The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/10/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM September 10, 1993 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL~~/ FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT' GENERAL INFORMATION 1. My responses to two citizens' letters from Tevis Ranch are enclosed for your information. 2. Responses to Council inquiries on various traffic controls and the transportation impact fees for Niagara Car Wash are enclosed. 3. The County's opening position on the issue of future tax splits with the Kern County City Managers group was that they want half of the property taxes we currently get, and 80% of the sales taxes we currently get on a routine formula basis. Of course, it is open to negotiation, and there will be future meetings. I hope time and effort will give a positive focus. Obviously, this further complicates the potential to reinitiate the annexations of Rosedale #5, Union #10, and the others that were recently terminated, even with the potential that the Fire Fund might be settled. We will attempt to strategize and come up with ways to address this problem. 4. You may have noticed recent newspaper articles on the possibility of the County contracting for Police services in the islands. The Sheriff's position is that it is only worth about one hours pay for each service call into the area. His formulas seem to indicate there is no patrol, investigative time or any other routine work involved. I would not be optimistic about that concept going too far. 5. I did not get the Assistant City Manager position finalized this week. I hope to early next week. 6. Please do not forget that from September 18th until the evening of the 22nd, John Stinson and I will be in Nashville at the ICMA Conference. Andrea will have a number where I can be contacted, and Jack Hardisty will be in charge in our absence. 7. A memo from Melanie Dunwoody regarding the Grant proposal for Fire Station No. 2 is enclosed for your information. It is going a little slowly. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 10, 1993 Page -2- 8. John Stinson and I met with the local hoteliers this week. Rumor control on the new hotel was the subject. I felt it went well. 9. A report from Planning on a meeting regarding the Shafter General Plan is enclosed. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads City Clerk BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager September 2, 1993 Ms. Cynthia R. Scully. 3604'ROckcrest Court Bakersfield, CA 93311 " Dear Ms. Scully: Thank you for your letter of August 23. It is clear to me that the August 19 meeting did not wind up being conducted in the manner that is appropriate for a City advisory board. The City Council has asked that a review be conducted to find better ways to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Commission's work at its public meetings. I don't have the authority to waive the fee to initiate a General Plan Amendment, nor is it customary for the City staff to initiate such an amendment to downgrade the land use designation of a property. I can, however, advise you of the options you have available. You can, by paying the customary fee, initiate the action. Another option would be to get a City Councilmember to sponsor a motion that would have the City initiate the change:-that Council person would have tO get a majority vote in order to accomplish that. Mr. Jack Hardisty, our Planning Director at 1501 Truxtun Avenue, telephone nUmber 326-3733, can give you advice about proper procedures to folloW in regard to such a General Plan Amendment. I believe your frustrations in this matter are at least partiallY due to procedural problems which Mr. Hardisty could clarify for you. In an ideal world, you as neighbors could work cooperatiVely with the owner of the land in question.to come up with a mutually acceptable land use designation for the property. Such concurrenCe, if possible, would avoid the high emotions and potential litigation which a forced land use designation change would include. I realize we are not in an ideal world, but have you exhausted this avenue? City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Ms. Cynthia R. ScUlly Page -2- September 2, 1993 The members of the City Council are well aware of your concerns. Your letter to me is probably more properly sent to them. I will be sure they receive your letter and a copy of this response. Thank you f6r.,expressing your concerns. Sincerely, 'ty Manager AT:jp · cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Hardisty, Planning Director CYNTHI~ R. BCULLY 3604 Rockcrest Cou~ Bakersfield, Cal~£ornia (805) 664-9757 August 24, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Allen Tandy City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 9330.1 Re: AUgust 19, 1993 'Planning Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Tandy: I am writing this letter for essentially two reasons. First several of the residents of Tevis Ranch want their City Manager to know'the manner in which they were treated at the August 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting by the City Attorney, the Chairman of the Planning Commission and some of the members of the Planning Commission. Secondly, and I think I can speak for a majority of the residents of Tevis Ranch, we request that'the Bakersfield City Council invite the residents of Tevis Ranch to a City Council meeting where the issue of the change of land use designation at the southwest corner of Old River and White Lane without notification to the residents of Tevis Ranch can be fully addressed' and rectified. On August 19, 1993, I attended the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission meeting along with approximately, fifty other residents from my neighborhood. I live in Tevis Ranch which is located at the corner of Old River. Road and White Lane, Bakersfield, California. As you may know, in or about January 1990, the land use designation for the ten acres of undeveloped land located at the southwest corner of Old River and White Lane was changed from low density residential to general commercial. The land use change was made under the General 2010 Plan. The land use change was approved by the Bakersfield City Council in January 1990, despite the fact that the change in land use designation from low density residential to general commercial had been previously denied by Staff, the Planning Commission and the Advisory Committee. On or about May 18, 1989, a local engineering firm, on behalf its client, Kern College Land Company, sent a written request to the Planning Department'requesting that the land use designation of the undeveloped ten acres be changed from low density residential Mr. Allen Tandy City Manager Re: August 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1993 Page 2 0to general commercial. At the August 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Daniel Owens, a resident of Tevis Ranch, indicated to the Planning Commission that his review of the General Planmap in the early fall of 1989 indicated that the subject ten acres still had low density residential land use designation despite the fact that the owner of the property, through its agent, had requested that the land use designation be changed to general commercial. My neighbors and I attended the Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 1993, to request that the Planning Commission support our efforts to have the land use designation changed back to low density residential and our efforts to have this issue presented to the Bakersfield City Council forfurther consideration. Although the residents of Tevis Ranch in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting were and are angry because the land use designation in front of their tract was changed without any notification to the residents of the tract, the group was orderly and in no waY provoked the rude manner in which we were treated. The reception that my neighbors and I received at the Planning Commission was certainly not what I expected from my local city government. The general attitude of some of the~members ~of the Planning Commission to our grievance was one of annoyance. At times, the mode was down right hostile not only to the residents of Tevis Ranch but also to those Commissioners who demonstrated any support for addressing the issues. I was rudely told by the City Attorney, Mr. Lunardini, to sit down when I attempted to make some additional comments regarding the issue. Commissioner Rosenlieb, who at several points attempted to open up the forum so that the issue could be fully discussed, was prohibited from addressing a question posed by Mr. Daniel Owens. Finally, Chairman Powers, who did nothing to stop the hostile manner in which we were being treated, called a recess while I was still standing at the podium. After about a thirty minute recess the Commissioners returned. At that point, City Attorney Lunardini told us that the Planning Commission could not address our request unless we submitted the proper application to change the land use designation. We learned through Mr. Hardisty that the cost for submitting such an application is presently $2,500 and will be increased to $3,000 on September 1,~ 1993. It was my understanding that the Planning Commission could not take any action regarding the requested change in land use designation at the southwest corner of Old River and White Lane because the issue was a non-action item on the Planning Mr. Allen Tandy City Manager Re: August 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting August 24,· 1993 Page 3 Commission's Agenda. And although I realize that procedure is necessary to maintain order at meetings such as the one I attended last Thursday, I wondered why the Commission Chair, the City Attorney andseveral of the members 0f~the Planning Commission were trying so hard to' shut up a group of city residents with a legitimate concern. After all, we were only asking the Planning Commission to discuss the issue with us and hopefully give us some support in our efforts to have the land' use designation changed back to its original status of low density residential. As you may know, the Bakersfield Californian ran an article about the problem at Tevis Ranch on August 19, 1993, the same day as the Planning Commission's meeting. That article intimated that the change in the land use designation at the southwest corner of Old River and White Lane may have resulted from the political motivations of our council person. The residents of Tevis Ranch do not know whether'or not that allegation is true. What we do know is that some members of the Planning Commission and the city Attorney did not want the issue to be addressed. The fact that the group from Tevis Ranch coUld not speak when the issue came up on the Planning Commissions' Agenda but was relegated to speak first, the fact that both the City Attorney and Chairman Powers prohibited Commissioners Rosenlieb and Hersh from discussing circumstances~ they considered to be relevant to the issue at hand, but allowed Commissioners Marino and Andrew to explore the history and other facts regarding the land ~use change, and the fact that Chairman Powers recessed the meeting to stifle further discussiOn, made is pretty clear to me that the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the City Attorney did not want this issue addressed. Presently we are in the process of determining what our next step shall be, but we want to make it perfectly clear, we are not giving up. The~ residents of Tevis Ranch are considering all of their options. This is a problem which can be remedied. However, we need your.assistance and guidance with reSpect to the proper procedure to continue in our endeavor. And, finally, we do not believe that' it is fair or proper that we should be asked to pay $2,500 or possibly $3,000 to continue our quest. It is my understanding that the City of Bakersfield can bring this matter on our behalf so that we will not be required to pay the application fee. We urge the City to do so. Mr. Allen Tandy City Manager Re: August 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1993 Page 4' The residents of Tevis Ranch look forward to hearing from you within the next few days.. In addition, we can and will meet with you at your cOnvenience to further discuss this~matter. Very truly y~rsl ! cc: MaYor Price Council members: Brunni, Demond, EdwardS, McDermont, Rowles, Salvaggio, Smith City Attorney Lunardini Planning Director, Mr. Hardisty BAKERSFIELD 'Alan Tandy · City Manager September 8, 1993 Mr. Daniel M. Owens 9904 Cimarron Trails Drive Bakersfield, CA' 93311 Dear Mr. Owens: Thank you for your letter of August 25, 1993. I do understand that the subject matter of the land use designation is one which is very emotional and a subject of great interest to your neighborhood. I will attempt to respond to several of your points and questions. I cannot respond to some of them, such as what was in the minds of others. I am also. going to decline to comment on those statements which reflect negatively on individuals. I do not believe that focussing on people, rather than the issue, will be of benefit. I must also decline to comment on legal opinions as I am not an attorney and the City Attorney does not report to me. A change in the land use designation could be processed by either someone paying the appropriate fee, or by a majority vote of the City Council directing that the change be City-initiated. Only the Council can cover the fee issue - I do not have the authority to do so. Planning Director JacR Hardisty, at '1501 Truxtun Avenue, 326-3733, can give you information on forms' and the process. As you know, most General Plan Amendments do include specific, formal notice to nearby properties. In this case, I have been told (since it took place before I came here) it was Wrapped into an update of the overall General Plan, which is done' by general (newspaper) notice, rather than direct notice. To the best of my knowledge, it was done properly - in hindsight, it is clear that it may not have been done in the best way possible, since interested parties, such as yourself, found out about it only after the fact. It is clear to me that the Planning Commission meeting of August 19th did not meet the standards that we want to see of all City Boards and Commissions. I have read the transcript and the emotional environment led to behavior that lacked adequate decorum. The City Council has expressed concerns about the conduct of that session and, as of this date, are considering sending a letter to the Planning Commission about it. In an ideal world, you, as neighbors, could Work cooperatively with the owner of the land in question to come up with a mutually acceptable land use designation for the property. Such concurrence, if possible, would avoid the high emotions and'potential litigation which a forced General Plan land use designation change would include. ~ realize we are not in an ideal world, but have you exhausted this avenue? City of Bakersfield · .City Manager's Office · 1501 Tiuxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Mr. Daniel M. Owens September 8, 1993 Page -2- In summary, many of your comments should be directed to the City Council, rather than to me. I will copy them with both your letter and my response. While I have not responded to your entire letter, we can help to guide you on the proper 'path to bring a · decision before the City Council. I also believe improvement in the conduct of the Planning Commission meetings is probable in the future. City Manager AT. alb cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Hardisty, 'Planning Director August 25, 1993 9904 cimarron Trails Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1 501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy, On August 1 9, 1 993, a grOup of Tevis Ranch neighbors met at City Hall Council .. Chambers regarding the property at the SW corner of White Lane and Old River Road. We had previously met with the Planning Con~ission on November 21, 1 991, and August 5, 1 993. It is our contention that the property was improperly or illegally designated by. the City Council at the January 24, '1990 City Council Meeting over the previous May 1 8, 1 989, September 1 2, 1989, January 24,, 1990 reco~endations by the City Planning Department, City Planning.Cc~ssion, and Independent Advisory Committee, respectively. We are asking you to review the facts, and to recc~mend bringing the issue to the City Council that: This property be properly returned from it's current GC to it's original LR land use designation, and to waive the $2500-3000 aPPlication fee from our request. After reviewing the facts, please consider the questiOns that some 370 area residents are wrestling in their minds. 1. Is it proper or even effective to notify residents by newspaper of such an important issue as redesignating their backyards? (No one I sPoke with, read this and ,many did not subscribe to The Bakersfield Californian at this time. A. If this is proper, shouldn't the 6ity supply this issue to each affected household and not disqualify non-subscribers. 2. Shouldn't someone in city government ask the District Attorney to investigate the August 5, 1 993 allegation regarding the land use change by way of political contribution? (This allegation .was made at the Planning Commission meeting by Co~nissioner Kate RDsenlieb about Councilwoman Conni Brunni. 3. What could possibly be going through. Councilwoman Conni Brunni's mind when she voted to overturn the land use recommendations previously made at three city meetings. Did she initiate this motion? Page 2 '~ ~ Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager 4. Was the community treated fairly and legal process served, OR were there violations of the Brown Act when: ~ A. The Planning Commission, Staff and Legal Staff Lunardini had an apparent secret.meeting during the August 19, 1 993 Planning Commission Meeting. B. Speaker Dan Owens was not allowed to direct a question to Cc~missioner Kate Rosenlieb regarding her August 5, 1993 statement regarding Councilwoman Conni Brunni. C.- Were there other secret commUnications? The entire August 19, 1993 seemed well rehearsed. 5. Does Top Legal Staff often represent the City at planning Commission Meetings or is this job usually delegated one step up the ladder? 6. Has Legal Staff Lunardini ever represented the Planning Commission before August 19, 19937 7. Would we have even been able to speak at the August 1 9, 1 993 Planning Commission Meeting had we not the foresight to fill out speaker cards even though we were on the agenda and invited to attend?(Chairman Powers and Legal StaffLunardini appeared to give "Porky the Pig" imitations as they entertained whether we would be allowed to speak. 8. Is Legal Staff Lunardini always this rude to citizens as he was at the August 19, 1993 Planning Cor~nission Meeting? 9. Is Legal Staff Lunardini or is Chairman Powers the actual Planning Commission Chairman? (We really couldn't discern.) 10. Will the city listen to Tevis Ranch neighbors, much as they did listen to a SE neighborhood as reported by Mr. Hardisty of the Planning Department? Vice-chairman Messner stated something on August 19, 1993, about we couldn't .do anything about the past. We had to look to the future~ Mr. Tandy, in 1989, I was iooking to the future as I reviewed the 201 0 plan that fall at the' Planning Department. I believe my future was sold out fr°m under me on or about January 24, 1990. Thank you in advance for reviewing the facts surrounding this fiasco. Would you have the time to personally reply to this letter in the near future? Your help in this matter is most 'appreciated by all. Sincerely, Daniel M. Owens Page 3 Mr. Alan 'Tandy, City Manager cc: Mayor Bob Price Planning Department, Mr. Jack Hardisty Planning Cc~missioner, Chairman, Mr. Darren Powers Planning Commissioner, Vice Chairman, Mr. Steve Messner Planning'CommiSSioner, Ms. Kate Rosenlieb Councilman, Mr. Mark Salvaggio Councilman, Mr. Kevin McDermott Councilwoman, Ms. Conni Brunni Councilwoman, Ms. Pat DeMond Councilman, Mr. Lynn Edwards Councilman, Mr. Randy Rowles Councilwc~an, Ms. Pat Smith Legal Staff, Mr. Larry Lunardini 5he Bakersfield Californian KERN 1410 Newstalk Channel 17 News Channel 23 News Channel 29 News B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ ~ FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: FRED L. KLOEPPER, ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO/~~. DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 SUBJECT: SIGNAL AT 4TH/"P" STREETS, STOP SIGNS AT 4TH/"T" STREETS (Councilmember Lynn Edwards' 9-8-93 Inquiry - Ward 1) Signal at 4th£T" $~eets Work will begin on Monday, September 13, 1993. Construction will require 6-8 weeks to .be completed. Stop Signs ~ 4thfT'$~eets Per the attached August 23, 1993 memorandum from Steve Walker, the intersection does not currently warrant CIT~ ~^N^GER-t installation of stop signs on 4th Street. Mr. Walker also notes that his staff will be reviewing the intersection after traffic has stabilized following the ~0S~P95 9:14 recent resumption of school. We also note that the canal crossing widening on 4th Street just west of "T" Street will be under construction when water volumes are reduced in the canal. Sight distance will be greatly enhanced when this work is completed. Dll.~o Attachment cc: Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer TO: E. W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORMS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER /~/~'~ DATE: AUGUST ~ '~9~ SUBJECT: Update on Request for Multi-way Stops LOCATION: 4th and T Street~ COUNCIL WARD: For your information, we are scheduling another ~eview of the intersection of 4th and T Streets. The intersection had been reviewed this ~ummer after a request was received. The review did not indicate warrants for a multi-way stop based on volumes. The intersection had only one accident recorded in a year perioo and it was of a type not "correctable" by stop ~lgns. Since this area is close to a school ano traffic patterns can be much different during the school year with it~ associated traffic increases, a complete new study will be performed soon after the school year begins. Schools start on August 30th this year. i will keep you informed of our findings. cc: J~'.-~o ?,loe.~mer~ Assiszant ~':~blic ~or,s Director ..... - 5'affi~ Desicn Jaoques ~a~ocnei!e, CE Zii - 7raffio ~perations Traffic File - 4th/T ~ · . s~.w: ?lie: ~THST. STP BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: FRED L. KLOEPPER, ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIREC DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 SUBJECT: SIGNAL AT PANAMA LANE AND SOUTH "H" STREET, PANAMA LANE EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 99 (Councilmember Mark C. Salvaggio's 9-8-93 Inquiry - Ward 7) Panama Lane~So~h"IF'S~eet The contract was sent to Granite Construction this week. The controlling factor in beginning the work will be delivery of the signal standards. Delivery of these materials were taking up to six months, but recently the lead time has been reduced to 2-3 months. The earliest C~T~A~GE~ construction might begin is about December 1, 1993. The preconstruction meeting will occur shortly before beginning construction. 10 sEPg5 9:16 Panama Lanee~tofSt~e Highway99 Our Traffic section has been reviewing the turn situation on Panama Lane in the vicinity of the In-n-Out restaurant. Steve Walker's September 2, 1993 memo is attached for your information. The Traffic section is currently working on possible alternatives to control or restrict left turns, including construction of median curbs. All designs or alternatives must be sensitive to the access requirements for the existing Denny's Restaurant on the south side of Panama Lane. Dll .Fo Attachment cc: Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer TO: E. W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~_ FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 SUBJECT: VEHICLE TURNING MOVEMENTS COMPLAINT - UPDATE SUMMARY LOCATION: ON PANAMA LANE EAST OF SR99 AT IN-N-OUT BURGER COUNCIL WARD: 7 We are continuing to explore way~ to reduce or eliminate the left turn into the In-n-Out Burger on Panama Lane. A simple painted median will not work because that would also prohibit turns into the Denny's on the south side which has no legitimate alternate access. An island of some sort must be created to even post sign prohibiting the left turns east to north. The In-n-Out was · designed with another access off Colony Street to the north of Panama Lane ~ince it was known that eventually a left turn prohibition would occur. The Police Department has advised ~e that ~hey see no problem with the current operation although significant increases in traffic will eventually cause more potential conflicts. Since the adjacent warehouse building supply has opened and may bring more traffic~ I am obtaining information and da~a to design turn channelization/restriction for that section of the will keep you advised of our. ~rogress. cc: I~red Kloepper, ~ssistant Public Works Girector ~'ublic Works ;,,emo ~ile Traffic File siw: File: IN&~TR.P~N MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Ed Schulz, Public Works Director . By: Fred Kloepper, Assistant Public Works Direc DATE: September 8, 1993 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - NIAGARA CAR WASH Please find attached the correspondence between this department, Niagara Car Wash and its engineer, Ron Ruettgers. The determination of the Transportation Impact Fee made by this Department is outlined in our letter of August 24, 1993 and is based on the data presented by the engineer. This data was verified by staff observations. An outline of the process so far is as follows: November, 1992 - In response to a telephone inquiry for an impact fee for their 2.17 acre site, staff used the standard chart rate of 600 Average Daily Trips per acre for a full service car wash and a fee rate of $39 per ADT to arrive at a fee of $50,778. April, 1993 -'The engineer for Niagara Car Wash proposed using 600 ADT Der site based on "proprietary information" on .other car wash facilities in Bakersfield and a fee rate of $25 per ADT for a total fee of $15,000. They also presented data for both the "H" Street and Stine Road car washes (which is significantly higher than other car washes), along with a convincing argument that a car wash's ADT is more a function of the wash tunnel daily capacity than the site size. August, 1993 - The Public Works Department used the information presented in the engineer's proposal regarding the daily capacity of the Niagara Car Wash's wash tunnel (not the other car wash facilities) and the proposed~ fee rate of $25 per ADT to arrive at a total fee of $31,500. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 326-3724 ED W. SCHULZ. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER August 24, 1993 Mr. Frank Hobin NIAGARA CAR WASH 2301 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: w~ITE LANE FACILITY - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Dear Mr. Hobin: We have received your August 5, 1993 letter request and have reviewed the April 20, 1993 Ron Ruettgers letter report regarding traffic impact fee reduction for your proposed White Lane facility. Mr. Ruettgers cites, studies, averages and other generalities and assumptions in an effort to develop a trip generation rate. We believe the best basis for developing the rate is by analyzing your two existing operations. Information you submitted indicates the "H" Street site processes an average of 750 cars per day. Based~on our observations ~(10 samples), this average has reasonably been verified (hourly rates between 47 and 240). The Stine site was shown as averaging 690 cars per day. Therefore, allowing a 10% reduction for a smaller site, and one access drive, a generation rate of 621 cars per day could 'be determined ·when comparing to the Stine Road site. Due to the estimation process involved, a trip generation rate of 600 vehicles per day plus 60 employee trips will be used to compute the Transportation Impact Fee. We concur with Mr. Ruettgers analysis of the per trip fee rate. The fee rate used will be $25. The TranSportation ImPact Fee for your White Lane facility is established at 1260 x $25/trip = $31,500. This is based on a 1.0 acre facility with six lanes. Should the criteria change, the fee would also be subject to revision. Very truly yours, ED W. SCHULZ Public Works Director B FRED L. KLOEPPER Assistant Public Works Director cc: Lloyd Norton, Kern County Transportation Management Agency 701 So. Stine Road · Bakersfield, CA 93309 2301 H Street. Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 831-7998 August 5~ ~993 Fred Kloepper Public Works Department City of Bakersfield Dear Mr. Kloepper: A study dated April 20, I993 was prepared by our consult±rig e~g!~er Ronald F. Ruettgers, Civil Ei~g±~eer regar.~ing ~ran~por~atio~ impact fee for our proposed car ~ash on Wh~ L~e. Th~ s~udy was prepared as a result, o~ our discu~s~o~ a~ ~o the propriety of a proposed fee by the City. The study ~a~ d~tivered under cover letter from Mr. Ruettgers dated April 21, ~993. I~ accordance with your request, this letter is to request a reduction of the subject fee to $15~00Q as detailed in the report. Ve~t~ yours, F~-~r,~- ~o 1801 21st STREET, SUITE 4 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 327-1969 FAX (805) 327-1993 April 21, 1993 253-02 Fred Kloepper, Assistant Director Department of Public Works~ City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 REF: Niagara car Wash Facility on White Lane - Impact Fees Dear Mr. Kloepper: Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday please find enclosed a copy of our study investigating the impact fee for a proposed car wash facility on White Lane east of Gosford Road. The issues involved in this study have been discussed with your Traffic Division. PleaSe contact me should you have any questions or desire for further discussion or information. ~ VerY truly yours, Ronald F. Ruettgers RFR/lcn enclosure cc: Frank Hobin 253-02kloepper4-21-93 Ron dd F. Ruettgers Civi Engineer , 1801_21st STREET, SUITE 4 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805). 327-1969 FAX (805) 327-1993 April 20, 1993 253-02 Frank Hobin Niagara Car Wash 1701 S. Stine Road Bakersfield, CA 93309 KEF: Traffic Impact Fee for New Car Wash l:acility on White Lane Dear Mr. Hobin: Per your request we have completed an investigation into the equity of the proposed fee assessment by the City of Bakersfield for Traffic Impacts for your new White Lane facilitY. Our investigation entailed researching the methodology which was used by the City to determine your fee, and then assessing whether or not the figures used were correctly applied to ),our facility. The City's methodology used for assessing your fee was as follows: 1. Determination of Trip Generation Rate. The trip generation rate, whiCh was used, c,ame from a Study which was done in San Diego, California for one car wash facility and which related to the trip generation rate to the acreage of the facility. The rate used was 600 trips per acre per day (each car is considered 2 trips, one in and one out). Your facility's gross acreage is approximately 2.1 acres, therefore it was assumed to generate 1,260 trips per day 2. SeIection of a Per Trip Fee Rate. The City has a chart which was developed for the Traffic Impact Fee which assigns different fees to different types of land use. The variation in fees is due to the characteristics of the trips generated by a given type of facility such as trip. length, and PM Peak Hour generation, rates. There is no specific category for a Car Wash on the fee schedule, therefore you were assigned a fee from the Retail Commercial category with a gross leasable area of less than 10,000 ft2. This rate is $39 per trip. 3. Calculation of Fee. The 1260 trips from (1) is multiplied by $39 from (2) to obtain a fee of $49,140. Trip Generar/on Rate The Trip Generation Rate used by the City comes from only one study and is therefore not necessarily a representative sample for an average Trip 1=. Hobin April 20, 19'93 Page -2- Generation Rate in either California or the U.S. The article, which you supplied from "Professional Car Washing and Detailing Magazine", involves a survey representing over 1000 car wash locations and indicates a lower average trip generation rate than that used by the City. An average dally volume of 190 cars, or 380 trips per site per day, appears to be more appropriate for the trips which represent cars being washed. You indicated that you have proprietary information which 'indicates that the other car wash' facilities in Bakersfield do an average of 6000-8000 cars per month. The higher number would translate to 270 cars, or 540 trips per site 'per day. A certain number of trip~ should be added to this to account for employees entering and exiting the facility. If it was assumed that 30 employees drove to work, then they woul'd produce about 60 additional trips. Thus making the anticipated Trip Rate to be approximately 600 trips per site per day. In addition, it appears from our conversations that the trip generation rate for a car Wash of the type which will be used at White Lane is not directly tied to the acreage of the site, but to other variables. The controlling variables include the number of lanes for fueling and preliminary cleaning, the capacity of the wash tunnel itself, as well as traffic volume on adjacent streets' and ease of access to the site. The White Lane facility has a number of substantial limitations due to both access and site restrictions caused, by major PG&E easements. Your facility has' only one access point, located on White Lane, which is only accessible 'for eastbound, traffic. The second limi'tation, the PG&E easements, essentially reduces the size of your site from 2.1 gross acres to 0.88 net acres. . It appears, from our evaluation of the survey data and the controlling factors for car wash trip generation, that the City's trip rate should be stated as 600 trips per acre for sites of a size less than or equal to one acre. Above this size the rate should be 600 trips per site, with an evaluation of additional trips if more than one wash tUnnel is installed. Table 1, which is attached, shows the volumes which would be anticipated at the White Lane facility correlated to different variables associated with each site. You had mentioned that the City offered to reduce your fee if you showed, by past records, at your existing facilities which showed that the actual trip generation was less than what they were calculating. Your two existing facilities fall within the top 10% of car washes in the survey mentioned above. This success can be tied to both .excellent service on your part as well being located at prime locations. The variables associated with the White Lane site indicate that your volumes should be significantly less than your existing facilities, and more in line with average car wash values. F. Hobin . April 20, 1993 Page -3- . An additional factor which should be considered in the number of new trips which will be generated by the White Lane facility is the number of customers which will transfer their business from either the Stine Road or H Street facility to the White Lane facility. A conservative estimate of 10% of the trips which you will generate by this facility will not be new trips, but rather trips which will go to the White Lane facility rather than Stine Road or Iq Street. To summarize the discussion on Trip Generation of the White Lane facility, a per site rate is more appropriate than a per acre rate. This rate should be based on an average value rather than on limited study information or your high end values. The rate shoUld take into consideration your other facilities. Therefore it appears that a rate of approximately 600 trips per day per site is appropriate, less 10% for capture from other facilities bringing the anticipated number of new trips to 540 trips per day. In an effort to remain conservative in our assumptions we would suggest using a value of 600 new trips per day. Per T_rip Fee Rate As stated above, the City does not have a fee category for car washes, so they assigned a rate based on a Retail Commercial facility with less than 10,000 ft2 gross leasable area. This ~e of facility is assessed a fairly high rate due to the PM Peak Iqour rate which coincides with the Peak Hour of adjacent street traffic, thus having a greater impact on the street system. Your facility does not fit well in this category for two .reasons; (1) your Peak Hour of generation does not coincide with the adjacent street Peak Hour. The average hourly customer distribution, throughout the day for both the Stine Road and Iq Street facilities are shown on the attached chart. It appears that your facilities peak around 10:00 AM and stay relatively steady until 1:00 PM when the volume drops off. The peak hour for White Lane would be anticipated sometime between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. Your facility closes between 5:00 and 5:30 with a minimum volume at that time (see attached hourly distribution chart). (2) This facility does not fit into the less than 10,000 ft2 category in that the total square footage of the car wash facility, including fueling islands, wash tunnel, and main building is greater than 10,000 ft2. 'Your facility fits better into the next fee categoi-y , which is Retail Commercial greater than 10,000 ft2 and less than 50,000 ft2. The Per Trip Fee Rate for this type of facility is $25. Calcttlation o£ Fee Using the numbers for Trip Generation and Per Trip Fee discussed in the two sections above, the Fee which should be assessed to you for Traffic F. Hobin April 20, 1993 Page -4- ' Impacts of your White lane facility should be, 600 trips x $25 per trip = $15,000 We have discussed· these findings with Mr. Steve Walker, the City Traffic Engineer and he has indicated his concurrence.. In accordance with our discussion we are submitting a copy of this letter to the City t9 provide, a basis ' and background for a modification of your impact fee. Please contact me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, Ronald F. Ruettgers attachments Fee assessment letter Data Table1 , Niagara Car Wash Volume Correlations Location H Slreel Stine White Lane Number of Adjacent Slreet~ 4 2 0.50 ADT on Slreet 1 9,175 8,550 18,000 ADT on Street 2 18,000 29,050 ADT on Slreet 3 27,500 ADT on Street 4 ~.._ot=.~_l._~.._A_.djace,~.._~n=_.t~ A?___T_ 54,675 37,60.0 18,000 .i Number of Driveways 4 3 1 Building Size same same same Facility Size (acres) 1.8 2.2 1 Number of lanes 6 6 6 ~ anticipated volumes~ Average Daily Volume~ based on ADT I 44 ~ based on #Adj. St.. I 33 Pump Volume Wash Volume 750 690~'~ ,.-- based on acres 365 Lube Volume ~ based on # Drives 209 Averaae vol/ADT 0.01 0.02 0.02 vol/No. Adjacent St 187,50 345.00 266.25 vol/Acre 416.67 313.64 365.15 vol/Drive 187.50 230.00 .208.75 Avg. Hrly Cust. Dist, T ¢~ ~Cx.......~ Street I / ', ~*,-- -*- 60 _L , .~. .... ~. -..--,~:~-- ................ ~ ...... '----"~----'- . - ................. · - ......... ; - - ' ~ ~k~ ~ , L-~ · i A./" /T i , dL ~ , , / /: / /~ ,. , ,~verage- ~ i '-/--,,~ .... >/-! ............ i ....... ~0 1 ..... ~/-/i' ~ 'i :': ...... ' :'- ......... , ,-~ '*:' ~ ! '//~~ ..... 40 ..... -' ............... ' ...... "- ' · 'tree I -?-?-:--' ........ :s 30 .............................................................. 20 ............................ ............................... 10 , 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4. 5 (This data represents randomly selected week day Time of Day records for the first three months of 1993) BAKERSFIELD .MEMORANDUM September 8, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~/ FROM' M.A. DUNWOODY, ADMINISTRATtVt~ ANALYST ~/~.~ SUBJECT: FIRE STATION NO. 2 GRANT PROPOSAL PROCESS AND TIMELINES The FY 1993-94 CIP Budget includes $430,000 for the seismic retrofitting of Fire Station No. 2. The City is in the process of applying for a grant from the State of California which would pay 75% of the project with the City's matching share of 25% being $110,000. I've met with the Fire Department, Attorney's Office, Engineering and have spoken with the agency administering the grant, the Office of the State Architect (OSA). Important things to note are: 1) The office reviewing the applications has 30 days to review over 290 applications. Their staff has recently reorganized and 'has been cut from 8 to 4 employees. They will be looking for proposals that are clear, concise and complete. Their goal is to improve emergency response statewide and to fund as many projects as possible. 2) Final approval for funding must be approved by the State Legislature and may not occur until after the State adopts its FY 1994-95 budget. It would be wise to contact local legislators and inform them of the grant application. The source of funding for the grant is the Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1990. The Bond provides $300 million in general obligation bonds for the reconstruction, repair, replacement, relocation or retrofitting of seismic deficient state and local government buildings. The Bond Act provides $250 million for State-owned buildings and $50 million for local government essential services buildings. The Office of State Architect (OSA) is designated as the state agency responsible for administering the requirements of the Bond Act. The State Architect has received over 290 applications totaling over $200 million to date for projects ranging from $2 thousand to over $16 million each. Based upon the successful completion of the prequalification package, the state has determined that the City's project to retrofit Fire Station No. 2 is eligible for consideration under Part 2 of the application bond act process. FIRE STATION NO. 2 GRANT PROPOSAL PROCESS AND TIMELINES Page -2- September 8, 1993 Part 2 of the application is due October 15, and it is at this point that the OSA will determine which projects are eligible for funding. Among other things, this package will include preliminary plans and a complete cost estimate for the project. A Resolution approving the appropriation is scheduled to be on the September 22 Council Agenda. The Office of the State Architect will establish a priority list of potentially eligible local government buildings and facilities qualified to receive funding. This list is due to the Department of Finance {DOF} November 15 for its review and consideration. At this juncture, the DOF will recommend whether or not to include this list in the Annual Budget Bill for FY 1994-95 or other legislative proposals. The Legislature may review the listing and appropriate funds available under the Bond Act for specific projects which it deems appropriate. The priority list may be amended as new projects are received. The OSA indicated that there may be a bond act similar to this one on the November ballot. Projects that are eligible, but not funded, may be carried over and included as part of this next bond act if approved by voters in November. MAD:jp cc: Steve Johnson, Fire Chief Henry Pacheco, Assistant Chief Ed Schulz, Public Works Director Marian Shaw, Engineer III Robert Sherfy, Assistant City Attorney MEMORANDUM September 8, 1993 TO: Alan Tandy, City Mana r / /~ FROM: Jack Hardisty, Planning Dire~ // SUBJECT: City of Shafter General Planypdate The City of Shafter conducted a public meeting on the "General Plan Update" September 7, 1993. The City was the applicant, the project was a comprehensive evaluation of the entire area within that City's jurisdiction (approximately 13 square miles) and included a buffer area around the City (approximately 30 square miles). A General Plan Advisory Committee appointed by the Council worked with staff and planning consultants (The Planning Network) for 22 months. Two previous public hearings were conducted on the "General Plan Update" by their Planning Commission. The plan itself shows modest urbanization for the area immediately around the existing urban area and an industrial park adjacent to Highway 99. Over two square miles within the City, between Highway 99 and the existing urban development of Shafter, and virtually all the area around the City under Kern County jurisdiction was designated for intensive agriculture. The plan was approved 5-0 with no public comment and no changes to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. MG:kl m/matg.8 B A K E R S F I'E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 326-3724 ED W. SCHULZ. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER September 1, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Eastman 508 Partridge Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309 RE: QUAILWOOD/PARK STOCKDALE BICYCLEACCESS Dear Mr. & Mrs. Eastman: I have been asked to confirm, through this letter, our previous discussion of July 27, 1993. As you may recall, I talked to Mr Eastman at your home regarding the possibility of the City acquiring a bicycle/pedestrian easement across the southerly edge of'your lot, basically where a drainage easement is currently in Place. At that time, you indicated you were unwilling to grant such an easement because of the attendant problems'arising from increased public access adjacent to the remainder of your parcel. I inquired if You might be planning to sell your home in the foreseeable future. You indicated that you and your wife were tentatively planning to sell the 509 Partridge Avenue property in late 1994. I suggested that a solution to the bicycle access problem would be for the City to purchase the property from you, establish the easement, then resell the home with the easement in place. You indicated that this might be a workable plan. ,City staff proposes to inClude in the 1994-95 ,Capital Improvement Program b~dge% funds'to acquire your property,~ In these.types of acquisitions the sales price is normally the appraised value established by an independent.appraiser'acceptable to both parties~ We would endeavor to coordinate the timing of the acquisition to accommodate your needs. We would expect a public informational meeting(s) to be held for-Quailwood/Park Stockdale residents prior to the budgeting process. The City must also hold a public hearing to formally confirm the easement establishment is in conformance with the 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Page 1 of 2 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Eastman RE: Quailwood/Park Stockdale Bicycle Access September 1, 1993 Please let me know if my recollection of our meeting is not as you . remember it. We would very much appreciate your letting us know if your time 'frame for selling changes. We will keep you informed of developments on this matter. Thank you fOr your assistance. Very truly yours, ED W. SCHULZ Public Works Director FRED L. KLOEPPER Assistant Public Works Director .mro. cc: Alan Tandy, City Managerw Conni Brunni, Councilmember - Ward 4 Randy Rowles, Councilmember - Ward 5 CIT~ 2 SEP 95 ~ ~ Page 2 of 2