item separately. Park Land and/or In-lieu Fee Requirement: The District is requesting a change in the wav the in-lieu fee for the park land requirement and/or in,lieu fee are calculated to more accurately reflect current land values. You.requested that the City authorize the District to use a method to more closely reflect the fair market value of land to calculate the amount of the in-lieu fee. In determining the fair market value you suggested three methods: 1) a professional appraisal: 2) averaging land costs of recent sales or appraisals in the vicinity; or 3) comparable sales data. The estimated flat fee is $390 per single family unit and $320 per multi-family unit, based on an average price of $45,000 per acre. Currently, the District collects an in-lieu fee of $1,250 per gross acre of land having the density of 5 units per acre or less, plus $250 per unit or fraction thereof for land having a density, of more than 5 units per acre. These amounts were authorized for the District by the Board of Supervisors under the "Quimby Act" provisions (Government Code Section 66477). Colon Bvwater May 6. 1992 Page 2. In comparison, the City of Bakersfield caiculates the amount of in-lieu fee based on the fair market value of the subdivision to be developed. An appraisal submitted bv the developer determines the fair market value of the subdivision. The Ci~ Supports equitable treatment among City. and County residents within the District related to park and recreation facilities. It would not be in the City residents' interest to promote a change in the park land requirement which would result in implementation of two different criteria, in which one requires a higher in-lieu fee applicable to City areas, and a lower in,lieu fee for unincorporated areas of the District. The areas assessed higher fees would likely subsidize the lower fee paying areas within the District. Where the higher fee was not assessed, general funds and grants would be useci to compensate for the lower fee. This circumstance would be unfair and uniustified. I agree that the in-lieu fee should more accurately reflect the current costs of land. The "Quimby Act" does not preclude calculation of the fee based on the fair market value of land. Possible support by City staff could be given, ff the same requirements were applied District-wide. Park Development Fee: The District is requesting the City authorize collection of a park development fee by the District. Under this proposal a fee would be collected from each new residential unit at the time of issuance of a building permit. Based on the information contained in your letter, the proposed fee would be $630 per single family unit and $515 per multi-fnmily unit, This fee would cover the cost of a park with the "basic amenities~' (excludes swimming pools, community centers, lighted sports fields or specialized courts). · The proposal for a park development fee is similar to Section 15.82 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code which authorizes the City to collect a park development fee from each new residential dwelling unit within the City. This Section now excludes development within the District. The current fee is $610 per single family unit and $485 per multi- family unit. Again. the City is concerned with the equitability of such a fee between CitY. areas and unincorporated areas of the District. It would not be acceptable to the City if different requirements are adopted for City and unincorporated areas which are served bv the same entitv..As stated above, different criteria mav result in one area subsidiT-ing the other. Colon BVWater Mav 6. 1992 Page 3 The government code requires that there must be a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the .type of development on which the fee is imposed. Since the District's parks may serve both City. and unincorp6rated residents, it could be difficult to substantiate collecting a fee from City residents to develop the park and no such fee required of unincorporated area residents. In addition, the District must clearly demonstrate that the fees collected are used to directly benefit the residents which pay the fee. There are significant differences in the financing and revenue structures between the District and City. The District receives approximately $0.06 per every property, tax dollar within its boundaries to be used bv the District for parks and recreation purposes. Unlike the District. the City park and recreation departments must compete with other deparunents for general fund money for their budgets. The result is that only a small fracuon of the City's budget is allocated to park and recreation. Proportionately speaking, the District is able to allOCate many more dollars per person for park and recreation than the City is able. Those City residents within the District would believe that.they are already paying for park and recreation services to the District through their property taxes. There could be a public perception that a park development fee within the District is "double taxation". I understand that public service agencies like the District and City are experiencing a decrease in revenues. One potential option would be to calculate a park development fee which would supplement the District's cost of developing parks. Most likely the fee would be less than that collected bv the City but should not exceed what is collected by the Ci,ty outside the DiStrict boundaries. This opUon could be more acceptable to the public because it provides a certain level of commitment from the District to use existing property, tax revenues to fund park development. Summary: In summary, the City's concerns are as follows: 1. Equity, and fairness between City, and unincorporated areas. Any change in park land and/or development fees-should be equally applied to all areas within the District boundaries. Use of fees should directly benefit the payees. 2. Both the Board and Supervisors and City must approve of the same fee changes which would become effective concurrently. 3. We agree that the calculation of the park land in-lieu fee should more accurately reflect the fair market value of land. Colon Bvwater Mav 6. 1992 Page 4 Several issues regarding the park development fee are unclear. a. What would be the disposition of existing revenues now allocated to development once a park development fee became effective? b. Could a fee be calCUlated to supplement the existing revenues rather than substituting them? e. If the fee were to be approved, how would the District administer and monitor the disposition of the fees so that they are used to benefit those who paid the fee? What parks would be developed? d. Items 1 and 2 above. The City is not in opposition to your requests, but we do have concerns as outlined above. It would be difficult for the City to approve a change in the fees which was not also approved by the County, unless there were _a-~urances that all residents are paying their proportionate share. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this fee issue. Please contact me or Jennie Eng to arrange a date. The phone number is 326-3733. Very truly, BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT JACg HARDISTY. Direea~ ~501 TRUXTUN AVE. 9AKERSFIEI..D. CA 933O1 ,805) 326-3733 May 7, 1992 Colon Bywater, Director Planning and Construction 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield. CA 93308 Subject: Tentative Tract 5594 (Vesung) Dear Colon: Tiffs letter is in respOnse to your request for an EIR to evaluate the impacts to park and recreation facilities resulting from this subdivision. The bash for your request is that as a vesting tract map the amount of the park fees would be "locked in" at the rate in effect at the time of tentative map approval. Therefore, you believe.that the subdiv/sion would not be subject to any future rate increase. Your letter indicated a need to address two impacts: 1) the acquisition of park land, and; 2) fees to develop the park. It appears that an EIR would not be appropriate at this time. The significant impacts to park and recreation as a result of new development could be adequately addressed through adoption of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures.. Park Land: The Subdivision Map Act Section 66477 (Quimby Act) provides the method for the acquisition of park land and/or in-lieu fee. The District has in place this instrument to collect such a fee from new development under SeCtion 66477. (The in-lieu fee' of $1250 per gross acre.) Furthermore, tentative Tract 5594 (Vesting) is located within the "Polo Grounds" development. The "Polo Grounds" EIR included mifigat/on measures addressing the District's park land needs. Therefore, unless the maximum number of un/ts is changed for the "Polo Grounds" or until both legislative bodies (Board of Superv/sors and the City Council) approve rev/sed criteria in accordance with Section 66477 which reflect a change in the park land demand, no additional requirements may be applied. Colon Bvwater May 7. 1992 Page 2 Park Development: At this time, the District does not have a separate developer fee specifically for park development. Your letter requested that Tentative Tract 5594 (Vesting) be required to pay for park development. However, you did not make the same comments on adjacent non-vesting tentative maps. The determination of a significant environmental impact to park development as a result of new subdivisions should apply to all subdivision maps. There should be no differentiation between vesting and non-vesting maps, or within either City or County jurisdictions. Under CEQA. evidence is to be provided bv the responsible agencies (i.e.. the District) in order to determine the significance of an impact. Based on the evidence provided, .a "nexus:' could be made to require a feasible mitigation measure which would avoid and/or lessen the sigmficant impact to acceptable levels. The District may be able to provide the evidence to meet the "nexus" test in requiring a park development fee from new subdivisions as a mitigation measure of the Negative Declaration. It is important that the District makes findings that clearly and specifically identifies how new subdivisions directly relate to the District's capacity to provide for the development of parks. The District must identify the threshold of significance (i.e., define "significant adverse impacf' on park development as a result of new development); provide analysis of existing resources (dollars, personnel, materials, etc.), and; suggest feasible mitigation measure. For example, the District should provide a fiscal analysis indicating: 1) the "threshold"; 2) the state of the District's current and projected budgets for financing park development; 3) the amount of the shortfall; 3) the costs for park development; 5) identification of which parks to be developed; 6) the method of calculating the proportionate share of the park development attributed to new subdivisions: 7) the amount of #6 not covered by District revenues: and 8) the amount of the fee (per lot, type of dwelling unit or person). These findings and the fiscal analysis must apply to all new subdivisions within the District, in both City and County jurisdictions. Since new developments are also occurring within the unincorporated areas of the District, they too would have an impact on the need for park development. It is presumed by the City that the District would provide the same comments and analysis to the County. for subdivisions within the unincorporated areas of the District. Colon B~vwater May 7. 1992 Page 3 Tentat/ve Tract 5594 (Vesting) is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of May 21. 1992. In addition, several other tentative tract maps for this general area are scheduled on this meeting and upcoming meetings. Your options at this time are: 1) to submit the information at least one week prior to the hearing date, so that it may be evaluated and the mitigation measure, ff any, can be discussed with the applicant, or 2) you may request the Planning Commission continue this item to its next meeting. Keep in mind the Commission may. or may not decide to continue the item because of legal time limits. If you would like to meet with City staff to discuss this further please cail me. For a more detailed discussion regarding these park related subjec~ please refer to the letter from Jack Hardisty, dated 'May 6, 1992. Ve~ truly, Park Planner JE:ld cc: .Mike Lee, City Planning \LCB.TR North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 405 Cja~? A~nzr~ Ba~/2[~6 ~n~.~ .~~~$08 ($05) .~92-20(~) Se~tet~e:~ 1"/~ 1992 2502 ~ Avenu~ SEP I 7 ~ersflel~, Cal~o~a 93301 ~E~: GPA 3-92, Se~t II; ZC 5361, t'gANNINGDEPARTMENT ~at~on ~ro %3 ~is letter is in rede =o yo~ lea=er ~==~ Au~st a4, ~992. ~3or c~ges ha~ =~en pla~ in ~ ~c~al s=a=us during ~he p~= ~ ~ys. ~ Eo11~ng ad. ess ~h~ i~s o~ c~c~ ~ y~ l~tt~. Responds relate to y~ F~scal ~-a. D~tr~ct's ~r~= capaai~ ~o f~e ~k d~ve lo~. Tra~tionally p~ de~l~= h~ ~ 'pr~ide~ ~u~ fr~ v~i~s so~ces. A~ox~tely %600,000 h~ c~ ~=om the ge~r~ f~ ~ ~u= $300,000 f=~ 5~ial ~ees ~=~ the ~o~ec= se~ce area as well as grits. ~e up the capital p~ec= ~. ~S situation h~ c~~ s~st~=~ally ~n rec~= yuars. ~e l~g~s~ ~ac= h~ been in ~he r~uction Pro~r~y T~es ~d S~ven~o~. ~a ~= below shes the h~s~o~ of these since fi~al ~e~ 198&. No~h B~ers~iel~ R~reation an~ Park Pr~r=Y Tms ~d S~ent~ons Fiscal Ye~ Doll,s 1993-- $2~364,000 1992 $2,925,250 1991 [Sl.9 million oil l~igation ref~d) 1990 %3,240,661 1989 $2,965,593 1988 t3,193.154 1987 $3;195,599 1986 $3,205,081 It zhould be obvious why we no longer have funds for capital consr_mAcr_ion. rising a~ =~ ~re ~all~. ~uugh c~1 m~g~nt w~ con~nu~ ~o d~vo~e ~e s~ci~ Dis~i~ Au~nta~on money to ea~tal, pro~s general ~ ~ol~s. o~ra=lo~. ~ ~isca~ ye~ all au~ta~on ~o11~ are uso~ for r~l~ o~ra~io~ f~e ~zk capi~L ~~~s. ~ o~y ~st~c~ revere approv~ ~n a p=~i~ ~ ~ is c=i~ ~r to c~lete pro~s alre~F s~=~. Pro~ea=s have also b~ c~cell~ whi=h' were' a~~ in ~is~ ~ 1992. In 1990 ~ 1991 ~ th~ ~ =~ ~e wa~ reo~eri~. ~111on in ~991 ~ ~=~r r~ ~ t= bas~. N~ in ~s is pro~eo=~ ~ing the t~ was 42,Z53. T~a~ 1~ is o~= 54,150 ~or ~ut a 3% ~r year ~lation D~atrict '~tntena~e r6~~l~s have ~s~n=ially inc=eas~ ~ing ~ollows. M~nten~ Re~ibtl~tie~ D~X~ON ~99~ ~99X ~99Z ~93 Develope~ P~E 79.2 109. ~ 118.8 141.8 Undevel~ ~k ~4.8 8~. 0 92.6 ~15 A~eage Buildin~ 49,292 49,929 54,29~ 54,293 ( ~e Feet') * ~ludes para res~o~s, proart. We have also ~one mu~ ~o cu= o~ co~s d~ing =his ~e. ~11 =~e ~=a~ have posi=ions sinc~ aul¥ 1, 1992. To ad~res~ the State budget w= are loo~ing to more layoffs and cuts. An across th~ boar~ 5% salary cut is being recou~ende~ tO OUr Board of Director~ at their m~eti~g this month, during the 9asr three fiscal years salAri~ benefits have basically remained flat in spite of substantial increases in in~u=ance costs, etc. Salaries and benefits 'shown here for th~ las~ thre~ fiscal years: FY1991 $3,748,842; FTI99a $3,727,207; FY1993 $3,751,885. 1-b. 'Metho~ of calculating th® proportionate share o~ park ~lcvelula~ent attribut~ t~ the proviO~ facili~i~ ~v~ry t~m~ 35~ new re~i~n=~' m~ve into our District. A=~uallY ~a cosU is higher be~a~e 1~ longer avail~le a= $24,000 per ac~. ~e o~ren~ G-5109 as~ 1~ cos~ o~ $24,000 p~r aor~ ~~. Als~ bid in =he s~g o~ 19~1. ~e ~ollowing bre~_~ shes justification ~or $129,000 per acre Basic ~r~nts ]3,000 (~ on-c~t~c~on cos~ ~or West~le 1991) Recreation ~~s 42,000 (b~ ~ L ball ~= 5,000 ~opl~, ~~ng p~l ~r 20,00~ p~opl~ ~a I c~it~ inclu~ c~ 9~s o~r ~aliz~ recrea~o~l ~evelo~t) Total cos= w~c~ ~139,000 need= to be *Most c~rent 1~ cost wa~ $30,000 per acre. Considering th~ con,rio= o~ o~ ~inanc~s ~scr~e~ f-a abov~ o~ ~r~= shortfall incl~s all costs for basic ~prov~ents and r~creation ~ities ~ ~y portion o~ the lan~ cost ~a~ excaed~ $24,000 per ate. ~r most c~r~ lan~ cost was S3Q,000 p~r acr~. ~s~n~ l&~ a~ t~s pric~ w~ ~e sho~ $121,000 plus co~t~io~ co~ increases cve~ timu 333 n~ p~pl~ m~ to the District. 1-c. Land in the Riverlakes projec~ will o0st'$37,500 per acre and about $42,000 Der acr~ lot the Verdugo Lane, Polo Grounds park site-per =orrespon~-n¢e fr~ =he owner. Using Lan~ ac~itio~ $42,000 Basic ~prov~n~ ~75,000 [Aa~u~t~fo= oo~t in- 1991 when Wes=d=le Park Recreation ~=ies $45,000 $162,000 Total mit£ga~ion cos= An or~inanc~ ~o~,u=~a w~ul~ mote ~airly a~Iress land acquisition costs. ~hen dev~lo-~n~ w~uld cos~ SL20,0Q0 for each ~33 n~ resi~en~. ~~g ~e ~le per ho~e ac%ual cos= %o provid~ ~=vices is $1,081 per hou~ plu~ cost o~ 1~. I~ ~ 1~ co~ $%2,000 p~ a~e each ho~e sh~ld pa~ $378 ~d =c~~on. T~a~~ga=ion $1,459 .per ~m. ~tigation ~ ~ buic ~~t cost pl~ l~d ac~isi=ion w~l~ b~ ve~h~l~. as~ng 1~ a= $%2,000 p~ acr~ ~uL~ be ~1,05% ~r h~ total. AZ a~n~, a~r d~l~g ~-*= cos= o~ S67~ is ne~ for ~rk basic devel~= plus a fee ~1 to 1/111~ of the ~r acre cos~ cZ 1~ in ~ l-d. Di~si~ion o~ the District's ~or ~r= ac~iwi~ies. O~y a ~l~on o~ ~e pxogr~ costs are su~e~ t~. ~ere ~e t~ee m~n buil~ng m~te~cm ~ s~~ se~io~s. Su~ s~ices includes= b~iness se~ices, pr~o~, perso~e~, safe~ L~-TT~ TO JENNIE E51G Page 5 three Expense FUNCTION FY1991 F~1992 F~992 Par~ Main=e~e ~eczea~on su~ort S~ices 1,~19,~29 ~,455,223 1,~6~,310 Total $5,898,366 $5,799,68~ $5,555,349 During =his same perio~recrea~_%on programs genera%ed the followingz F~1991 $2,0~6,168; ~992 $2,222,868~ ~d ~993 $2,572,715 (es~=e). ~e ~f~ezence ~~n ~e recreation progr~ e~e b~ge~ ~ re~nues is sh~n he~e: R~rea~on PrO~ ~1991 ~99Z ~993 ~e~e $2,71~,58% $2,661,80~ $2,833,059 R~enue 2,046~168 2,222,868 2~7~,716 Di~en~ 669,413 4~8,932 '260,343 dona=ions in the fu=~e. P~en~a11~ ~ ~Y loo~ tu ~ ~ses~n= D~tric= to ~ re~ea=ional ~ni~es. 1-e. I~you re~e~ ~e t~~e =o ~ m~ten~, support semites d~ing all o~ =he p~u ye~. ~a ha~ ~n ca~ing erosion oi rese~es origi~llypun in place for p=k co~t~ction. ~e ~t below s~s t~ ~ac= i~ we only ~uc= p~k~nte~ce ~ suer= se~ices. T~es $~,81t,518 $2,925,~0 $2,364,000 Para Naiu~ce 1,799,822 1,682,859 ~,466,980 suppor~ S~ices 1,519,229 1,~55,223 1.,265,~10 Difference (1,504,533) (~12,832) (368,290) Ail three y~ars ~h~ a n=ga~iv~ ¢ash ~1~. Luo~l~ we have ha~ s~ interest money, au~n~ation money, ~=. su t~a% we have be~n ~u% even u~==p= for ~1991. ~a~ ye~ included a one =~e hit of Sl.9 ~11ion fo= o11 litigation. We also an=ioipa~ ~ha% %h~g~ will ~r~ ~ that th= t~ ?~ge 6 basis for my comment tha~ our ta~ base is similar =o maintenance d~%ricts. It generally covers only the maintenance opera=ion. 2. This ~evelopmen~ is plann~ tu b= ~¢rv~ by a proposed slue on the north side of Stockdal~ Highway about 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile wes= o~ Rsnfro Kmad. ~f this devekoper is williz~, an acceptable s£~e woul~ also be in the nox-thwest pOrtion o£ theJ%r pro~e~c. The si=e shoul~ preferably be abou~ ten acres and would serve t. he area between the river and the propose~ eas=/wes% freewa~ alignment. ~. ~oni=orin~ an~ administratio~ progr~ ~oz: Generally monitoring o~ the program would follow the exis%ing procedure. When a residential tract or parcel is ready to record the developer woul~ pay to the District the ~ce ~or the land pzowisioa (Q~lm~F). We will provide a letter to the ci~-f s~ating ~ha= ees are collected an~ their proposed use. The fee for construction purposes can be monitorec% in ~J~e samu way. When a btktl~ln~ permit ia being pulle~ the Du~lder will pay ua the ~ee ~nd t ke a letter %o the ~ta~ing =hat t~ ~ee is paid. Ou~ capital Im~ovemen= Progr~, the let=ers provided This information applies no~'only to this ~roj'~=~ most of i~ universally to all residentzkal development within city and county areas of our Dis~ric~. Sincerely, Colon O. B~wa~er Planning and Construction DirecUor CaB/eD CITY OF ~,~',, ! ~------,,T".,/7 BAKERSFIELD ': ' ~ ,-..,','__. ~: ~----' \, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JACK HARDISTY, Director 1501 TRUXTUN AVE. BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 (805) 326-3733 August 24, 1992 Colon Bywater, Director Planning & Construction NBRP District 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 RE: GPA 3-92, Segment II: ZC 5361; Annexation Renfro #3 Dear Mr. Bywater: Your letter regarding the above-mentioned project has been reviewed. There are several points which need to be addressed in order to provide the information needed for the decision-makers to adequately consider the impact to parks resulting from this project. Before staff can recommend support for your request, the District must provide substantial evidence to document a "nexus" which could result in a mitigation measure to avoid and/or lessen the significant impact to acceptable levels. The District must clearly and specifically indicate how the specific project directly impacts the District's capacity, to provide for park development to serve the project. The threshold of significance (i,e. define "significant adverse impact" on park development as a result of the project) must be determined based on substantial evidence. For the Renfro No. 3 Annexation project, the following information is needed: 1. Expand the fiscal analysis to include: a. The district's current capacity to finance park development. b. Method of calculating the proportionate share of park development attributed to the project and the amount of shortfall not met by District revenues. c. Amount of proposed mitigation fee (per lot or d.u.). Colon ByWater, Director' August 24, 1992 Page 2 d. Explanation of the disposition of the District's tax base (what are these monies currently used for and why?). How would the additional recreation amenities (pool, ball diamond) be funded? The letter implies that there would be no money available under the proposed funding scenario. e. Explanation of the reference that the tax base. would be used for maintenance similarly to the City's maintenance districts. 2. Identify which park(s) is to be developed to serve the project. My calculation for the amount of park land required is: 480 d.u. x 3.02 p/d.u, x .003 ac/l,000 pop. = 4.347 acres 3. What is the proposed monitoring and administration program of any mitigation fees? The information will help provide the basis in our discussion of the two primary issues: equitable park requirements among city and county residents, and the technical data to address the "nexus" issue. Since new developments are also occurring within the unincorporated areas of the District, they too could have an impact on parks. It's expected that the District would make the same type of comments and analysis on County projects. August 28, 1992, is the deadline to include mitigation in the staff report. Otherwise, separate correspondence to the Planning Commission is due by September 8, 1992, in order to have time to review the information. My phone number is 326-3733. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Very truly yours, Jennie Eng Park Planner JE:pjt cc: Martin Ortiz, City Planning Jeff Martin, Martin-McIntosh l\lcb North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District 40s Galo., _ Avenue, Bab2rsfield °3308 $05) j92-2000 August ll, 1992 Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner City of Bakersfield AUG Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue ciTY OF BAKERSFIELD Bakersfield, California 93301 PLANNING DEPARTMEN? SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 3-92, segment II; Prezoning ~5361, Environmental Review No. 4040, Annexation of Renfro ~3 Dear Mr. Ortiz; We appreciate the opportunity to review the reference project and make several comments related to this proposal. · Whenever zone· changes are made to increase resid~n~ial development there is a su~stant_~al_ im~t-to., our_ services. This area falls within the boundaries of-"the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park Disr_~ict which has a park acreage standard of three acres per 1000 population.- This standard adopted prior to the 2010 adoption of 2.5 acres/1000. The 2010 plas recognizecl an opport~n4ty for various standards. This is adclressed by policy 2 on page XI- 8 of the plan. Assuming. 480 dwelling units will be built on the project the city estimated a population of 1449 residents or 3.02 persons per household. Using these figures .and the District park acreage standard 4.368 acres of park la~d will be required to meet the. park and recreation needs of the deveiopment. The zone change has major impact to our District since only a fraction of the actual cost to provide park and recreation services is being borne by developers within our District. We are at the mercy of the city and county to require developers to accept more responsibility for their development impacts. Unfortunately there is reluctance on the part of the city to require more in city portions of our District than the county requires. We have been informed that the fees must be adopted simultaneously by the city and county for our District. This could take years to resolve if we are ever able to get both entities to. agree. In the meantime residents of the city portions of the District are being short changed in the availability of developed parks. We receive Several calls from the communimy wanting to know why developers in other parts of the city are requ~ed to provide parks but not those within our boLmdarias. Residents. of the city feel they should receive developed parks whether they are within our bou/%d=~ries or in other par~s of the city. An/%ex~ation is sold to the c~,-,,ux~tlr based upon greater access to normal city ~enities. This is not true of parks because the District is held back by the process required to get sufficient fees adopted to meet the park need. In thoro%~hly reviewing this issue for a period of two years there are dissin~larities between the develop~ in city and coLu~ty areas to .justify separate standard. Some examples develo~ez~t reviewed witb~ city areas, tract and parcel maps, over the last two years has resulted in 31 developments related to nine in the coun=y. The city currently includes about 8% of the District l~%d area and coLu%=y 92%. A~u= S7% of' the proposed deveio~m~ent inside our boundaries is witch the city li~ts. The 31 developments within the city represents 4,636 units on 1,649.61 acres and a population.of 13,875 based on 2.88 persons per dwelling unit. This co~areH to 725 un, ts in the nine county developments. These 725 units cover only 310.63 aczes and a po~m/lation, o~j%~= 2,09~. There is a s%t~~_! di~fer~ce also in the average densit~ of-development, wi~h%n the city 2.81 un,ts per acre co~azed with a cotu~y den~=y of 2.26 units. While this doesn' t see~ verst ~at on a per acre basis if we look at this development over 100 acres city grow~ch results in 15~ pl~ ad~lition~ resi~t.~ az~ on 1,0~0 acres over 1,500 additional residents. It couldn't be more obvious how development is di~ferez~= betweez~ the city and county. Since there are differences approval of modifications .to the Disr_rict ordinance should not be contingent on obtaining the exact same ord~n~ce fro~ both the city and While we tr~ to work out these differences and settle on an agreeable ord~ce, the population continues to grow at a fast pace. As this occurs more an~ more people will need to wait for park sez~zices that are not provided with the development.. Tb~s proposed zone c~ge therefore is a major impac~ to us since only land can be provided with current fees. That ~ ~ ~urther !~_mited %.-. th~_t the fee land costing $24,000 per acre or less. If the city proposes to continue to allow zone changes which increase residential development or residential densities, it is expected that there will be willingness from the city to help mitigate the. in~act on local services by requiring developers to offset the in~act caused ~k~/ the increased population. Although this District has presented evidence in the past that there is. a S%L~tanr_~.]. u~Lresolved lETTER T D MARTIN ORT7 ? age 2 impact passed on to the District, there has been no action to improve the situation. It is my understanding that the park issua received the second most co~%~aen~s during the 2010 plan process. Based on phone calls we receive plus commen~ at City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings thare, is a big interes~ in having appropriate park land. Even with all this there doesn't appear to be a lot of support to ensure that future generations will have usable park la-8. It is .o%u~ contention that if zoning is allowe~ that would allow resident_iai deveioDment, then developers a=e going to-need to conr_~ihute more fairly to resolving the impart. The county park land dedication, ordinance G-5190 which is currently use~bythe city and county for our Dim%riot is intended to provide park land. Generally thi~ happens; however, it is in need of revision to address increased land costs. Thi~ ordinance ad&lzesses between 25-30% of the total ~mpact fo~ basic park laz~im~ovements. If yo~ calculate the actual costs including recreationa] ~m--%ties the mitation through or~%na-~e G-5190 covers abou=-171 of the actual cost of providing full recreation an~ paxk services.. This is'arrived as follows base~ on costs for'each acre o~ park land: Land acquisition $24,000* (as allowe~k~fordinance G-5190') Basic improvements 73,000 (based on consr_ruction costs for Westdale Park completed fall 1991) Recrea=ion amenlties 42,000 (baaed. on l'bail diamon~ per 5,000 people, i swimming pool per 20,000 people and 1 co~nity center per 33,000) Total cost which $139,000 needs to be mitigated *Mos= current land cost was $30,000 per acre. The 2010 Parks implementation measures indicate that "Developer assessments (through use of Quimby Act or other similar funding mechanisms)" should be used. to pay for parks. Under the policy section of the Park~ Chapter it specifically puts that responsibility on the developer policy 3 states "Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or in-lieu fees to serve the need~ of the population in LETTER TO MARTIN newly developing areas (I-l)." This is cross reierenced to %he first implementation item a portion o~ which is quoted above. Bakersiieid City requires developers to provide the land and park improvements. Since the city and county are using the same 2010 plan adopted by both which is intended to cover the entire city and county and we are par~ o~ both, we request that the city require developers to provide land and .development consistent with the requirements oE the 2010 plan for this District just as it does in the remainder of the city. An example of what is currently happening within our boundaries we have about llB.6 developed park acres and approximately 94.7 acres oi undeveloped land. Based on population estimated to be 54,000 people we need 162 acres of developed park land. Using our.latest development cost for Westdale Park ($73,000 per acre) the cost to develop the 43.4 acres needed to bring us current with the acreage demand based on population is $3,168,200. This represents, basic development only. Additionally $1,822,800 in specific recreation improvements are also needed to meet the population demand. Combined the Distric~ is currently short $4,991.000 o~ meeting the existing needs for.park and recreation services. The impact a~ seen bythe'c~t¥ woul~l.~munhleS~ if their park= had basic development-in~tead o~ 94 plus acres o~ bare ground. Currently.the District has. more park land than is required for the population. This is re~le~tive of the District having to buy la~ i~ developing a=ea~so that it is not subdivided. This land will meet the nee~o~ the future population. In all cases the population is planned for the park acreage but developments are not built out. Bottom line is that i~ a~ equitable park system is to be put in place in the developing portions of our District developers who cause the impact must pay more o~ the costs. We request that developers be more realistic in addressing their actual impact to public services.. They must be willing to mitigate impacts that they are creating. As a mitigation measure the city should require fees equal to the value o~ the land in the proposed sutxiivision and basic development for the needed park land which has been cost for basic development was $73,000 per acre. This will leave the District still,responsible for about $42,000, based on current costs, per acre to mitigate the total impact, to provide recreational improvements like. pools, conm~,~.4t¥ centers and lighted ball diamonds. The zone change and future tract development, should be mitigated through the developer providin~ i~ lieu fees equal to the value of the.park land inclosing the provision of ~ "' ~LETTE~ TO ~RT!N ORT7 fees ts cover the cost of the basic park development. Anything less does not approach mitigating the ~pact to our se~ices. This requirement is also consistent with what the city requires in other portions of the city. The District %~ base then'covers maintenance while, city assessment districts per~orm'th~ same funcL-io~. To be fair to city residents in our District who antic~ate having us~le p~ka, we request that the deveioDer be required to mitigate the impact for the zone change and tract development t~ough providing aDpropria=e in-lieu ~ees. We request fha= .this sam~ me~ho~ be used not on~ for this development but for all future Districtdewelo~-n=. Thank~ for yo~ support of our request. Sincerer, Colon G. Bywater Planning and Construction Director CGB/eb B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: FRED L. KLOEPPER, ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. DATE: JULY 5, 1993 ,-"7'~~.o~t SUBJECT: STATE ROUTE 58 ROUTE ADOPTION STUDY (KERN RIVER FREEWAy) The Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) recently prevailed in a lawsuit to prevent or limit contracting out engineering and environmental services for State projects. As a result of this court decision, CalTrans District 06 staff have been directed to terminate, in 60~90 days, ongoing consulting work related to the State Route 58 Route Adoption Study. The effect of this action will be to put this study "on hold" for two years or more. This would push back the planned construction schedule a like amount of time. Senate Bill 1209, Bergeson, R-Newport Beach is an urgency bill that is under consideration in Sacramento. Should this bill pass, the State would allow the ongoing consultant contracts to be completed, rather than be terminated. We need to strongly support passage of this bill. I also received information that Assemblyman Polanco would be introducing companion legislation for SB 1209'in the Assembly. We should also support passage of this bill. I contacted Dick Weaver at CalTrans headquarters. He is Deputy Director of CalTrans in part responsible for carrying out the 'details of the court decision. He~ promised to check into the details of the State Route 58 study and get back to me this afternoon. Dll .mro Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Party Room City Capitol Phone Capitol FAX Robert Prasley O ,5114 Rivarside (g 16)445°9781 NoFAX Alfred Alquist D 5100 8an Jose (916)445-9740 (916)323-8386 Marian Bergeson R 3063 Newport Beach (916)445-4961 (916)445-9263 Robert Beverly R 5082 Manhattan Beach (916)445-6447 NoFAX Ralph Dills D 5050 C-~"dena (916)445-5953 (916)323-6056 Leroy Greene D 2082 Carmiehael (916)445-7807 (916)327-6341 Pat Johnst0n D 4035 Stockton (g16)44S-2407 (916)327-$703 David KelleY R 3082 Idyllwild (916)445-5581 (916)327-2187 Lucy Killea I 4061 SanDiego (916)445-3952 (916)327-2188 Bill Leonard R 5087 Upband (g16)445-3688 (916)327-2272 Bill Lo~ky~r D 2032 Hayward (916)445-6671 NoFAX Henry Melio D 313 Wat$0nville (916)445-5843 (916)448-0175 Art TorresI O 2080 Los Angeles (916)445-3456 (916)444-0581 Letters shc~uid be addressed as follows: The Honorable (Name) California State Senate State Capitol. Room # Sacramento. OA 95814 Dear Senator (Name): Assembly Teansportation Committee Assembl ,member Party Room Oity Capitol Phone Capitol FAX Richard K~tz (Chair) D 3146 8epulveda (916) 445-1616 NoFAX Martha Es~utia D 2137 Huntington Park (916) 445-8188 (916) 324-0012 DeanAodal R 4116 Stockton (916) 445-7931 (916) 327-3519 Jim Costa D 21 58 Fresno (916) 445-7558 (916) 323-1097 Delaine Eastin D 3013 Union City (916) 445-7874 (916) 324-2986 Robert Frazee R 6028 Carlsbad (916) 445-2390 (916) 324-9991 Jan Goldslmith R 2002 Poway (916) 445-2484 NoFAX Dan Hause; D 2003 Arcata (916) 445-8360 NoFAX Kathleen Honeycutt R 4009 Hesperia (916) 445-8102 (916) 323-7467 Betty Kar [nette D 5158 LongBeach (916) 445-9234 (916) 324-6861 William K,~ight R 2193 Palmdale (916) 445-7498 (916) 327-1789 Barbara Lee D 2179 Oaldand (916) 445-7442 (916) 327-1941 / Juanita McDonald D 4005 Carson (916) 445-3134 NoFAX GraceNap~,~litano D 6011 Norwalk (916) 445-0965 (916) 327-1203 / Tom Umbe?g D 448 Garden Grove (916) 445-7333 (916) 327-1783 TedWegge!and R 2174 Rivarside (916) 445-0854 (916) 323-7179 Letters shc~ul Id be addressed as follows; The Honorable (Name) California State Assembly State Capitol. Room # Sacramento, CA 95814 MEMORANDUM July 1, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ,/~.) / FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTO~y - / SUBJECT: STEVE BROWN'S INQUIRY ABOUT RE¥OCATION OF HOLLENBECK HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT Mr. Brown has contacted your office and mine and Councilman McDermott who has also contacted the Building Director about the revocation of Mr. Hollenbeck's home occupation permit (HOP). Mr. Brown has told me he is associated with Westbrook Chapel and that Mr. Gary Hollenbeck is a parishioner whose HOP was inappropriately revoked. I told him I would review the case. That has been done and I still believe the permit was appropriately revoked. A memo summarizing the problem from Mr. Glen Wiser is attached. Mr. Brown and I agreed this afternoon that Mr. Hollenbeck would sign a lease for commercial gpace this afternoon for his dental lab and I would allow him until the end of this month to finish pending work, prepare his new lab and relocate. JH:pjt l~'nat7.1 Attachment CITY MANAGCR~ 6 J~95 ~ 52 TO: Dennis Fidler, Building Director FROM: Glen Wiser ~ DATE: June 30, 1993 SUBJECT: 6008 E1 Camino Ave. HOP A neighbor phoned in a complaint March 4,1993 about the late night noise and the deliveries being made to 6008 E1 Camino. The inspector found a dental laboratory operating with a business license and a HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. The inspector gave a correction notice to comply to the HOP agreement and to stop all commercial deliveries except the U.S. Mail. On May 3, 1993 a neighbor again complained of noise coming from the laboratory after eleven p.m. and the deliveries being made to the business. The inspector observed a delivery being made May 3,1993 at 2:35 p.m. The inspector discussed the observation with Mr. Hollenbeck(father). I received a phone call from a neighbor approximately May 18, 1993 and I was told the situation was not improved. I visited 6008 E1 Camino Ave. and discussed the violations with Mr. Hollenbeck(son) o I was assured there would be no more deliveries and no more late night noise to the property. Again, I was told there was no change. I then discussed the revocation of the HOP with Jack Hardisty and a letter was sent June 18, 1993 to revoke the HOP. Mr. Rob Wilbur (attorney for Mr. Hollenbeck) phoned me and discussed the revocation of the HOP and I told him of the continual violations and I gave him dates of deliveries made to the laboratory. Upon phoning the Mission Linen, I discovered Thursday was a normal scheduled delivery for this customer. Again I talked with the attorney and informed him that I had confirmed the Mission Linen delivery.' He meanwhile had talked to Mr. Hollenbeck who also confirmed the UPS and Mission Linen deliveries. I told Mr. Wilbur the revocation of the HOP, based upon the number of violations made after giving the correction notice and discussing the violations with the Holenbecks, was proper. l . ~ MEMORANDUM Again Mr. Hollenbeck phoned, and discussed the revocation with me. I told him I was not aware of an appeals process but he could discuss it with the Planning Department. 6008elcamino BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 7, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER .f/// FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS//~REO~OR ~~ ~' By: Darnell Haynes, Business Manager SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - 1992-93 REVENUE FROM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Revenues collected year-to-date from Transportation Impact Fees are $3,697,136. This amount represents 123% of the estimated revenue. Some of the more significant highlights for this particular fund would be the payment of $687,460 by Smith's Food Stores during the month of June 1993. Riverlakes Ranch contributed $200,000 for traffic mitigation. In addition, the Gas Tax Fund was reimbursed. $1,285,400 by the Transportation Development Fund for monies previously expended on freeway right-of-way. · Listed below is the status of the Transportation Development Fund at June 30, 1993. Interest on Investments $ 19,816.00 Traffic Impact Fees $3,477,320.00 Contributions & Donations $ 200,000.00 Total Revenue Collected To Date $3,697,136.00 Less: Transfer To Gas Tax Fund $1,285,400.00 Total Revenue Remaining $2,411,736.00 CITT I~fANAGER-~ 8 JUL 93 ~0:~0 K E R S F I'E L D Alan Sandy '~ city Manager July.8, 1993 Mr. Bill Grinstead, President Warner Cable 3600 N. Sillect Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Dear Bill: .. -. 'On beh'alf of the City, I was very glad to receive Warner Cable's quarterly.franchise fee payment yesterday.. We appreciate your willingness to work together with the City to get through the tough times we are facing.. ~ Thank you for having the first quarterly payment personally delivered. It has already been deposited with our Treasurer's Office. sincerely, , Alan Tandy City Manager AT.alb cc: Ms. Trudy Slater City of Bakersfield.- City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (gf3~ '~?6-'~7~1 · FAX (916) 445-9600 ~ GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2503 WEST SHAW AVENUE # 101 - . . JOINTArts COMMITTEES: frESNO, CALIfOrNIA 93711 ? f lEGiSLaTIVE aUDIT , . ~ SELECT COMMITTEES: .~;~ ~.~. ~.. : . ~: - .._ :~. . -~ .-~ ~:' '----i >-. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT :..~! -'?. ;;'T;T'~'~ %-; ' ; ', *;;~,~ CALIFORNIAS" WINE INDUSTRY & ;~.,.~.':*;t: -: -~' ~ ~ ', t.~T~:.' i 9.~ .,, INFANT AND CHILD CARE ,~ KENNETH L. MADDY - ,'" AND DEVELOPMENT _ ...,.,,.; ,., -.- ;' :';' ' - ~ SENATOR:' FOURTEENTH DISTRICT'.' ' ' ' - REPUBL,ICAN :FLOOR LEADER June 24, 1993 Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: Thank you for your recent letter urging my opposition to AB 996 (Tucker) relating to tobacco. This measure is scheduled to be heard on June 30th in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. I appreciate having the benefit of your position and will certainly refer to your recommendation when I have the opportunity to vote on this measure. Again, thank you for taking the time to write and express your views. State Sena~ 'jgh'. .. :, ,:~ ~, . ,,~! .... ..,,,~ ~ ,:'... ,. , ',~" ~ ~'- . , ~ ~. · ;% .- .,!...~ .,, . . -. ~:- ,-.... -. . .. , ;: ,.' , , , ,.,. C~T~' MA'NAfiER-.~- 7 !.' :":;:-' ...',.: .: -.,., .-. ,: ~.:~..' 2 &L 93 A: 55