The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/18/00 B A K E R S F I E L D CiTY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 18, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~7'"'b..~ SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Thanks to Finance Director Greg Klimko! Greg came up with an extremely creative idea to fund $2.0 million of the suite expansion program without harm to any other activity! There is a sinking fund created out of the hotel and related financings done in 1993. It has $2.0 million in it and earns 6%. In nine years, the fund pays off debt on the ballroom and new meeting reoms. The money can be invested in new suites, and the payback continues at the same 6%. The suites get built and the sinking fund pays off the ballroom / meeting rooms at the original time schedule. This does not mean that the whole plan is a "done deal". We still have a total cost issue to deal with. A designer / cost refinement contract will be on the agenda for February 23rd. Of course, we would also have to verify that those on the waiting list are serious enough to put money up. This kind of creativity helps, however. If the issues "pencil", more detail will be forthcoming. 2. Enclosed is a memo from Assistant City Manager, John Stinson, regarding a possible new ambulance service provider. This is still in the preliminary stages, and any new ambulance provider would be required to have a Kern County ambulance permit and comply with other state laws regulating ambulances prior to seeking a certificate to operate within the City of Bakersfield. Also included is information requested by Councilmember Carson regarding a communication from EMS Director, Fred Drew. 3. A status report from EDCD is enclosed regarding the URM assistance program. As mentioned previously, this program is winding down. January 31st was the deadline for completion of projects. Property owners have 30 days from the completion date to submit their paperwork for reimbursement. 4. The latest Activity Report from Development Services is enclosed. 5. Information on the Vision 2020 project is enclosed. They had a kick off / press conference on Monday to begin the Phase 3 or "visioning" phase of the project. There is a list of community meetings that will be held for that purpose. Honorable Mayor and City Council February 18, 2000 Page 2 6. Our Management Information Systems staff recently did an analysis of the City Web site on activity from last calendar year. See the enclosed memo for some interesting statistics - we had 1.6 million hits, from 15 different countries. 7. The Redevelopment Agency held a public hearing for the proposed adoption of the Implementation Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. As the enclosed memo indicates, the resolution was approved and will appear on the February 23r~ Council agenda. 8. EDCD has prepared a status report on the Consolidated Plan 2005 which is enclosed for your information. 9. A memo from EDCD regarding a request for additional assistance for Restoration Community Project at 721-725 8th Street is enclosed. This is RCPI's second request for rehabilitation funds, and staff is trying to determine whether or not this will complete the project. 10. The Mexican American Opportunity Foundation has notified us that they will be moving ahead with their plans to locate three modular units on the property at 725 East California Avenue. The units will be used as a child care center. A memo is attached. 11. At the request of California Statewide Communities Development Authority, EDCD is participating in a joint marketing effort to target Enterprise Zone manufacturers. Per the enclosed memo, staff sent letters to manufacturers' in the City's portion of the Enterprise Zone to inform them about a special financing program for equipment, land, and buildings. 12. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: Carson · Scrolling the Council agenda on KGOV prior to meetings. Maggard · Safety issue at property west of Thorner School; · Accessibility of City web page; · Possible parking provisions at University Baptist Church near Bakersfield College; · Van accessible parking for Centennial Garden; · Status report on realignment of Comanche Road with Alfred Harrell Highway and installation of traffic signal at intersection; Couch · Citizen concern regarding towing of vehicle; Honorable Mayor and City Council February 18, 2000 Page 3 · Arrangements for attendance at Investing Public Funds workshop; · Letters of support for Liberty High School grant application; · Beltway concept for Bakersfield metropolitan area to be included in material to KernCog for review by consultant; · Telstar Engineering parcel map waiver; · Letter regarding possible telecommunications buildings being located downtown; · Letter from business regarding sump fence for Sonic Drive-in at Rosedale and El Toro; · Letter from citizen regarding traffic concern; · Letter from attorney regarding proposed South Beltway alignment; · Citizen concern regarding neighborhood police patrol and traffic enforcement. AT: rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~ant City Manager SUBJECT: Possible Ambulance Service At yesterday aftemoon's Kern County Emergency Medical Care Advisory Board (EMCAB) meeting correspondence was received from Phil Bradford of Golden Empire Medical Transportation and R.L Abbott and Associates explaining Mr. Bradford's intent to operate a Medi-Van program within the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. The letters further state Mr. Bradford's intent to acquire the necessary permits to provide a fully certified ambulance service within the City of Bakersfield. Both Mr. Abbott and Mr. Bradford were in att. endance at th.e meeting and made no comments regarding their intent to provide ambulance services. I have had one meeting with Mr. Bradford's son Phillip to discuss the Medi-van business but he had indicated that sometime in the future they would be considering offering ambulance services, but not at the current time. I have attached correspondence between he and I clarifyi.ng our conversations that their Medi-van business was not subject to regulation under the City's ambulance ordinance.. Pursuant to our ordinance anyone applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate an ambulance company within the City of Bakersfield would need to first obtain a valid ambulance operating permit from the County. If that were done then an application would be processed and a public hearing conducted before the City Manager. The decision to issue the certificate would be made by the City Manager. The applicant may appeal the City Manager's decision to the City Council. I will keep you informed of any additional information I become aware of. Both Fire Chief Ron Fraze and myself are members of EMCAB. Police Chief Eric Matlock is an alternate member and we all attended yesterdays meeting. The next EMCAB meeting is May 11, 2000. S:'dOHN~Vlemo Template.wpd Golden Empire #edJcal Transportation January 24. 2000 Mr. Fred Drew, Director Kern County Emergency Medical Services 1400 H Street Ba~rsfield, Ca 93301 RE Letter of introduction Dear Mr. Dm: 1~ letter is inteoded ~ fom~ ~eoduce myself aTd my organizatioo. For ~e past 38 years gem Coun~ rrar~fonawn 5ervees t~s been pro~a~g a ~r~ of tr'~rtation f~Tties ~ ~ ~ ~~ Kern Count. · e have been wo~n~ N~h ~ ofyour adm~n~ra6~e sta~ ~? ASe/nJ'a~ of our ~ Van pro~ra~, and as the ptino'pat of O~e company, I felt it was appropriate to estabftsl~ a direct contac wiOf you, aad provide a brief overview of our currer~ and future intentions. Our overall goai is to acquire all of ~e necessary permits and #ceases required to ao~ieve and proff~fe fully cer~ed ambulance services to O~e C~y of 8alcerstiel~. We recognize o~at in order to acconcg~ our 9og,, md provide quarry sen4ces, we hill need the cooperatioa and support of the Kern County's Emercj~cy I wanted to fersoaaly assure .wu ~at we v~ll wo~ ~'~7~tfy to proviffe ~ documentation and information that may be req~. In addition, I ~odd offer to make myself avaibble for a meet~ nith you, at your convenience, and give you a Erst-hand oven4ew of our compaoy, and pbnx It is my u~ ~at you are out of the ofl~e until lhursday, ~aouary ~7, 2000. ~erefore, I nil call after you return and set a time to discuss ~is matter fuaher, and answer aoy questions gert you n~]ht RER,¥ ¢Ob'~' R.L. Abbott and Associates Consultants Governmental and Regulatory Affairs (661) 326-0951 January 25, 2000 Mr. Fred Drew, Director Kern County Emergency M~lical S~rvioes 1400 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Re: Golden Empire Medteal Transportation Dear Fred: Thank you for taking the time last w~k to discuss emergency medical transportation regulations with me. As I indicated to you, Mr. Phil Bradford, President of Kern County Transportation Services, has discussed with me a business plan to form Golden Empire Medical Transportation for the purpose of op~ratir~ a Medi-Van program within the Bakerffleld Metropolitan Area. In accordance with your recommendation, Mr. Bradford is providing the enclosed letter as a way of introduction to'his new medical tramportation service. The Golden Empire Mediad Transportation business plan also calls tot investigation ofthe opportunity to obtain the necessary pertnits~ licenses, and fi'anchise agreements tO eventually provide Rilly certified ambuhuge services to a portion of our community. We realize this will be a difficult undertaking, but fully believe a strong showing can be made as to the need for additional top quality ambulanc~ service within Kern County and tM City of Bakersfield. Your previous assistance is greatly appreciated. I will call you when you r~*um to the u~ct: tu set a time to further discuss issues associated with this endeavor. Sincerely, end. ce: Mr. Phil Bradford - C BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager danuary 11, 2000 Mr. Philip Bradford, Jr. 1409 Washington Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93305-5544 Re. Medi-Van Business Dear Mr. Bradford: Your letter to me dated January 10, 2000 regarding your inquiry about city regulation of medi- vans has been received. I feel it is important to correct the statement you attributed to me in your letter. I did not advise you that your company had met all the requirements of the City regarding starting your medi-van company. What I did say was that I had discussed your operation of medi-vans with the City Attorney and that it was his opinion as well as mine that medi-vans as described in the operational information you conveyed to me, are not subject to regulation under the City's ambulance ordinance. There may be other requirements by the City of your business, depending on circumstances that I am not aware of (such as building codes, zoning or other city regulations) which may need to be addressed. It is my understanding that you intend to provide medi-van service in non-emergency vehicles (no red lights or sirens) without any medical care or treatment with the exception of basic first aid or CPR. I hope this clarifies this matter sufficiently. Sincerely, John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager cc. Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney S:LJOHN\Bradford Letter.wpd City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050 January 10, 2000 John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield - '::: ..~ ~.. 1501 TruxtunAvcnuc ' .... Bakersfield, CA 93301 JAN I 120 1 Re: ~edi-Van Business Dca~ ~. Sti~o~; ?lease accept this lctt¢¢ as con£ommtioa o£ ou~ telephone conYersation of ~anua~ 10, ;ZOO0 where you advised me that ou~ company has met ail the ~¢q~mmcats of ~¢ City to start ou~ Mcdi-Vaa/Gumcy transportation business. As ! stated to you o~ thc telephone, we wi]] ~ot be admiaistefia8 a~y meSica] procedures to a~y passcn§crs accept basic first aid o~ C?E in cmc~§¢acy situations. We look forward to woddn8 with thc City m thc ~utu~¢, and s¢~vin~ ~¢ ~ccds of thc citizens o£ the City O£ Bak¢~s~¢Id. I£ you should bare any fu~th¢~ questions, please tee] ~ec to contact mc at a~y time. Sincerely, BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 15, 2000 TO: Councilmember Irma Carson FROM: John W. Stinso~, ~?sistant City Manager SUBJECT: Request for information. Attached is the communication I received from Kern County EMS Director Fred Drew that you requested. Fire Chief Ron Fraze is preparing the information you requested which explains how the emergency dispatch system works. cc. Alan Tandy, City Manager Ron Fraze, Fire Chief Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council S:~Ol-INXMemo Template.wpd ,, ~' Joh~ W. St~nson - New Medical transportation bus~ness . Page I ~t From: "Fred Drew" <drewf@co.kern.ca.us> To: CITYDOM.citypol(Jwstinson) Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: New Medical transportation business Hi John. well, happy new year. missed you at the omelet party. As you know, the rumors are now true. Not something I need, but oh well. I have received a letter from Phil Bradford introducing himself to me, and EMS Department; He has indicated that he intends to eventually get into the Ambulance Business. He has hired Randy Abbott as a consustant. First meeting set up for next tuesday. Initially I had heard that he was just going to do medi-van service, which our ordinance does not cover. We did have some concerns however, because there will be the situation where (mostly because of money and contracts) that a hosp or managed care would call them to do a'transport that was in the grey area of needing medical service while enroute, which is more than a medi-van service can do. but, they are going to go for it. Not sure what all the background is on this, but presume there was some nudging by either hosp or manageed care people who thought that Hall amb rates for non emerg transfers were to high. In any case, there is a big difference between a medi-van service and an ambulance service. Randy knows this, and it will get real political; and could open up a huge can of worms; e.g. Board of supervisors not regualating dollar rates, etc (e.g. they say they can provice the service cheaper,etc; which is not technically part of what we would analysze in an application) It is probably a good thing that you guys put in your ordinance that anyone doing amb service in bakersfield, had to first get a county permit, this puts it in our court totally, and i suspect, that depending on how it goes, it will eventually end up in courts. john, can you tell me the status of their Bakersfield business license? do they have it, and are they operating? any other comments? Cheers, fred. Fred Drew EMS Director Kern County EMS Department BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Dir4ctor,~)~ February 2000 URM Activity Report SUBJECT: This memorandum is intended to provide you with a brief update on the status of the URM assistance program. We experienced a large number of requests for reimbursements during the past month, due to many property owners completing their projects prior to December 31, 1999. A small number of property owners requested a 30 day extension to allow for projects that were nearly finished to be completed and still be eligible for reimbursement. The deadline for completing those projects was January 31, and the property owners have 30 days from the completion date to submit the paperwork for reimbursement. Currently 77 properties have been granted reimbursement checks representing a total of $356,587.09 in 74 projects and three demolition projects. They include: 801 18th Street 1228 19th Street 1330 19th Street 900 18th Street 822 18th Street 1121 21 st Street (demolition) 1918-1920 Eye Street 1701 18th Street 2526-2530 Chester Avenue 622 East 19th Street (demolition) 1025 18th Street 2025-2029 Chester Avenue 1207 19th Street 2000 H Street 1928 19th Street 1812 Q Street (demolition) 2407 Chester Avenue 1517- 1523 19th Street 430 East 19th Street 2022 Chester Avenue 2101 Chester Avenue 1711 - 1717 19th Street 1017-1023 Baker Street 1219-1221 20th Street 2509 Chester Avenue 506 East 19th Street 1914 Truxtun Avenue 2305 - 2309 Chester Avenue 1919 Chester Avenue 618 - 620 East 19th Street -.cq [ (continued) ~; -' ~Alan Tandy February 11, 2000 Page 2 1623 - 1633 19th Street 1813 Chester Avenue 1529 F Street 1809 Chester Avenue 930 18th Street 809 Baker Street 1100 18th Street 1514 Wall Street 1919-1927 K Street 831 (A) 19th Street 1601 19th Street 83 I(B) 19th Street 1605 20th Street 1400 19th Street 1317 Baker Street 2001 Chester Avenue 1219-1231 19th Street 2620 Chester Avenue 1416 20th Street 2027 19th Street 1520-34 19th Street 2026-28 Chester Avenue 1434 19th Street 2019 Chester Avenue 1438 19th Street 910 Baker Street 623 Kentucky 432 East 19th Street 805 Baker Street 1300 19th Street 901 19th Street 11127-31 19th Street 960-962 Baker Street 807 Baker Street 2020 Eye Street 1101-11 19th Street 801 Baker Street 711 Sumner Street 958 Baker Street 2300 Eye Street 1626 19th Street 1224 19th Street 1720 D Street 1219 18th Street 901 18th Street 1212 18th Street 625 19th Street cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Dennis Fidler, Building Director Jack Leonard, Asst. Building Director Mike Quon, Building Plan Check Engineer Jan Fulton, Development Associate dl:\SSDavid L\URM Memo - AT 2-11-00.wpd GREATER BAKERSFIELD VISION, PHASE 2 Information Gathering Sets Stage for Visioning Vision 2020 will be accomplished in four Phases: Planning (Phase 1); Assessment (Phase 2); Visioning (Phase 3); and Action (Phase 4). During the assessment phase, conducted from September 1999 through January 2000,~ more than 12,500 residents from across the city voiced their opinion on what they perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of Greater Bakersfield. This information, along with data detailing demographic, economic and other trends of the Greater Bakersfield area, will be the foundation for a shared vision which will build on our strengths and address major challenges. How InformatiOn Was Gathered As part of the assessment phase, residents were asked to prioritize our city's. strengths and weaknesses. Two sets of questions were asked: What do you like about Greater Bakersfield? What are our strengths? What don't you like about Greater Bakersfield? What are our weaknesses? Opportunities for input were provided throughout Greater Bakersfield to give the greatest number of people a chance to voice their opinion. The community rose to the challenge. Perhaps the largest number of people in our history, representing a diverse cross-section of the community, participated in the assessment phase, including a broad segment of our youth. Input was obtained through: · Interactive community meetings held throughout the community (10) · Interactive mini-meetings organized by businesses, educational institutions, neighborhood collaboratives, and other community based groups (19) · Interactive youth meetings in high school social studies classes and youth organizations · Written surveys from ernail, drop boxes, mail, and' fax. The input obtained was prioritized and compiled in the following manner: · At every interactive meeting, participants were asked to list the strengths and weaknesses of our community and then, as a group, prioritize the items listed. This provided an opportunity for discussion and consensus. - more - \ P.O. Box 12020 Bakersfield, California 93389 ph 661/324-2020 fx 661/631-1088 www.bakersfieldvision2020.com · Results from each interactive meeting were compiled, mailed back to participants for confirmation, then posted on the Vision 2020 web page. · Written survey responses were limited to a listing of 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses. These responses were compiled separately from those of interactive meetings 'since there was no opportunity for discussion and consensus. The results, however, were very similar to those obtained in the interactive meetings, reflecting the broad consensus across the community of our strengths and challenges. In every case, care was taken to attempt-to capture the meaning of what was being said while respecting individual' viewpoints and comments. The complete listing of all input posted on the Vision 2020 web page is true to that commitment. What People Said - Common Themes As participants prioritized the community's strengths and weaknesses, a remarkable consensus across the community became evident. A number of themes emerged, with many specific strengths and weaknesses falling into several categories or clusters. Our strengths: The old adage of "location, location, location" seems to apply to Bakersfield, with residents putting a high priority on oUr proximity to beaches, the mountains, and large cities. Our climate is also.a plus. When describing Bakersfield, many people said what they like is that Bakersfield maintains a small town character while offering certain big city amenities. A sense of community is high on the' list of strengths, and Bakersfield is seen as friendly, family-oriented, and a place where it's easy to get involved in the community.~ Lots of leisure and cultural activities are available, along with several, types of educational opportunities. Affordable housing and a Iow cost of living reflect a positive outlook on.economic and business activity. Our weaknesses: Air quality was consistently cited as our greatest challenge. Development and re-development were commonly expressed concems as they relate to planning for growth, managing new development and re-vitalizing existing neighborhoods. City / county cooperation is also seen as a weakness. Transportation issues - roads, freeways, airports, public transportation - are a recurring theme. Educational performance, gangs, and the lack of activities for youth are among youth-related issues cited. Poverty, a lack of diversity in our economic base and a lack of jobs offering competitive salaries present economic challenges. Phase 2 continued What People Said - BakerSfield's Maior Stren.qths Specifically, residents frequently mentioned the items below as among our greatest strengths as a community.-. LocatiOn: Our unique geography provides us easy access to the mountains, beach, and larger urban areas. In addition, our Central strategic location offers accessibility to the whole state. · Friendly, caring people: Our people are seen as friendly, community-minded people. Community spirit and volunteerism are very important and it is easy to become involVed. We are a compassionate community with concem for the less fortunate. · Affordable housing and cost of living: Relative affordability of housing and other costs of living in Greater'Bakersfield was consistently cited. · Educational opportunities: The community valued the opportunities for higher education afforded by California State University Bakersfield, Bakersfield College, and other extended universities in the community. Residents also valued most of the K-12 schooling opportunities as well as the Bakersfield Adult School. · Small town character: Our people like the small town atmosphere with big city amenities. · Family oriented: Many commented that Greater Bakersfield is a "great place to raise a family," and that the community offers many family activities. · Downtown revitalization: Across the board, the community appreciates and values the redevelopment and increasing revitalization of the downtown area including the new streetscaping. · Relatively light traffic: The community recognizes that we still have relatively uncongested traffic compared to other communities; hoWever there is concern that traffic is a growing problem. · Law enforcement: The relative safety of our streets was attributed to our strong law enforcement agencies. · Entertainment: Community entertainment opportunities ranked highly with the youth and in the written surveys. Cited most frequently were the increasing diversity of entertainment available, Centennial Gardens events, shopping malls, neighborhood parks, movie theaters, and the wide variety of ethnic restaurants. · Cultural diversity: The participants gave value to the increasing cultural diversity of our community. · Agriculture and Oil: Our community is a world leader in these two historical strengths of our economy. · Climate: Many value the springs and falls, cool evenings, Summer nights, and the oPportunity to play golf and other sports year round. - more - What People Said - Maior Weaknesses .. Those weaknesses or, challenges most frequently cited by residents from across · ~"*" ~ ~ *the city included: ·Air quality: Poor air quality and air pollution was the weakness most frequently cited in all neighborhoods and surveys. · Urban sprawl', leapfrog development: An across the board perception of a lack of planning for growth resulting in uncontrolled develoPment and 'residential encroachment on agricultural lands. · Gang activity: An across the board concem about gang activity. This perception is prevalent even in neighborhoods where there is very little gang activity. ·Underperforming educational achievement: Educational achievement in the K-12 grades is below state averages. · Airport and air service: The Greater Bakersfield community sees the airport as too small and antiquated. Air service is perceived to be inadequate with no jets. · Image: It is widely believed that the community has a negative image with outsiders. There is also a poor community self-image. · Freeway planning: Poor freeway planning was widely noted with comments such as "freeways to nowhere" and poor downtown or East-West connection. · Specific on and off-ramPs were also cited. · Drug traffic: Drug sale and use with attendant crime were recognized as well as the perceived high level of math labs in the community and surrounding area. · Blighted neighborhoods: There is a.lack of development and redevelopment in some areas of the community. Southeast and East Bakersfield are specifically mentioned as are the vacant strip malls in some areas of town and the condition of Union Avenue. · Youth activities: A perception of a lack of affordable aftemoon and evening activities for youth was particularly strong with .the youth input, but is supported by the rest of the community, especially on the East side. · Public transportation: A need for extended hours, Sunday service, and more frequent ·Service was expressed particularly bY'our youth and in the neighborhoods that are more transit dependent. · City-County cooperation: A strong perception exists of the lack of adequate .cooperation between the two governmental entities in development and services to the urban area. In addition to the overall perception, neighborhoods cited' issues specific to their area. · Traffic flow: Increasing traffic, lack of synchronized traffic lights, and sPecific congested areas resultant from the lack of connected.freeways were frequently cited. Phase 2 continued Neiqhborhood Differences - In some .caSes, specific weaknesses or challenges identified by vadous groups did vary somewhat by community. For example, there were some neighborhood differences in terms of neighborhood specific issues -- Stray dogs, illegal trash dumping, graffiti -- as well as in the ranking of community weaknesses. These differences can best be appreciated by reviewing the data on the Vision 2020 web page specific to the neighborhood where the input was received. Nevertheless, neighborhood input generally reflected the .. general themes expressed by the broader community. What People Said - Our Youth Overall, the strengths and weaknesses cited by the 10,000 high school stUdents participating in the assessment reflect many of the themes echoed across the community. The students like Bakersfield's location, educational opportunities, and the variety of available entertainment, citing particularly Centennial Garden. They appreciate the affordable cost of living, the small town atmosphere, and job opportunities. They think law enforcement is generally doing a good job. Our neighborhood parks are a strength, and Bakersfield offers a choice in restau rants. But like their parents, the students see air quality as the greatest challenge facing our city. While they like the variety of entertainment available, they also cite a lack of youth activities particularly after school and in the evening. They are also very concemed about gang activity, drugs', blighted neighborhoods, and a perceived racial bias in the community. Traffic is congested and public transportation could be better. They also see a lack of high paying job opportunities. Additional Details A full summary of all input is available at www.bakersfieldvision2020.com. GREATER BAKERSFIELD VISION PHASE 3 Call to Action! What's Next? During Phase 2 -the assessment phase -- more than 12,500-residents from across the city voiced their opinion on what they perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of Greater Bakersfield. This information, along with data detailing demographic, economic and other trends of the Greater Bakersfield area, will be the starting point for Phase 3 - visioning our future. During this phase a series of community meetings will be held across the city where residents will be invited to create a "big picture" - Vision-of what we want our community to be in the future. This shared Vision will build on our strengths and address major challenges. In Phase 4, we will develop action plans to tum the Vision into reality. This final phase will conclude in December 2000 with recommendations for implementation to the city, the county, business and industry, education, the non- profit sector, and individuals. Call to Action - Opportunities for Involvement The visioning phase is a call to action for the community to become involved in determining what we want Greater Bakersfield to be in 2020. Every group and neighborhood has an opportunity to determine where we're going and what it will take to make our Vision a reality. Meeting dates and times are listed I~elow - don't miss this opportunity of a lifetime to shape our future. Unless otherwise, noted, the meetings are scheduled from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. March 9 Centennial High School March 16 Bakersfield Senior Center March 23 Boys & Girls Club March 30 Norris Rd. Veteran's Hall April 6 Kern County Administration Building April 26 Cai State Bakersfield Student Union Building 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. April tbd Stockdale High School April tbd South High School May 2 Highland High School For an up-to-date meeting schedule, call 324-2020 or visit the Vision 2020 web page at www.bakersfieldvision2020.com P.O. Box 12020 Bakersfield, California 93389 ph 6611324-2020 fx' 661/631-1088 www.bakersfieldvision2020.com · : Help paint the picture of what fireater Bakersfield will be like in the year 2020! ! Join us for a community meeting! : March ~ Centennial High School 6:30-8:30 p.m. ; March 16Bakersfield Senior Center 6:30-8:30 p.m. · ; March 23Boys & fiirls Club 6:30-8:30 p.m. ~ March 30Norris Road Veterans' Hall 6:30-8:30 p.m. · i April 6 Kern County Administration Building 6:30-8:30 p.m. ; April 26CSUB Student Union 3:30-5:00 p.m. · ~ IVlay 2 Highland High School6:30-8:30 P.m. · ; Additional meetings are still being scheduled. For the most up : to date information on meeting dates and times, visit our · .' website at www. bakersfieldvision2020.com or call (661)324- · · 2020 · ~ fireater Bakersfield Vision 2020 is about people--people who come to§ether to dream · · what our city can become and then work together to set that dream in motion. · 2/14/00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I OOO NOTES February 4, 2000 1. The notice of preparation for a draft environmental impact report has been sent this week for the "City in the Hills." This is a proposal to develop 700 acres north of M~sa Marin in northeast Bakersfield. It requires some general plan and zoning changes. 2. A negative declaration has be~n issued for public review on a grant request to construct ten miles of bike path along the Kern River from Stockdale Highway to Enos Lane. 3. The Southern. Beltway hearing reopens before the Planning Commission on February 17, 2000. The alignment recommended by a committee of the Planning Commission swings below Taft Highway in an effort to avoid disruption of newly developed neighborhoods. 4. The Kyle Carter project involving general plan amendment, zoning amendments and annexation of the North of the River Sanitation District property west of Highway 99 and south of Olive Drive is moving forward again. With the industrial relationship issues resolved, preparation of the EIR has recommenced. Public hearing on this 500 acre project is expected in June 2000. 5. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is underway with the contracts signed on January 26, 2000, for consulting work. 6. Next week requests for proposals to prepare a joint NEPNCEQA environmental document will be distributed as a part of the $6,000,000 reconstruction of the White Lane/Highway 99 interchange. 7. A couple of gentlemen from Fresno contacted Stanley Grady and told him they represented the new owners of the Grand Canal project. They were Paul Owhadi and Rick Telegran. They seemed to be exploring their options at this .point. 8. A grant request for $40,000 to help fund the downtown charrett~ has been sent to Great Valley Center. A decision on that is anticipated in April. 9. Even though you may have heard reports that building activity is slacking off, it has not gone flat. Here is a list of some of the more interesting projects in the pipeline. Foods Co Market 8200 Rosedale Highway 58,500 sq.ft. $2.7 Million Food for Less Market 4400 Ming Avenue 62,000 sq.ft. $2.9 Million Star Gymnastics Facility 4401 Ride Street 26,000 sq.ft. $1 Million Development Services Notes Page 2 Univision Office 5801 Truxtun Avenue 15,000 sq.ft. $1.1 Million DEA's office 7400 Schirra Court 20,000 sq.ft. $1.2 Million 80 Unit Senior Complex 2250 "R" Street 73,000 sq.ft. $4.8 Million Safe 1 Credit Union 1400 Mill Rock Way 15,900 sq.ft. $1.1 Million Allen Group Office 2000 "K' Street & Parking Structure 137,000 sq.ft. $6.2 Million 10. We have had a few sign problems lately. The City Attorney has suggested we do some work to clarify the rules on political signs. Lest anyone think we are picki.ng on them we will do that after the elections in March. JH:pjt ~ dsn2-4 B AKER S F IE L D I .- ~ "5 ,"' '~,~. ),,.C ~ MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 8ERVICES MEMORANDUM Februar~ 8, 2000 TO: Alan Christensen, Assistance City Manager FROM: Bob Trammell, Management Information Services Director ~ SUBJECT: City Web Site Access We have recently run an analysis of the City Web site activity from last calendar year. Some interesting statistics include: Number of hits on web site: 1,610,825 Number of hits on LaserFiche WebLink: 5,095 Number of Adobe PDF documents downloaded: 6,635 Biggest three networks using system: LightSpeed America Online State of California Number of countries accessing site: 15 Top 3 countries (after U.S.) Switzerland (465) Canada (452) United Kingdom (241) Average number of hits per weekday: 5,531 Most active day of the week: Wednesday Most active day of the year: July 5, 1999 cc: Dave Hecht Joel Traylor P:~DOCUMENT~Ian Christensen~Web Site Statistics.wpd BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February l5,2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager f/~l,'~) FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo /~~_~// SUBJECT: Implementation Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project On February 14, 2000, the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency held a public hearing for the proposed adoption of the Implementation Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Prior to public comment staff gave a fifteen minute presentation summarizing the legal requirements of an implementation plan, what the agency has accomplished over the previous five year plan, and what proposed direction the agency will be taking during the next five years in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area. One public comment was received by Marvin Dean, Southeast Bakersfield Community Neighborhood Housing Development Group representative. Mr. Dean stated the group is very supportive of the downtown. He also mentioned that the housing set-aside monies collected for the Downtown Project Area can be used outside downtown redevelopment project area boundaries. His group is proposing the construction of 1,200 square foot homes. Proposed financing includes Fannie Mae, Community Development Block Grant, redevelopment housing set-aside monies, and loans from Washington Mutual Bank. Mr. Dean requested agency assistance for the housing plan. No other comments were received. The agency unanimously approved the resolution adopting the Implementation Plan for the Downtown Redevelopment Project. This item is scheduled for the February 23, 2000 City Council meeting under the consent calender section. No council action is required. P:\lmplementation Plan 99\Tandy overview. Memo.wpd ~ '%i,ct '.. -" .....~ ~ ~ t~ ,,~ ~: - ~; . BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 16, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct SUBJECT: Request for additional HOME assistance for Restoration Community Project, Inc, {RCPI) project located at 721 and 725 8th Street. On May 7, 1997, the City Council approved an agreement with RCPI to provide HOME financial assistance ($100,000) to acquire and rehabilitate an 11 room multi-family housing project (Freise Inn) located at 721 and 725 8th Street. This transitional housing project will provide housing for homeless, alcohol/substance- abusing women and women with children to facilitate their return to independent living within a 12 to 24 month period. The County of Kern Community Development also approved $142,750 of HOME funds to assist in the rehabilitation project. As the work on the rehabilitation of the buildings progressed, additional damage and repairs were identified that were not part of the original scope of work included in the initial request. RCPI and their contractor estimated that the cost of completing the additional work was $60,000. At the July 15, 1999 City Council meeting an amendment to increase the City's share of the additional work ($30,000) was approved for a total of $130,000 in project assistance. The County also approved a $30,000 increase to their original contribution for a total of $180,000. With increases from both the City and County this allowed RCPI to proceed with the work needed to finish the rehabilitation of the Freise Inn. Subsequently additional work was identified as part of a in-depth system by system analysis of the building for potential health and safety repairs. In a letter dated November 9, 1999 to both the City and County, RCPI requested a second increase totaling $120,000. This in-depth analysis was conducted with the assistance of S.C. Anderson as their unpaid technical advisor. The work that was identified would be needed for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Items identified include lead base paint removal and abatement, as well as fire and building code improvements. FEB I dlk:P:\OEOROE~pci update mem On February 9, 2000, staff met with representatives from County Community Development, RCPI, and S.C. Anderson to review RCPI's request for a second increase to complete the rehabilitation of 721 and 725 8th Street. In order to justify and confirm RCPI's claim that this request will complete all work necessary for occupancy and the commencement of services to clients, staff has scheduled a walk-through with Jack Leonard, Assistant Building Director. This walk-through is set for February 16, 2000. Should the walk-through concur with RCPI's information, staff is prepared to recommend a second HOME amendment which would increase the City's assistance for this project by an additional $60,000. It would also be necessary for the County of Kern to increase their contribution by $60,000. County staff has already initiated their HOME amendment process for their share of the second increase needed. If this second amendment were to be approved the City'S total contribution would be $190,000. RCPI will also be generating $38,000 in private contributions to pay for the furnishings and fixtures necessary for the commencement of services to clients. Once all work is completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued RCPI can then begin to access a $600,000 HUD-Supportive Housing Direct Grant for the operation of the Freise Inn for the next three years. However, the RCPI project must be ready for occupancy no later than July 28, 2000 or risk losing the grant. Below is a tentative schedule. April 17,2000 Budget and Finance Committee meeting for authorization to publish April 22, 2000 Public notice in newspaper (30-day comment period) May 22, 2000 End of Public Comment Period May24,2000 City Council approval of amendment to RClP's Agreement and authorization to submit to HUD. Please call me should you have any questions. dlk:P:\GEORGE~'pci update mem BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February l5,2000 TO: Alan Tandy City Manager Jake Wager ~ FROM: Economic Developmen~ SUBJECT: Status Update on Consolidated Plan 2005 As you are aware, our existing five-year housing and community development strategic plan (Consolidated Plan) is set to expire June 30, 2000. As outlined in our memo dated September 23, 1999, staff initiated the consolidated planning process last summer. A new five-year strategic plan (ConPlan 2005) will need to be adopted by the City Council and submitted to HUD by no later than May 16 for the city to continue to receive HUD funding beginning next fiscal year. The HUD regulations require that public input be solicited in preparing ConPlan components which include: a housing and community development needs assessment; a housing market analysis which describes the supply, demand, cost, and condition of housing; a comprehensive analysis of impediments to.fair housing choice; a three to five year strategic plan that establishes strategies, goals with measurable objectives; and a one-year action plan describing how federal and local resources will be used and allocated in the next five years to address the needs and objectives identified in the strategic plan. Last Friday staff completed its final collaboration with its ConPlan focus group composed of community stakeholders and representatives. Staff is currently preparing its ConPlan strategies with goals and objectives using the input received from the focus group. Additionally, staff met with the Budget and Finance committee on February 7 and developed a one year action plan for next fiscal year which is part of the ConPlan. As noted above, the one year action plan describes how federal resources (i.e., CDBG, HOME and ESG) will be spent for the next fiscal year (2000-01) to address the needs and objectives outlined in the new ConPlan. This annual spending plan is part of the ConPlan which will be submitted to HUD b.y May 1.6.- .~ A 30 day public review period for the draft ConPlan is targeted to begin March lC-and'end April 19. A public meeting for the ConPlan is tentatively scheduled for March 30 at the ML-'Kq~ t {5 ~ lCommunity Center (5:30 P.M.). We anticipate providing Council with a final ConPlan 2005 by April 26 for their review and approval. Please let me know if you have any comments. BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 15, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct SUBJECT: Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF) - 725 East California Avenue. At the August 25, 1999 City Council meeting Agreement #99-215 was approved with MAOF to transfer the title of a 27,000 square foot parcel located at 707, 711,713, and 725 East California Avenue. MAOF proposed to rehabilitate the existing 4,800 square foot building for a child care center to serve 144 2~ to 5 year old children of Iow-income families living in southeast Bakersfield. After MAOF's engineer inspected the building and consulted with Jack Leonard, Assistant Building Director, the building was deemed unsafe and it was ordered demolished. The demolition was completed in December 1999. MAOF now plans to move 3 modular buildings to house the child care center. According to Martin Castro, MAOF Administrator, the executed contracts have now been returned from the State Department of Education and the modular building contractor has been selected. The delivery date for the modular unit is April 2000 and anticipated enrollment date is June 2000. dlk:P:\GEORGE~maof update memo 2.wpd BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 16, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direcllor:::~O SUBJECT: Financing Opportunities for Enterprise ~ne ~a'~ufacturers Staff has sent letters to manufacturers in the city's portion of the Enterprise Zone informing them about a financing program which may be of interest to them. This program may finance equipment, land and buildings at the same interest rates that government borrows to finance projects California Statewide Communities Development Authority, commonly known as "California Communities," recently approached us regarding a joint marketing effort targeting Enterprise Zone manufacturers. California Communities is a statewide public agency that was established in 1987 as a California Joint Powers Authority. They specialize in issuing tax-exempt financing for manufacturers and are the largest California issuer of small issue industrial development bonds (IDB's). A letter from this department was mailed February 16, providing information about the specifics of California Communities' financing and how to get further information. The County of Kern will be preparing a similar mailing for manufacturers in the unincorporated portion of the Enterprise Zone. dl:~SE Z\California Communities memo to AT.wpd From: Mel Perry To: Alan Christensen Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 11:59 AM Subject: Referral re: Council meeting broadcast The agenda will continue to be scrolled before the workshop and between the workshop and regular meeting. We have also created a slide show that will air on the KGOV bulletin board in their regular rotation. MP/ch CC: Rhonda Smiley '/~\ City of Bakersfield WORK REQUEST PAGE :C~EW: ,.:'"'.~ · :' .. !,'-, '-:,,- · .[ . . TIME :PRINTED: 26:21 ~. -.. ....... · .. SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: .... -~'r~'r: . · z/,09/,O0 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 2/21/00 GEN, .LOC: - ?.:~ . · . FACILITY NODES '.' FROM: FACILITY ID: "' ~ TO: ' · ..... ', " '" ',-:'" ....... "~ REF:NBR: ~-~ -,~,, ' REQ DEPT': j :')' ~/CITY ,COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY :' :._'HIGH ':~ ~:,~:' '.i~-~.<i..-.' · _. REQUESTOR: .':':?CARSON '>::'~:..~... .... ;"(i>::>i..',.,,i." (c. ' -. ORIGIN: ~..-,~;CITY ':.COUNCIL[ 'REFERRAL USER "ID: '.? ~?' '::? RBARNHAR ' ......... WORK~.TYPE: .~'~REFERRAL .'":":"~ .~ DESCRIPTION f/TELEVISING ..coUNciL AGENDA PRIOR .TO ~CC MEETING-:f :,:.. ':(./ :'fi?:,'[: REQUEST'COMMENTS / · **REFERRAL TO .ASST. CITY 'MGR. ALAN CHRISTENSEN*** . CARSON REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO-THE POSSIBILITY /× '. '.'-'~--~'...,~',.. OF .TELEVISING .THE iCOUNCIL AGENDA (SCROLLING) .~/ -.. : " ON KGOV PRIOR .-TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO ALLOW · AsSigned -Department :"/~'J:-?CITY :MANAGER -' ', ' ' · -"' ': ' ' '. .,, .' ~', BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director /~~ DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018373 Thorner School Bike Path Staffspoke to Randy Holzclaw, construction superintendent for Turman Construction. Turman Construction is the contractor doing the grading for Tract 5929, which is located immediately west of Thomer School. Turman has started clearing and grubbing for the tract and has fenced off the entire site, including the bike path. The bike path is on a private easement for Bakersfield City Schools, so the City has not been a part of the negotiations for the closing and replacement of the path. Turman has consulted with Thomer School on this issue and agreed to construct a replacement for the bike path on the south side of Panorama Drive. The school sent out notices to the students in January telling them to use the alternate path provided by Turman, and they have hired an additional crossing guard to guide the children to the school. Still remaining to be done is to surface the replacement bike path with rock dust. This was requested by the school due to the rain. The contractor has assured the City that this surfacing will be placed this week. S:\COUNCIL\COUNCIL.REF\001837.wpd City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* · 'Y'~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF00 8373 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2 11 00 REQUEST'DATE: 2y009/0 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:39:06 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'l'~U<'i': ~Z09Z0~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: /21/0 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY. ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: SIDEWALK SAFETY ISSUE - THORNER SCHOOL REQUEST COMMENTS · **REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF REVIEW A SAFETY ISSUE AT THE PROPERTY FENCED OFF ON PANORAMA, WEST OF THORNER SCHOOL, WHICH PRECLUDES THE SCHOOL CHILDREN FROM WALKING ON AN ASPHALT PATH, AND OUT ONTO A NARROW SHOULDER. Job Order. Description: SIDEWALK SAFETY ISSUE - THORNER SCHOOL at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL ASsigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE / / FrOm: Alan Christensen To: Rhonda Smiley Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2000 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Referrals Due Maggard: 'Bob Trammell confirms that website has not been down. There are many reasons why the person complaining couldn't connect, including typing and incorrect address or hardware problems on the user end. Carson: Staff is transcribing the agenda to scroll across the screen for the CC meeting on the 23rd. CC: Bob Trammell; Mel Perry; Pam McCarthy City' of Bakersfield WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 ,REQ/JOB: WF0018372 ~/ 00l PROJECT: -~ ~DATE PRINTED: 2/.il/.00 ~.REQUEST. DATE: - 2/09/00 CREW: ' - ..... '." ! · :J -~ - ' ':TIME PRINTED: . - 9:39:15 "' ~: ?~" .~ SCHEDULE DATES LoCATIoN: ' . ' ' .... :. .' . . ~'r~_~'r: .: , z/.ll/.00 LOCATION ID: .... ZIP cODE: COMPLETION: ,~.. 2/21/00 GEN, LOC: .7 FACILITY NODES .. FROM: - : - : FACILITY 'ID - TO: ~:~' ' REQ DEPT:' ",'"CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL .-PRiORITy:..i REQUESTOR: ':'MAGGARD -:. .', ~-..': .... ",.. '..'..,..?. :.:.'~. '..:,: i:i ,:7 .?:i'. ORIGIN :"'::::,! ClTY-;'COUNCI~REFERRAL USER ID: ::RBARNHAR :'.':' '~.: :' :'h'.~. ?': '"i "::." '.' ': 'i. ":'WORK .:TYPE :"'-', 5 REFEr'i: .'?%':¢ ..:::' ::.':?":~::' DESCRIPTION: CITY WEB-PAGE ~:' '~ '~'.- ' -~. '... '"" '" ': ... '-:' "':;?.:<-~-"~.::-:?~%,~"-::~(':'/?~:.!:: ~i'::,':: '::/~ REQUEST CO ENTS ' · CH ' .,".- -.-'/ · ***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MGR, _ALAN: RISTENSEN*~ i~'.''× ' .., MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO RECENT '_ '.:. -' "_ '.'-~/ COMPLAINTS.REGARDING THE CITY!S WEB-PAGE BEING · ?: ..- .-... ,._ - . ~ · DOWN AND 'UNACCESSIBLE, ' '" ' ' .... : .... .' :.~ ' ..... . '. :': :,' :: : -' :~., · "',': / ~ ,:, '-~::k.'· ".'~' '. -~': :'.' .. ::..'.,-.:.L: ' ~ '_ . .,'~'...': -,~.'~ ' '.~:,:' ., ' · ,' .. ' ..:' · , Job Order '.De s crlpt ~on: :: CITY. WEB ~-'PAGE :.: '.:.J,-.~-,: .,,3.:~:. -. <: :.':. :3': -. :,. ::i?¢;,:.,...., .: ~::-:'- "-:',. 7:: :'::':-: ;..~. >:i" .¢'" "'. ·.3'~,-::: '' · · . -~ ..' : Category': .:,:':.::::.::..,. :" :?,.'.::...~. CITY . MANAGER . :. 3.',-:~.'.':.:; ;;~> :~ ¢....:,::~.--i. :'" .;:'>?::?~;!~':-:'?:" ?/k.~.i' ::.~..':?. '-~.i;.!-'~i':...'.-::~....:" ':'3.-~ "" 7" · ': "..: TaSk :..?.. :-: ~:~:;i:.'.5 7:':: :..~-.7....:~i:: ?.:.: RES PONSE --TO :REFERRAL ':- :!.,:i ;~.::~:i'.:: '? >:.. ?.?:Y?::::i:. '-:'!:-~/..:': '~. ~'' ::-:';i ?'... ~.:.~ 5.!,?,:. ,.'..~..~-i::,. ' :ASsigned. Depar'tm~nt ~' "?:. CITY. MANAGER · ¢ ../' ?-: :; ?~i:.:::i '/:.':?:." :-' :'- > ',7:~L-,.'''.' ..' '? ?i c. ' .'/...?..'.:'-?.': '~ ': :. START.. DATE, -. / / .... ".i/ ?' COMPLETION.DATE,: : :':' / ~:.. ':!".~. >'; .:~/'...:. ' · .~, -., ',:" '-.,'c.' .. j.'. *- ~ '. ' ': ....... ' -.,.:-:.-'-r.{'..:'. :' · ;'. ,:"-;:.:. ,'* , ? -.?,"'.".:.,;. ~-q-"c%.:2'... . :?' .'': .'?':"~ . "4' . · -: ....... · ,- - : ' '- . '- -. · c .' ..' ' - .:, ~ -' .- , ',--: ;... ~. z ': ,-, 57,.~ 5 -'" .L .... '::, , -~·., '..-.~ . ' ~ · BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ DATE: February 16, 2000 SUBJECT: INFORMAL REFERRAL (NO NUMBER), WARD 3, PARKING FOR SPECIAL EVENTS OR FUNERALS AT CHURCH NEAR BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. "COUNCILMAN MAGGARD REQUESTED THAT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF PARKING PROVISIONS AT UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH NEAR BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. STUDENTS PARKING ADJACENT TO CHURCH INTERFERE WITH PARKING NEEDS DURING SPECIAL EVENTS OR FUNERALS AT THE CHURCH." Students from Bakersfield College tend to park in open parking areas around the college area and on adjacent streets. This can cause problems with adjacent businesses and facilities in the area and their parking needs during the school day. Most students are parked for several hours while attending classes. The Traffic Engineer suggests that limited time parking could be designated by signs around the frontages of the church. The time limit' could be 2 hours, effective during the weekday from 8am to 5pm. This would eliminate most student parking and be of a sufficient time period for various services, such as funerals, being held at the church. To obtain City forms to request such limited time parking signs, the church administration may contact Stephen Walker, Traffic Engineer, at 326-3959. Copy of City parking request form is also attached. The current fee charged for these requests is $140. cc: Traffic Engineering File - Parking@ChurchNearBC.lnformal.ref. wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\Parking@ChurchNearBC.lnformal.ref. wpd ..... Page 1 of I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR SIGNING OR MARKING Name: Address: Phone: Hereby requests that 'appropriate Signing and/Or markings be installed to provide: (Check One) ~ 30 Minute Parking ~ 90 Minute Parking ~ 2 Hour Parking ~ LOading Zone ~ Handicap Parking ~ No Parking [~ Other ' At: (Street Address) SKETCH (Showing area of interest) I hereby certify that I am the owner or represent the owner of the adjacent property for which this request is made. Signature: Date: Fee Paid (14-52260) ~ Approved Work Date: By: r~ Not Approved Work Completed: Date: By: Remarks: B A K E R~S F I E L n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~/~~~' DATE: February 16, 2000 SUBJECT: INFORMAL REFERRAL (NO NUMBER), WARD 3, HANDICAP PARKING AT CENTENNIAL GARDEN. "COUNCILMAN MA GGARD REQUESTED THAT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF INVESTIGATE THE PROVISION OF VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING FOR THE CENTENNIAL GARDEN." Van accessible parking is available near the entrance to the Convention Center entrances and in the parking lot south of the Centennial Garden. Van accessible parking is also available in the County parking garage but there are height restrictions that prevent use by some high profile vans. The spaces near the Convention Center are not close to the entrances of the Centennial Garden entrances The south parking lot spaces are across from the railroad tracks, making their use less convenient. This creates some hardship for handicap patrons wishing to attend events at the Centennial Garden arena. A possible solution may be to establish more handicap parking spaces at the southwest corner of Truxtun and N Streets and provide two spaces on N Street, curbside, at the entrance to the County parking garage. This would provide more spaces that do not have a height restriction and be closer to the two main entries to the Centennial Garden arena. The Traffic Engineer will be verifying that the locations are appropriate and then install signs and markings for the spaces, cc: Traffic Engineering File - HandicapParking.informal.Ward3.ref. wpd , slw: P:\DATA\VVP\1999\HandicapParking.informal. Ward3.ref. wpd ~-' Page 1 of I BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager FROM: RAUL R©JAS, Public Works Director DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: State Route 178 at Alfred Harrell Highway/Comanche Road At the City Council meeting last week, Councilmember Maggard requested a status regarding the realignment of Comanche Road with Alfred Harrell Highway and the installation of a traffic signal at the resulting intersection. This project is budgeted this fiscal year. Survey work has been completed, the roadway design has been completed and plans and specifications are currently being I:,repared. Legal descriptions for the needed street right-of-way for the new Comanche Road alignment have been prepared and negotiations with the property owner whose property the new alignment will cross have been completed. Based on these negotiations, an agreement swapping the existing street right-of-way for the new street right-of- way has been prepared and sent to the property owner and is awaiting his execution, which is anticipated for this week. Staff is also pursuing completion of a cooperative agreement with Caltrans, also a coctributing party to these improvements along with the County. Bidding of the project is anticipated for late April or early May with construction following in early summer. cc: Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager tdw:S:~TED~2000memo\O21500at.wpd l ' :' BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 16, 2000 TO: Councilmember Couch FROM: John W. Stins~,~s~sis~nt City Manager SUBJECT: Referrals dated 2~9~00 The following are staff responses to the referrals made by you on 2/9/00. #1 Question: Concern by Darlene Fugitt regarding towing of vehicle. Response: I spoke with Mrs. Fugitt and she indicated she was towed from a privately owned parking lot. She was aware that it was posted and understood why she was towed away. I explained that it was a civil matter between her and the property owner (not city owned) and did not involve the city.' She said she did not want to pursue the matter further and appreciated the response. #2 Question: Your attendance at Investing Public Funds workshop in Anaheim, March 9-10. Response: Rhonda Smiiey has made arrangements for your attendance. Trudy Slater will be rescheduling the Legislative and Litigation meeting scheduled for March 9th per your request. #3 Question: Letters in support of Liberty High School grant application for all weather track. Response: Letters have been sent by the Mayor, yourself and City Manager Alan Tandy. Copies are attached. #4 Question: Beltway concept for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. Response: The Public Works Department has sent this material to Kerncog to be included in the consultants review of alternatives per your request. 'Councilmember Couch February 17, 2000 · Page 2 #5 Question: Telstar Engineering Parcel Map Waiver. Response: Public Works has prepared a response to Mr. Moreland to clarify this matter. The letter is attached. #6 Question: Letter from Berkshire Properties (Haberfeld Building) regarding telecommunications buildings in the downtown. Response: This item was referred to the Urban Development Committee by the Council at the February 9th Council meeting. #7 Question: Letter from Michael Callagy regarding sump fence for Sonic Drive-in at Rosedale and El Toro. Response: Public Works and the City Attorney have prepared a response which is being sent under separate cover. #8 Question: Letter from Aneta Adams regarding traffic congestion. Response: This was referred to the Traffic division per your request for review. They have prepared a memo in response to concerns expressed by Ms. Adams, which is attached. The Traffic Engineer has contacted Ms. Adams and will prepare a written response to her. A copy will be provided to you when it is completed. #9 Question: Letter from attorney Kenneth W. Kind regarding proposed South Beltway alignment. Response: This was referred to the City Attorney and Public Works Department. They have prepared responses which are attached. #10 Question: Phone message from Kathy Murotani regarding police patrol and traffic enforcement in her neighborhood. Response: The Police Department has contacted Ms, Murotani and prepared a response. David R. Couch Second Vice President-Investments Financial Consultant SALOMON SMITH BARNEY ~.~7.9~, 800-421-2171 O ' SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC. 5000 California Ave., Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711 Fax 661-327-9417 Sent By,:.L[BFI~TY HZGH; 8055871299; Feb-l-O0 13:22; Page 1/2 , __ ,. , ~~ 00 FEB -I p;!'L~tJ~ERTY SCHOOL Transmittal~"~ F~..... L.~ ci ~-':F CLE ~ ~{ Ba~gd, C4 933~2 F~ (66I) ~7.I299 To: From: Phone number:( )_ Date sent: 2 - / - O0 Number of pa~es Includln~ cover pale: ~ ~' P O0 g 0 Rt GINAL}~ ~ If you do not receive ~ pages of thefax, please e~l (661) 587-092S. Sent Bye: LIBERTY HIGH; 8055871299; ':" Feb-1-00 13:22; Page 2/2 ; : LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL KE...,G" Sc.oOL o,sm, cT BOARD OF TRUSTEES 925 JEWF. TTA AVenUE J. Bryan Ba~/ BAKERSFIELD. CALIFO. R/qlA Be~ J. Haml~=~ 9~312 ~ Heln~hs (661) 5~7.0~25 · Conn~ Waaenba~ger F~.x (661) $a7-1299 KAREN E. CHRISTIANSEN[ PRINCIPAL ~ suPERINTENDENT W~am D. H~d~ January 28, 2000 To: Supervisor David Couch From: Karen Chrisfiansen, Principal Liberty High School Re: Request for Letter of Support for Tire Recycling Grant Applieation Liberty High School of the Kern High School District is applying to the California Integrated Waste Management Board to receive $25,000 indiseretioi~ax:Y grant funds for a Track Surfacing Grant. Discretionary grant~ are awarded, on a competitive basis for a variety of activities associated with the proper disposal of tires and 6ther recycl'mg materials. The Kern High School District hag always taken the lead in disposing of paper, cardboard, motor oil, and tire rubber, through many reeyelinff, programs here ia Kern County. : The grant application is requesting $25,000.i~ funding to help purchase and install a rubberized all weather track on the stadium facility, now under consiruction. This all weather track would greatly benefit the students, parents, and the community at large, since it would be the first all weather'track ia the Kern High School!DiStrict. Liberty High School is requesting that you furnish us with.a letter s/ating your support of the grant application. In order for us to submit the application package by the required deadline of February 16, 2000, please submit your letter adth an original signature and we will come by to pick it up by February 14, 2000. In the'letter, please mention that you support local projects that use recycled materials, and specifically liow the all weather track project would enhance our community and city. Please use yOUr official iletterhead. I sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this effort, and I hope yoi~ can provide a letter of support for this project. I'll be in contact!with you to arrange a time to collect the letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 587-0925. 'Thanks so much! i( R.OOR ORtGINAL ?I Karen Christiansen Principal, Liberty High School Subject: BELTWAY CONCEPT FOR THE BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA THIS IS A VERY EXCITING MOMENT FOR US TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (REPP) A BELTWAY CONCEPT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND EVALUATION. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR SOME TIME. IT CONTINUED AFI'ER THE WORK DONE FOR THE DBA ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAD 'A SMALL TEAM OF FOUR PEOPLE AND PRODUCED THE LARGE PHOTOGRAPH OF ALL THE POSSIBLE TRANSPORTATION FUTURES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES, ON A SERIES OF ACETATE OVERLAYS. THESE INTEGRATED SUGGESTIONS FOR DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION AND PARKING WITH SUPERBLOCKS, LOCAL BUS SHUTTLE, GET TRANSIT ROUTES, MAJOR ARTERIALS FOR THE NORTH/SOUTH AND EAST/WEST CONNECTORS, SUGGESTIONS FOR PARKWAYS, INCLUDED SEVEN ALTERNATE EAST/WEST FREEWAY ROUTES. WE ALSO SUGGESTED FOUR ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE HIGH SPEED RAIL STATION, AND A POSITION FOR A FUTURE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER WHICH WOULD CONNECT AND DISTRIBUTE ALL THESE TRANSPORTATION MODES THROUGHOUT METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD. SINCE THEN WE HAVE WITH KARL DAVISSON'S SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE COMMITTED THESE. THOUGHTS TOGETHER ON A COMPUTER GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM CALLED ARCVIEW. THE MAP WE ARE GOING TO DISTRIBUTE TO YOU TODAY IS AN INITIAL HANDOUT. WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE SOMETHING TO REFLECT UPON AND DELIBERATE FOR A SECOND WORKSHOP TOGETHER. KEN HERSCH CHAIR OF THIS VISION COMMITTEES TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE IS SUGGESTING __WE_ D.__NE~_SD_~_A~_Y~9TM FEB 2000. ALL THOSE INTERESTED ARE WELCOME. IT IS HERE THAT WE WILL HAVE A LARGE MAP ON WHICH TO RECORD YOUR EXPRESSIONS OF CORRECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE FOR DEBATE. HOPEFULLY SOME OF THESE IDEAS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED STUDY ABOUT TO BE STARTED BY KCOG, KERN COUNTY AND CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. THE BELTWAY CONCEPT KEYS ARE THE FOLLOWING: - 1.0 THE ACHIEVEMENT OF A REGIONAL EAST/WEST FREEWAY CONNECTED FROM HWY 58 TO HWY99, TO INTERSTATE 5 AND HWY 101. 2.0 THE APPLICATION OF ALL CURRENT S.T.I.P. FUNDS WITH SUGGESTED PHASING 3.0 THE BELTWAY FREEWAY AND CONNECTIONS TO ALL REGIONAL ROADWAYS BECOME "GATEWAYS" TO GREATER BAKERSFIELD 4.0 THE DIAGONAL PARKWAY 5.0 THE MAJOR NORTH/SOUTH AND EAST/WEST ARTERIALS 6.0 THE FREEWAY TO FREEWAY, FREEWAY TO ARTERIAL AND PARKWAY TO ARTERIAL INTERCHANGES THE BELTWAY ADVANTAGES ARE THE FOLLOWING; .- 1.0 BELTWAY IS THE STARTING AND ENDING POINT FOR MAJOR INTERIOR ARTERIALS 2.0 THE INTERIOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OFFERED BY THE BELTWAY FOR ALL CITIZENS IS EQUITABLE 3.0 THE BELTWAy PROVIDES CERTAINTY FOR URBAN DEVELOPERS, REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND GOVERNMENT, FOR PLACEMENT OF SUBDIVISIONS AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS WITH GOOD FREEWAY ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS. 4.0 THE LAND AREA CONTAINED WITHIN THE BELTWAY ADEQUATELY SATISFIES THE 2010-2020 POPULATION BUILDOUT FORECASTS. IT ENABLES EASIER ACCESS, WITH LESS CONGESTION. 5.0 IT OFFERS A SPEEDY BYPASS FOR TRAVELLERS TO GO EAST/WEST AROUND BAKERSFIELD TO THE NORTH. THIS IS THE HISTORICAL AND PREFERRED TRUCKERS ROUTE 6.0 THE PERIMETER AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BELTWAY COULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR UNIQUE CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL USES. 7.0 THE BELTWAY PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE BEGINNINGS OF A UNIQUE SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY METROPOLITAN AREA. 8.0 THE BELTWAY WILL ANSWER THE NEED FOR A DEFINITE LONG-TERM VISION TO MARKET. A GOOD .LIVING. AREA FOR FUTURE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY SETTLEMENT PATTERNS. 9.0 THE BELTWAY CONNECTS LAMONT, ARVIN, SHAFTER AND WASCO. IT ALSO SERVES MCFARLAND AND DELANO. THE PARKWAY CONNECTS KERNVILLE THROUGH BAKERSFIELD TO TAFT 10.0 THE NETWORK SERVES THE DOWNTOWN, THE AIRPORT AND OUR INLAND HARBOR, AND IS COMPARABLE IN LENGTH TO THE SUGGESTED SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BYPASSES. BUTTONWILLOW IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BAKERSFIELD IS THE "BELLY BUTTON" OF CALIFORNIA. THIS BELTWAY CONCEPT SUGGESTS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO MAKE HWY 58 A MAJOR YEAR ROUND EAST/WEST LINK FROM BARSTOW TO SAN LUIS OBISPO. THE BELTWAY CONCEPT BETTER SERVES THE WHOLE METRO AREA. 2/3/2000 637 WORDS LEGEND "-. BELTWAY CONCEPT [ ~ I P~E 2B {GOLDEN ST) I'%1 KERN CYN 178 ~ ~ ~ ~; BEL~AY INTERCHANGES ~ ~ EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGES ~ ~DMARKS · . ~ ROADS , ~ ~IS~NG FREEWAYS PHASE 5 LAMONT 5. 0 5 Miles N BELTWAY CONCEPT -. (-. TO US101 ,,~ % LEGEND ~P BY ~RL OAVlSSON ~ ~ ~ BEL~AY ~ ~KES ~000 EXPRESSWAY ~ , / KERN RIVER FACTS: DATA SOURCES: BEL~AY I~p length ~ miles ~ ~ ~:' PROPOSED 178 COUNTY LINES ~RL DA~SSON ~WNTOWN BUSINESS ~C, INTENT: ~ ~ISTING FREEWAYS ~ Kern -~SION COMMI~EE 1)To remove Interstate Track ~c from Io~1 roads. ~ Cl~ OF ~KERSFIELD ~ VALL~ WIDE GtS 2) To eff~tively deal ~ tra~c gr~ ~rough ~t metro~litan Bakersfield over ~ 20 years, ROADS ' ~RCOG 3) To link all of the communizes of Kern Count. ~ COUN~ OF KERN ~ ~ ~BUSI INC. 25 0 25 50 Miles ~ I ~ ]' J DATA 1998-2000 FF_.]3 ~ 14:22 TF_.LSTp~ ENG. ]'NC 8..~5-3,:?.?'-S283 P..I/3 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM1;-~ tS0! TRUXTU~ A~ENUE BAKF. R$I~pl :' (661) 326-3'/24 January 26, 2000 ......................... TELSTAR EI,,TG~RING 5301 Oflic, Park Drive, Suite 125 · This is in response to your for the subdivision boundaries to be located on the centexline of the streets and alley. Discussions with r~resenrarives from. ~ City AtScn-ncy's'offic~and:thc City's Pr°pcl't~ Manager a/fumed thc presumption tha~, unless otherwise excluded, an owner of land bounded by a street or alley is pr~umed to own to the cenmr. The tbllowing addresses~your concan'~ in.the ozder ill which they wer~ presented. ": 1. "it is nor consistent with the Chain.of Title." Blgwq's Bou0darY Control and Legal-Descriptions,_Eourth Edition, S~Ction 8.5 states 'M metes and bounds de. scriprion having a road as a boundary musz be written to ~ositively e~elude tl~e road; otherv~e, Jn those cases where the grantor owns the bed of the ~itle to the center of the road, subject only to the public easement." The position is consistent with Chain of Title unless you have cvidmc¢ a previous con. veyanc~ ~cluded 2. "It you put the ownersMp of the prop~y into the middle of the street, it may incur furore liability to prol:~rry owners that they do not pr~ca~ntly h:We.''· ' How would a prop~'v./owner, incur more liabflit3' for 3. "It may create future problems On the contrary, it would seem to eliminst~ al~y future problems by not Icaning on pr~maptiom but by being vea'y specific conch-ming thc int~adons of any lcgal de..~criptions for thc proposed parcels. As they are worded now, the adjacent streets and alley ate - cleflnit~ly exclude, d, bringing up the question of what happens to the o~ncrship of those abutting areas. There. fore, unless otherwise speci~cally e~cluded and made utilize the presumption.cited above. We thank you for your interest, and we hop~ that this.clarifies the City's position and policy in this S:kLand Division\Minor Land Div\pmw~99-0952 bdy Itr.wpd ' ' Parcel Map Waiv'e~. No. P~9-0952. ... " January 26, 2000 :." :'~ You may contact eith~' Mariaa Shaw (66'1) 326,,3579e~t' ~ Crtaves (661) 326-3780 i~'you have any ~.:~ va.,/trub, youts. . ':~ 2720 18~ 5~ 218 So. ~ S~ ~m 203 . .~ ' B~fiel~ C~ 93301 B~a~ ~ 933~ ~ :.. S:~Land Division~tLnor Land Div~pmw\P99-0952 bdy ltr.v4x;I " January 31, 2000 ? telstar acques engineering Department of Public Works : '." City of' Bakersfield ' inc .. 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301' : Re: PMW P99-0952 : Dear Jacques: ., · Reference is made =o your letter of January 26, 2000, in which you waffle on your position. You say to me in Item 3, "In this regard, " you .may want to rewrite the legal descriptions for the proposed i; .'? parcels". This "regard,' in your letter is your requirement.to show ~i 'i~:~. the proper~y lines at the center of the street. '!'!~ Jacques, if~you, are.giving .me a.n option, I choose to follow the recorded map, the' ~itle::.repor~,. and' the chain-of title to prepare the PMW map and legal descriptions. Basically, this would be per '~ our original submi~ta!, with the proper~y lines (block lines) being the right-of-way' line of the' s~reet., ' DO you require me to show 6~e property lin~s at the middle of the ~'! streets on the PMW map and the legal descriptions in order to ..~. record this map? Please advise your requirements as soon as possible so I can -Sincerely,C°mple~e this job. TELSTAR ENGINEERING, INC. Carl R. Moreland .' CaM/Zp \corr\ 2iaroche!le. 186 5301 office park drive' ~ suite 125 bakem§eld, california 93309 .. .. ~ FAX: 327-3283 -' engineering planning surveying 02/81/2888 14:57 80~3278747 BERKSHIRE P~GE 01 HABERF DE BUILDING BEKKSHIRE P[OPE~TIES INC. .' 1706 Ch~ter ~v~. · Bak{r~fi~ld, ~ 9~01 · (805) ~g · F~ (805) ~27-8747 2505 'M' St. Bakersfield, CA 93301 January 27, 2000 City of .B.Bak'ersfield 1715-Chester Avenue ~a~ersfield, Califomia 93301 Re: Parcel Map 0377, Agreement 98-127 Sonic on Rosedale Highway Dear Ms. Shaw:. This correspondence will form our formal request to defer the construction of the south and east sump fences on this project. Per Councilaman Couch's request, we are providing the attached letter, agreeing to install the fences to City standards should PG&E remove the fence and not replace it. , It is my understanding that this request will need to be heard by the City Council. Please advise as to the eadiest date this may occur. Respectfully, CORN~EI~TONE ~/EI~,RING, INC. RCE 36214, Expires 6/00 LC 5556, Expires 9/01 MJC:slk cc: Councilman David Couch ." Consumer Science Corporation CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING 2505 'M' St. Bakersfield. CA 93301 Janua~ 19,2000 City of Bakersfield Department of Engineering 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Re: Sonic Drive--In, Rosedale at E! Toro, Sump Fence Gentlemen: Please:be advised that the undersigned developer,, does hereby agree to install a chain-link fence with redwood slats, per City of Bakersfield standards, on the south and east sides of the Cai Trans/City of Bakersfield drainage sump on this project, should PG&E remove the existing'fence and not replace it. Respectfully, CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING, INC. CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION Scott A. Md~!..il!an RCE 36214, Expires 6/00 LC 5556, Expires 9/01 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING Telephone (805) 325-9474 FAX (805) 322-0129 2505 'M" St. t !'? " ..................... ~, ,!-~ ......... Bakersfield, CA 93301 ,,.i'~~ 31 , ,~ '-~i i ' ............................ _ '-~' .... ~'x~ ~./~ .... ' ........... DAVID COUCH .5000 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, #100 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 01/28/00 FRI 11:46 FAX 1 661 328 1800 ARRACHE, CLARK, & POTTER ~001 ARRACHE, CLARK & · Attorneys at Law 4800 Easton Drive, Suit~,l~4~:~'¥~L~ Bakersfield, CA 93309-9424 JUAN ~, AmtACHE, J~ Telephone (t94~99o) (661) 328-1800 THOMAS S. CLARK DAVID B, POTTER (661) 328-0380 Paralegal ' FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Councilman David Couch COMPANY: Bakersfield City Council FAX NO.: 323-3780 FROM: Ane~ L. Adams, CIA SUBJECt. Traffic Congestion DATE: January 23, 2000 NtqVIBER OF PAGES (including this page): 3 A HARD COPY WILL XXX 01l WILL NOT FOLLOW THIS FACSIMILE. MESSAGF~ NOTICE: This page and the other documents included in this facsimile transmission contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or the takin~ of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received tiffs facsimile jn error, please notify us at (661) $28.1800 immediately. We are transmittin~ on a Canon FAX-5500. If you do not receive any or nil of the pages, please call ANETA ADAMS at Arrache, Clark & Potter at (651) $2~-1S00. Thank yOU. 01/28/00 FRI 11:46 FAX 1 661 328 1800 & POTTER Dean & Aneta Adams 12800 Overton Street Bakersfield, CA 93312 January28, 2000 VIA FAX & U. S. MAIl. Mr. David Couch Councilman, 4th Ward Bakersfield City Council 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakerdield, CA 93301 RE: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES Dear Mr. Couch: On Wednesday evening, January 26, 2000, my husband and I watched the televised presentation to the City Council of the various alternatives for alleviating traffic congestion through, new freeways/parkways.. The point was m~de that additional study of the problem and potential solutions were necessary before proce~i,g. I couldn't agree morei In one very important area, however, the City is getting the cart before the horse. We really don't know how much traffic flows could be improved i~ we simply synchronized all the traffic signals on all the main thoroughfares ia Bakersfield. This subject was ~tever addressed on Wednesday evening. I can only assume that it was never part of any study. WHY NOT? Anyone who has done any amount of driving in Bakersfield knows that synchron;-ation of tr=rdlc signals in thin town is still ilmost non-existent. Los Angeles and San Francisco have used this technology for years. If you drive the speed limit On Hollywood Way in the San Fernando Valley, you can get {rom Sun Vaney to Toluca Lake without ever having to stop. The same is true for downtown San Francisco. Yet, no matter what speed you drive, you cannot drive east or west on Rosedale Highway, Stockdale Highway, Ming Avenue, or White Lane without having to stop at many, ff not, all the signalsl! Synchroni=ition o{ trafqlc signals is like a parkway, without having to build one!! My f.~,~ily has lived in Bakersfield since 1979. Over this 20-year-period, I have had innumerable conversations with city traffic engineers on this subject. One response which I received was that it was not possible to synchronize certain sig~_~Is to achieve traffic flows because k would inconvenience certai,~ politically powerful residents! 01/28/00 FR! 11:47 FAX ! 661 328 1800 ARRA( & 00g Mr, David Couch RE: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES January 28, 2000 Page Two The traffic engineers must still be afraid of offendi-g the politically powerful. If that is not the case, I would cerr,;-17 like to know why thi_~ obvious measure to improve traffic flows has been ignored for so long. We have the funds to put video cameras on every major intersection in town to catch people who nm red lights. I'm surprised that no one thought that ff people weren't forced to stop at every signal, they might not nm as many red lights! If the money for video cameras had been invested in the technolog7 for synchronizing the traff/c signals, the people of Bakersfield would have been better served. Mr. Couch, would you please address this issue and have it added to the traffic study which was approved at the City Council hearing on January 26, 2000? If there is anything that my husband or I could do to help in this matter, please let us know. I can be reached during the week at my office at 328-1800, or at home at 588-3717. Yours .very truly, (.~,/ANETA L. ADAMS ~ JAN-31-00 M0N 11'09 AM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 6615872070 P. Kenneth W. Kind Attorney at Law 4042 Patton Way · Bakersfield, CA 93308 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET DATE: January 31, 2000 Please Deliver The Following Pages To: ~AME: BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEMB~~~ .~ --~"-J~ FAX NUMBER: 323-3780 '~ FROM: KENNETH W. KIND TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE): 4 RE: South Beltway Alignment ENCLOSURE: SENDING OPERATOR: JULIE OPERATOR'S PHONE NUMBER: (661) 587-5463 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE OPERATOR' S PHONE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. KARD COPY: WILL FOLLOW BY UNITED STATES MAIL. W~LL FOLLOW SY X WILL NOT FOLLOW (UNLESS R~QUESTED) This facsimile is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this lax is not =he intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemlnazlon or copying of this fax is prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please notify us by telephone. Thank you. Phonc: 661.587.5463 Fax: 661.587.2070 email: kenklnd~worldnet, att.net JAN-B1-00 MON ll'10 AM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 6615872070 P. 2 Kenneth W. Kind Attorney at Law 4042 Patton Way Bakersfield, CA 93308 January 31, 2000 VIA TELECOPIER ONLY BAKERSFIELD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Proposed South Bel~wa¥ Alignment/Hosking Road Ladies and Gentlemen: As I advised during the last Planning Commission hearing on this subject, I represent landowners directly affected by the proposed South Beltway Alignment that goes down Hosking Road. Recently, in processing a proposed tentative map, staff has required a disclosure that the City is still considering a South · , Beltway Alignment that goes down Hosking Road. I have been further advised that this alignment will be considered at the City Planning Co~nission hearing on February 3, 2000. At the last Planning Commission hearing, the residents directly affected by the Eosking Road alignment were told, unequivocally, by the Planning Commission that they need not attend the next hearing and that the consideration of a South Beltway Alignment down Hosking Road is "off the table" The residents had been told once before that the Hosking Road alignment was no longer under consideration and then the alignment was resurrected and presented to the Commission as the preferred alternative. When the residents were told the first ~ime that the Hosking Road alignment was no longer under consideration and then told at the last minute that they had to Phone: 661.587.5463 Fax: 661.587.2070 email: kenkind~worldnet, att.net JAN-31-O0 MON i1'10 AM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 6615872070 P. 3 BAKERSFIELD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 31, 2000 Page 2 attend the Planning Commission hearing because the Commission was, in fact, on staff recommendation, considering the Hosking Road alignment, they lost much faith in ~he credibility of the .political process. If we have to con~ac~ the several hundred residents who attended the earlier Planning Commission hearing and advise them that once again they must attend the hearing to protest even thoUgh they had been told, without reservation, they did not have to, I can predict a disgruntled, angry and very disappointed citizenry. Not only were they told they did not have to appear, but they have been given no additional notice a hearing is going forward considering an alignment through their neighborhood. The purpose of my correspondence is two-fold: 1. The City of Bakersfield issue something in writing available ~o.property owners affected by the Hosking Road alignment that the Hosking Road alignment is no longer under consideration by the City of Bakersfield; or 2. The hearing presently set for February 3, 2000 be continued to allow the affected citizens time to rearrange their schedules so they may attend the Planning Commission hearing, once more, to make their views on this alignment known. In my opinion, any consideration of a Hosking Road alignment without a re-notice of the hearing to affected property owners will be invalid due to the notice requirements. Please do not make me contact these citizens once more and advise that they need to attend the Planning Commission hearing because the Hoskin9 Road alignment is being considered. JAN-31-00 MON Ii'11 AM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 6615872070 P, 4 BAKERSFIELD CITY PLANNING CO~MI£SION January 31, 2000 Page 3 Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KWK:jh C: Carl Hernandez, Esq. via telecopier Bakersfield City Attorney's Office Bakersfield Public Works via telecopier Bakersfield City Council Member~ via telecopier I February.8; 2000 .. "Fo W:hom It MaY Concern: It is my understanding that Liberty High School is applying to the California. Integrated Waste Management Board for a $25,000 discretionary grant for track surfacing. As Mayor of Bake~field, I would encourage you to give serious consideration to this request. It codainly is a ~ood uso of rocyc~inO material, as well as a benefit to tho health and education of tho many students who will bo usin~ tho track. A~ain, please ~ivo them sodous consideration and a favorable decision. Mayor BP/ndw 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661)326-3770 · Fax (661) 326-3779 ~E-mail address: mayor@ci.bakersfiald.ca, us BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL February 14, 2000 Bob Price Mo7or Irma Carson Wwe.Mayor w,.-~ ~ To Whom It May Concern: Patricia DeMond I have been informed that Liberty High School is applying to the California w,~2 Integrated Waste Management Board for a $25,000 discretionary grant to be used for track surfacing. Mike Maggard w,~a3 As the City Councilmember representing Ward 4 in Bakersfield where the Da~4a Couch school is located, I request your earnest consideration towards their request. w..-~4 This is a good use of recycling material and, at the same time, will be of great benefit to Liberty High School and the students who use the facility. Randy Rowles W. rdS I ask that you review this application favorably by awarding the grant to Jacquie Sullivan Liberty High School. Ward6 Mark Salvaggio Sincerely, Ward7 David Couch Councilmember, Ward 4 DC:rs 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661) 326-3767 · Fax (661) 323-3780 BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager February 14, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: It is my understanding that Liberty High School is applying to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a $25,000 discretionary grant for track surfacing. As the City Manager of Bakersfield, I support this grant application and ask that you give favorable consideration to the school's request. It would not only benefit the students and the school, but it promotes the good use of recycling material. I urge you to view this request favorably and award the grant to Liberty High School. Sincerely, AT:rs City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050 B A K E.R $ F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO TELSTAR ENGINEERING LETTER (Council Referral WF 0018379) The attached letter is in response to correspondence by Telstar Engineering regarding Parcel Map Waiver P99-0952. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-3?24 PAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR * CITY ENGINEER February 15, 2000 Telstar Engineering, Inc. 5301 Office Park Drive, Suite 125 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Attn: Carl Moreland .... RE: PARCEL MAP WAIVER P99-0952 Dear Mr. Moreland: We are in receipt of your January 31, 2000 correspondence regarding Parcel Map Waiver P99- 0952. In the letter, you state that I "...waffle on my position.". Your statement is in regard to a January 26, 2000 letter in which the words "...you may..." were used with respect to rewriting legal descriptions. I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred with the statement. I was merely trying to present it in a courteous manner. I would like, at this time, to clarify my position on this matter. Property ownership in which you are subdividing extends to the centerline of the road. In that regard, you must include that portion of the street within the subdivision boundary. I hope this clarifies my position on this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me at 326-3574 should you have any questions. Very truly yours, Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director by' r'~") ~'~-- /r~. J~~~~-~ ~~~aRochelle, / / F_aag'inee_ri. ng Services Manager, City Surveyor Maria. n. S_haw Darrell Graves ' City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018379 /. 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTEDi 2~11~00' REQUEST DATE: 2/09/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:38:33"- SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: . · S'I'~U~T: Z~09~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 2./16/00 FACILITY NODES GEN. LOC: FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: TELSTAR ENGINEERING CORRESPONDENCE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** COUCH REQUESTED STAFF RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM TELSTAR ENGINEERING REGARDING PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. P99-0. COPY OF LETTER AVAILABLE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: TELSTAR ENGINEERING CORRESPONDENCE Catggory: PUBLIC WORKS Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE '/ / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ : , ., , ~. -. · . B A K £R $ F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTbIENT J~u~ 26. 2~0 ...................... 5301 ~ P~ D~v~, S~ 125 ~ - - ~, :..~ ~ ~ ~ r~ m ~ ~ of J~ ~, 2~, ~ ~ ~a took ~n m ~e r~~t for ~e su~ion ~~ W ~ 1~ ~ &e ~e'of~c ~ ~d ~. ~iom ~ ':~ ~~v~ ~ ~c Ci~ A~'s'offi~ ~d ~ ~'s'~o~ ~ a~ ~e p~pfion 1. ~I~ i, ~r mn~i,~t ~ ~* ~.ofTifl~' Bmr', Boun~ Consol ~d ~ D~pfio~, Fo~ E~fion. S~fion 8.5 ~ ,~ m,t~ ~ bou~ c~ ~here the ~tor ow~ t~ bed of th, P~, tt w~ll b, ~r~d ~t the conv~a~* int~ to conv~ ~ m ~e c,nter of the r~d s~bjact only to ~, ~ubl~ ~ent. " ~e poh~on ~ ~n~i~t ~ C~ of .' Tide ~s you ~ve e~d~c~ a pre. om ~nve~ ~cl~ ~ ro~ ~.~ 2. ,,~you pu~ ~e o~p of ~e pm~ ~o ~ ~ of~e sm~ it ~y ~ ~chab~* w. ~:.~ pr~ om~ ~ ~ ~ not ~fl~ m *. ' How wo~d a ~] o~ inc~ moro ~B' f~ · ~Ii~Y ~n~ ~x~y ~ ~t ro~y ~e 3. ~It may ~t. ~ ~bl~ ~ ~ ~ ofTiflq wh~ non~ ~ ~fo~ 7o~ ~t~mmfion." ... On ~e con~, it would ~ to elimi~m ~y ~ ~bl~ by ~t l~niqg on p~p~o~ but by v~ ~ific ~ncm~g ~e ~o~ of~y ~ conv~, h ~ rc~ ~u ~y w~t to m~m Ic~ ~pfio~ for ~ ~s~ p~ls. ~ ~e7 ~e word~ now, ~c adj~t s~ ~d ~ey ~ · ".~.~, ~fini~ly ~xclu~, b~g ~ ~e q~fi~ of what ~p~ m ~e o~e~hip of~ose abu~ng ~. , u~ ~ pr~gfion ci~ above. '~ -, We ~k 7ou for yo~ ~t~h ~d ~e ~p, ~t ~scl~fi~ ~e Ci~'~ p~ifion ~d ~licy ~ ~is ~ ,. · m~. ~ '..~ S:~Land Division\Minor Land Div\pmw~P99-43952 bdy I1;r.~pd ' :: Parcel Map Wai.v-e~ No. P99-0952. :~t:. January 26, 2000 You may conlact ~ith~r Marian Shaw (66'1) 326.3579or Darrel Cnav~ (661) 326-3780 ii'you hav.~ any ::. ' City Engi=~ ~ .; : ~ 2720 18*Str~t 2,18$o.I-IS=eet,.Suim203 ::"[. Bako'sfiold, Ca. 93301 Bak~'sfiold, Ca. 93304 SN.and Dlvision~'mr Land Divkotnw~99-0952 txly ~.wIxt ".,'; " january 31, 2000 · telstar MX'. Jacques R. LaRochel!e , engineering Department of Public WQrks .': City of' Bakersfield ' inc :15 0 1 Tr~ctun Avenue . Bakersfield, CA 93301' . Re: PMW P99-0952 Pile No. 99£186 Dear Jacques: ., :... Reference is made to your latter of January 26 2000, in which you i' . :...; waffle on your position. You say'to me in Item 3, "In this regard, you may want to rewrite the legal descriptions for the proposed .. parcels" This "regard" in your letter is your requirement to show the property lines at the center of the street . recorded map, the title report, and the chain of title =o prepare the PMW map and legal descriptions. Basically, this would be per our original submit~a!, with the proDer~y 'lines (blo.ck lines) being the right-of-way line of the s~reet., Do you require me to show ~e property lines at the middle of the streets on the PMW map and the legal descriptions in order to.::~' record this map? Please advise your requirements as soon as possible so I can ::.~ complete this job. ,, Sincerely, ~ " TELST;~R ENGINEERING, INC. Carl R- Moreland · \corr\21aroche!le. 186 5.301 office park ;Iriv~' u- suite 125 .'~ " bakersfield, caih'cx~a 93309 · (661)327-5043 ..:.. .- FAX: 327-3283 - ' engineering planning .. surveying MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK'PRODUCT PRIVILEGES February 16, 2000 t ,5'e_,~ c,/~o'~_,--- TO: HONORABLE MAyoR AND COUNClLMEMBERSr FROM' . ALAN D. DANIEL, Deputy City Attorney ~-"----1 RAUL ROJAS, Public Works Directof--~~ ...... SUBJECT: Council Referral (Couch) Letter from Cornerstone Engineering Sonic on Rosedale Highway Consumer Science Corporation (Sonic) and the City of Bakersfield entered into Contract No. 98-126 on June 10, 1998. The contract was approved by the City Council and signed by the president of Sonic Burger. The contract requires: a. In section 2.1 that Sonic comply with all City and state requirements for development of the new sump parcel at Sonic's sole expense; ... b. In section 2.4 that Sonic design and construct a new sump and associated drainage facilities (improvements) that conform to City and Caltrans specifications at Sonic's sole cost and expense .... c. Section 4 of the agreement states the improvements shall be installed and constructed in accordance with all of the following: ... Section 4.4 "Adopted City Standards." Sonic has constructed a fence on the north and west side of the sump which does conform ,to City standards. The south and east sides of the sump have an existing fence placed by Pacific Gas & Electric at some time in the past. Sonic wishes to use the PG&E fence rather than install another fence to City standards. The PG&E fence is in disrepair and there is at least one large hole on the south side plus missing fence posts. There is no footing and it would simple for any~o_~_e~0_.gain access under the fence. The fence has no slats and appears to be smallerr~a,'.=,~it~y':;~.,~ required gauge. The City standards (attached) require footings, and slatS. In~'d~'~6--i~, tl~,e-~-~-- HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS February 16, 2000 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 City cannot legally maintain the fence belonging to PG&E. The letter from Sonic (Cornerstone Engineering) offers to install the fence in the future "... should PG&E remove the fence and not replace it." The fence could literally collapse from lack of maintenance and Sonic would not be required to replace said fence. A fence is required for safety purposes. The City will have a large potential liability should any accident occur at the sump. Without fencing that meets City standards the plaintiff's liability argument becomes much easier. Once we accept the sump and the surrounding fence, Sonic will argue it has no further liability to the City. The City alone will face the responsibility of a substandard fence. In addition, the approved plans show a slope easement on the south and east sides of the sump. The sump top is 1 to 2.5 feet lower than the PG&E property. This slope was to occur within the slope easement. Instead, there is now a vertical cut (see the attached photos) that will be impossible to maintain without constructing a retaining wall. The City cannot waive City standards. Nor can the City, by contract, agree to waive adopted City standards. The City Council will have to change the City standards in order to accept the substandard PG&E fence. Sonic agreed to abide by City standards in Contract No. 98-126 and now they want to avoid said standards. The City of Bakersfield will be accepting liability they did not have prior to the Sonic arrangement. Sonic now asks the City to accept additional liability (while saving Sonic money) by accepting a substandard fence owned by another entity over which the City exercises no control, and avoids the cost of constructing a proper agreed to fence. Staff strongly recommends no change be made to Contract No. 98-126 that requires Sonic to construct a fence to City standards. Should Sonic fail to construct the required fence the City should call upon Sonic's security bond to gain the required fencing. ADD:dlr Attachments cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV S:\COUNClL\Referrals\SonicMmo Of T~GJIiC ~ineer. A ',/ ',. -C~IIIUCI 6' ~J~ Ch~~ - JJ K~ w/~wO~ Slats al ,-~f In~f Guttff [lev. Gutter L-., ~ Pi ~c~ ~, I II Guilt e ,~ ~o~D SECTION A - A ;=~.:~'"~"~o,,. ~f ~'" .... ~:o.".~,~:~. ~o~: .... ~:~: Dr3~naqe bas/n shall be · ~ni~ of one buildable lot, ·?~, . . · rd;:[ ~J , · L~scape~ parx J "l/2"j ~S~ 6 "CI~'I ~ ~ f~ ends. i. ' j O. 0. *t0~ - ~t~pe~ galv~:~ after fab*~catton. . ' ,' co~o~d co~Jy~n~ :o Section 90--.0:B of :~e ~tandar~ .-- ............. 6'_' Mimm~ ~'-0' / ~ (Lengt~ :Pipe 0 ~.+t0~) sidevalk shall be sterili:ed vith a pe~ent sterz~t REVISED "' :,~ o, ~ - ~U~ ;: I jr '"' -. *'['" Leo~ __~"_b;_A'i~?2?~r___&J--we,d ,/Z" Bor, to Fire ~,, -~]~-X' "~;~ D R A 1 N A G E BASIN ~.,.,,, ELEVATION ~TY OF OUTLET .STRUCTURE .9 g~ ~ CALIFORNIA S--9 C, EI~I~L NOTES: ir~tallation of fencing and gates shall be in accordance witl the ~ui~ts of ~tio~ ~ of the s~ificatio~ er, titl~ "Sta~a~ S~ificati~, State of ~lifo~ia~ ~pt~nt of T~a~ptation", c~ ~iti~. A 6" x 6" concrete curb shall be constructed und~ all fence. Within City parks~ a 6" thick x 9' wide cm'b shall be useo, in either case a I 1/2" clearance between the curbing ar~ tn~ [i~i.~ :Concrete shall be Class "B" (5 sack) and shall be within 2 ~ sm"o.n n~.' tli??.~***! ~ i/~" to ~ 1/2" slU~p, Surface of concrete shall be tr~o, eled ~***~:{i~ Is~oothe and brush finished. Concrete shall contain ~ ~i~:~ additives unless ~riop ~itt~ approval is obtained f~o~ t~e · -.~67 ~City En§lneer. Conct~ete shall be cu~d with a ~ite pig~entec " ~ · '. '. curing co~ound co, plying to Sectio~ 9~-7.81B of the Sta~a~-~ t ' · Specifications. Co~ner post shall be installed at ali angles in fence Hne i~ excess of le degrees, TYPICAL DETAIL AT E~d, Corne~ and Gate Posts shall be braced to the nearest line post with galvanized diagona! o~ horizontal braces use~ CULVERT ENDWALLS as coapression .eabem and galvanized 3/8".steel t~uss ~'~s .ith turnbuckles or truss ti§htenem used as tension Fabric shall be fastened to 6ate Post~ Te~i~al Post o~ Cor~er Post with IA" x 3/4" stretcher ~ap bonds at 6' on cente~. FENCING TABLE Fabric shall be fastened to line post with fabric bonds spaced approximately t~" apart, and to last ruhr, el,- and b~ttcm I HEIGHT I ~ HEIGHT 2 ~EIGHT 3 ~ ; tension wi~es with fabric bonds spaced apm~oxi~ately 24" s' [ s' ~ o' apart. Z-6" ~ 3'-0' i ~-o' ; z-s" ~'-o' C~ain link fence fabric shall confom to the specification of "~ I z ~'~ ~ ~i z 74'o.~ ~ ~.~ ,,z' Da ~ ~ ~ d~ignation: A 3~ Class I. . c.,.. ~ . ~,.. ~,Jograoe p~Daration ~alJ ~ ~truct~ true to graoe a~ , STANDARD ' ~ '"- ~-.~ CHAIN LINK NOTE, '~- I0 2505 "M' St. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Janua~ 27,2000 Marian Shawl-,-''''~ City of..B, ak"'brsfield ' 1715-Chester Avenue ~.a~'ersfield, California 93301 Re: Parcel Map 0377, Agreement 98-127 Sonic on Rosedale Highway Dear Ms. Shaw:. This correspondence will form our formal request to defer the construction of the south and east sump fences on this project. Per Councilaman Couch's request, we are providing the attached letter, agreeing to install the fences to City standards -. should PG&E remove the fence and not replace it. , '~ It is my understanding that this request will need to be heard by the City Council. Please advise as to the eadiest date this may occur. Respectfully, C0~N~EI:~TO_N__E E~..~.~/.EE,,RING, INC. ,.,ic, ,a~.,' J. ~,~sident Ij._./ RCE 36214, Expires 6~00 LC 5556, Expires 9/01 MJC:slk cc: Councilman David Couch... Consumer Science Corpo'ration CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING AND L_AND SURVEYING ,~ · City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018380 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~11~00 REQUEST DATE: 2/09/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:38:20 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~T~'l': 2~09~0~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 2/16/0 GEN. LOC:~ FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING - SONIC ON ROSEDALE REQUEST COMMENTS ***DUAL REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS (LEAD) & CITY ATTORNEY*** COUCH REFERRED A LETTER FROM MIKE CALLAGY, CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH AND EAST SUMP FENCES AT THE SONIC ON ROSEDALE HWY. STAFF TO PREPARE A RESPONSE. COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING - SONIC ON ROSEDALE atpgory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / 2505 "M' St. Bakersfield. CA 9,3301 Janua~ 19,2000 City of Bakersfielcl Department of Engineering 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, Califomia 93301 Re: Sonic Drive--In, Rosedale at E! Toro, Sump Fence Gentlemen: Please be advised that the undersigned developer., does hereby agree to install a chain-link fence with redwood slats, per City of Bakersfield standards, on the south and east sides of the Cai Trans/City of Bakersfield drainage sump on this project, should PG&E remove the existing fence and not replace it. Respectfully, CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING, INC. CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION Scott A. McA4il!an RCE 36214, Expires 6/00 LC 5556, Expires 9/01 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING Te~.c. hone (805) 325-~'474 FAX (805) 322-0127 2505 'M' St. ' !,,~ c,I ';~ ............ : ........" Bakersfield, CA 93301 'b:~ ''' ~J ....... ' ........................ ~ ...... ~..~'::'.:~ ./J ~ .................................. ~ DAVID COUCH 5000 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, #100 BAKERSFIELD, CA 9.3309 .o, AGREEMENT TO PAY ALL COSTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on Jtll~ t 0 ~ , by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a Charter city and municipal corporation. ("CITY" herein) and CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION dba SONIC BURGER, a cai. ~, fo~:n£a corporation ("SONIC" herein). RECITALS WHEREAS, the State of California currently owns a parcel of land used as a storm water retention facility hereafter referred to as the "Existing Parcel"; and WHEREAS, the State of California is represented by Caltrans, a division of the State of California; and WHEREAS, SONIC desires to acquire a portion (approximately 45,000 square feet) of the Existing Parcel for development of a commercial project hereafter referred to as the "Sonic Parcel"; and WHEREAS, California State Law requires that before considering conveyances of any state owned right-of-way parcel, the parcel must be "decertified" and declared excess land; and WHEREAS, the Sonic Parcel cannot be declared excess land until the storm water retention facility currently on the "Existing Parcel" has been replaced with a storm water retention facility constructed on the land parcel remaining after the Sonic Parcel has been excluded from the Existing Parcel (the land parcel containing the storm water retention facility is hereinafter referred to as the "New Sump Parcel"); aha WHEREAS, State desires CITY to construct the replacement storm water facilities and to take over ownership and maintenance of the replacement facility; and WHEREAS, State has agreed to be responsible for all aspects of right-of-way decertification; and ' WHEREAS, the CITY is under no duty or obligation to enter into any such agreement with Caltrans; and WHEREAS, the CITY is willing to undertake and assist SONIC but has informed SONIC that CITY will bear no cost or expense of any kind for this assistance; and WHEREAS, SONIC understands and agrees CITY will bear no cost for said assistance; and Page 1 of 12 Pages -- WHEREAS, SONIC is willing to construct and temporarily assume responsibility for the cost of maintaining the replacement storm water facility; and WHEREAS, CITY Water Department is currently responsible for the maintenance of sumps and will initially be responsible for the tracking of the maintenance costs on the New Sump Parcel; and WHEREAS, SONIc has requested the CITY enter into a cooperative agreement and memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the State of California (Caltrans) to provide the replacement storm water facility; and WHEREAS, CITY and Caltrans will enter into a cooperative agreement and MOU to assist SONIC and said agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and SONIC mutually agree as follows: 1. PARCEL DEVELOPMENT. CITY agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") and a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to allow the development of a current sump into a commercial parcel and improved sump. The MOU, and cooperative agreement are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. The sump parcel is described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. SONIC agrees to design and construct the new sump and associated drainage facilities ("Improvements" herein) and dedicate the ImProvements to CITY upon completion. As more fully described below, SONIC agrees to pay for the maintenance of said improvements until the State of California relinquishes Rosedale Highway to the CITY. SONIC understands the' State of California may not relinquish Rosedale Highway to the CITY' for ten (10) years or more and SONIC, or SONIC's successor's in interest, must pay the maintenance costs during this period of time. SONIC further agrees to fully inform any suCCessor in interest of these facts and to give this Agreement to any successor in interest for review and agreement prior to any transfer by SONIC of any right or obligation hereunder. 2. SONIC'S OBLIGATIONS: 2.1 Comply with all CITY and State requirements for development of the New Sump Parcel at SONIC's sole expense; 2.2 Not to interrupt or interfere with the operation of the existing State- owned drainage basin serving State Route 58 until such time as 3ermanent service can be provided by CITY-owned basin; Agreement ToPay/MlCeela Co~su~fl~'Scie nc~-_,oq~ ratio n O{~,ASo r,~c Bur g e{ S:~ORKS~GRS~ni~r.dr2.~ -~ ~o. ~ ' -- Page 2 of 12 Pages -- ORIGINAL 2,3 Pay upon demand any and all documented CITY cost or expense arising from or related to this Agreement or the construction of the Improvements; 2,4 Design and construct a new sump and associated drainage facilities (Improvements) that conform to CITY and Caltrans specifications at SONIC's sole cost and expense and obtain an encroachment permit from the State of California and submit plans for review and approval of CITY Engineer and the State of California prior to commencing construction said construction shall not commence until CITY has informed SONIC in writing of the approval of the California Transportation commission of the cooperative agreement; 2,5 Dedicate additional right-of-way as required for a standard expanded. intersection on the frontage of the Sonic Parcel; 2.6 Relocate all utilities as required by CITY for construction of the Improvements to both the New Sump Parcel and the Sonic Parcel at SONIC's sole cost and expense; 2,7 SONIC shall pay all repair and maintenance costs on the Improvements until such time as Rosedale Highway is relinquished to the CITY from the. State of California. After the relinquishment of Rosedale Highway to CITY, CITY shall assume the obligation of repair and maintenance on the Improvements. 2.8 SONIC shall, upon completion of the Improvements, dedicate the same to CITY; 2.9 Bond for all construction and maintenance required of SONIC with companies and in a form acceptable to CITY. SONIC shall obtain CITY's written acceptance of the bonds prior to commencing any construction on the Improvements. 2,10 SONIC shall comply with any and all Caltrans or State of California orders or requirements to CITY relating to or arising from this Agreement. 2,11 SONIC shall cause to be recorded at the Kern County Hall of Records a covenant disclosing the existence of this Agreement in a form acceptable to the CITY. Said covenant shall be recorded within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement. Agreement ToPayAJlC~sts Consu me,'Scienc, eCo rl~m'afi on DI~,ASon ic~u rge r S :~P'UEI~NO~K$'~AGRS~S~icAgr.dr2 .wpd -~,~ ~0, ~ -- Page 3 of 12 Pages -- ORIGINAL 2.12 SONIC shall provide a $10,000 Letter of Credit to secure payment of the maintenance on the improved sump and drainage facilities in a form and amount acceptable to the CITY's Finance Director. Said Letter of Credit shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement. SONIC shall annually pay the documented maintenance cost of the sump and Improvements. Failure to pay within thirty (30) days will cause the CITY to collect · against the Letter of Credit. 2.13 SONIC shall, at its own sole expense, provide all soil reports and all environmental documentation. , 3. NO COST TO CITY. SONIC understands and agrees CITY shall bear no cost of any type or kind relating to or growing out of this Agreement with the sole exception ' of future maintenance cost on the sump. All fees, costs, taxes, and Charges of every type, kind and nature, except maintenance of the sump after the relinquishment of Rosedale Highway, shall be born solely by SONIC. 4. MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION. The Improvements shall be 'installed and ~.~-~ constructed in accordance with all of the following: 4.1 Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. 4.2 The California Subdivision Map Act. ~ .... ' 4.3 Approved plans and specifications. .!~?:.. 4.4 Adopted City Standards. 4.5 All Caltrans requirements. '~ '. 4.6 Good engineering practices and workmanlike manner. 5. TIME FOR COMPLETION. All of said ImprOvements shall be completed in .. full in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and to. the satisfaction of the CITY Engineer within one (1) year from the date of approval of this Agreement or any extension of said completion date granted by the CITY Engineer. 6. .INSPECTION AND APPROVAL, OF IMPROVEMENTS. 6.1 All Improvements shall be subject to inspection by the CITY Engineer or his designee and shall be completed to his satisfaction. 6.2 When all of the required Improvements have been satisfactorily completed, upon written application of SONIC, the CITY Engineer or his designee shall inspect, and approve the same within a reasonable time and-shall file his certificate showing the date of inspection and approval and he shall make his order accepting or approving the Improvements. Agreement ToPayAIIC43st~ ' ConsumerS~le~ceCorporatlo~ D6ASonicBurger '~- S:~J~UBINOI~KS~AG RS~'Sonic. Ag'-dr2 .wPd (~ ~K~% -~ ~0. ~ -- Page 4 of 12 Pages -- ~ ORigiNAL 6.3 Such order of acceptance or approval made by the CITY Engineer shall be deemed operative from the time of the CITY Engineer's or his designee's approval of improvements .as shown in his said certificate. 6.4 Except as otherwise provided, SONIC and its surety shall be deemed released from liability for damage or injury to such work as accepted by CITY. from and after the time said order is operative. However, the foregoing provision shall not relieve SONIC or its surety from any damage or injury to such improvements or any maintenance required therefor arising from any work undertaken by SONIC or its surety, or as may necessarily be done by the CITY in the performance of any part of the required ImPrOvements as a result of any default in the performance of this Agreement by SONIC or its surety or arising from any willful act or negligent act or omission of SONIC or its surety or their COntractors, agents or employees, or arising from defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished in the performance of this Agreement. 7. GUARANTEE AGAINST DEFECTS. SONIC hereby guarantees all features of the Improvements for a period of one (1) year following recordation of a notice of completion on public Improvements, against defective work or labor done, or defective material furnished, in the performance of this Agreement; and SONIC agrees to correct, .repair or replace promptly when demanded by the CITY, all such defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished, as may be discovered within such one (1) year period and reported to the CITY Engineer. SONIC shall also pay for all repair and maintenance of the Improvements until the State of California relinquishes Rosedale Highway to the City of Bakersfield. 8. IMPROVEMENT ,~ECURITY.. 8.1 This Agreement shall be secured by good and sufficient security, which shall be filed with the CITY prior to approval of improvement plans by the CITY Engineer. This improvement security does not include the Letter of Credit guaranteeing payment of sump maintenance expenses. The payment of sump maintenance expenses is to be handled separate from the improvement security. Such improvement security shall consist of either (1) a corporate surety's faithful performance bond and bond for the security of laborers and material men or (2) a deposit of cash or negotiable bonds, or (3) an irrevocable instrument of credit; each of which is subject to the requirements of Section 16.32.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. The form of all documents relating to such security shall be subject to approval by the CITY Attorney. The corporate surety boncls shall conform substantially with the form set forth in Sections co6499.1 and 66499.2 of the Map Act. The estimated cost of the various features of improvements, as shown on the attached Engineer's Bond estimate, Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, shall be used, if applicable, as the basis for the reduction of security in connection with the CITY Engineer's acceptance or approval of any portion of the Improvements, or any unit thereof. 8.2 Said improvement security shall be in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated cost of the Improvements, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Agreement for the full and timely completion of the Improvements in accordance with this Agreement. 8.3 Except as provided in Section 16.32.040 B. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, additional improvement security shall also be provided in an amount of fifty percent (50%) of the total estimated cost of the ImProvements, securing payment to' the contractor, his subcontractors and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them for the work. 8.4 ' Additional improvement security shall also be provided in an amount of ten percent (10%) of the total estimated cost of the Improvements, to be prOvided prior to CITY acceptance of the Improvements, guaranteeing and warranting for a period of one (1)' year following reCOrdation of a notice of Completion on public improvements, ail improvements against any defectiVe work or labor done or defective materials furnished. 9. REDUCTION AND RELE. ASE OF SECURITY. 9.1 Improvement secudty may be reduced on order of the CITY Engineer upon completion of a phase-of work which is operational and usable-as a public improvement. ~.i 9.2 Improvement security for payment to the contractor, or any of his subcontractors or any person renting equipment or furnishing labOr or materials to them for the improvements may, sixty (60) days after recordation of a notice of completion, be' ' ' reduced to an amount not less than the total of all claims on which an action or stop notice has been filed and notice thereof given in writing to the CITY', and if no such action .or stop notice is filed,, such improvement security may be ·released in full. 9.3 The security identified in section 8, Improvement Security shall be finally released to the SONIC one (1) year following the recordation of a Notice of Completion and Acceptance by the CITY, provided that no defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished in the performance of the work has been discovered within such-one (1) year period and reported in writing to CITY, and'further provided that no damage has been done to the Improvement work after its approval by any other work undertaken by the SONIC. 9.4 In the event defective work, labor or materials has been discovered or damage to the Improvements has resulted from SONIC's other work, the security shall be released upon satisfactory repair or replacement of the defective or damaged Improvements, as determined bY CITY, or after expiration of the one (1) year specified above, whicheVer occurs later. Agreement ToPayAIICosts Co~sumerScienceCo~poration DBASonicBurger $:~'U~WORK$~GR$~eflic. Agr.d~2.wpd . ,,.,,~ %AKE,~ ORIGINAL 10. COMPLETION OF SURETY OR CITY. 10.1 If the CITY Engineer, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, determines: 10.1.1 That SONIC has failed to properly and fully complete all of the work of Improvement in accordance with this Agreement, and within the time, or any extension of time, provided herein; or 10.1.2 That SONIC has failed or neglected to begin the work, or any feature of the work, within a time which will reasonably allow its completion within the time, or any extension of time, provided in this Agreement; or 10.1.3 That SONIC has abandoned any of the work; or 10.1.4 THAT SONIC, if he shall be an individual, has been declared incompetent or placed under the care of a guardian or conservator, or has disappeared; or 10.1.5 That SONIC has filed a petition in bankruptcy or has been declared bankrupt; then the CITY Engineer may give SONIC and its surety fourteen (14) days written notice to proceed with the work, without prejudice to .any other remedy the CiTY may have in law or equity. t0.2 If the surety shall proceed with the work, the surety shall be subject to all of the provisions of this Agreement as in the case of SONIC. 10.3 If SONIC or its surety shall fail or neglect to proceed with the work diligently and in good faith in 'accordance with this Agreement after such notice has been given, within seven (7) days after such notice has been given the CITY may, at its sole option and without prejudice to any other remedy, provide the necessary supervision, equipment, materials and labor as it may determine necessary to undertake and complete the work of improvement or any part thereof in the manner required by this Agreement, by independent contract or by CITY forces, all for the account and at the expense of SONIC, and SONIC and its surety shall be liable to the CITY and shall pay the CITY, on demand, any expenses incurred by the CITY in the course thereof. 11. NO GUARANTEE. CITY does not guarantee Caltrans will perform any act or transfer any property as a result of this Agreement, or any agreement mentioned in this contract. CITY is not required and does not agree to undertake any steps to cause Agreement ToPayAllCosts ConsumerScienceCorpomflonDBASonic. Burger $:~PUBWORKSV~GR$ ~onic~.gr,d~2 .wi~1 ~ ~ ~(~:~ -~o,~0,~ -- Page 7 of 12 Pages -- ~ ~ CR~GI~L Caltrans to perform any act or to take any actions whatsoever as a result of this Agreement or any agreement mentioned in this contract. In the event Caltrans fails to transfer the Existing Parcel and Improvements as contemplated within this Agreement, this Agreement shall never become operational and no duties or obligations will be imposed upon either CITY or SONIC. 12. INSPECTION OF PROPERTY. SONIC has inspected all property involved in this Agreement and is not relying on any CITY representation concerning the parcels. 13. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK OR SERVICES. The acceptance of work or services, or payment for work or services, by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any provisions of this Agreement. 14. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. SONIC shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in performance of' - ' .P. I this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at SONIC's office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of the completion of SONIC's development, and 'said records shall be made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours. 15. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall not be assigned by any party, or any party substituted, without prior written consent of all the parties. 16. BINDING EFFECT. The dghts and obligations of this Agreement shall inure: .- to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs,; administrators, executors, Personal representatives, successors and assigns. 17. coMpLIANCE WITH ALL. LAWS. SONIC shall, at SONIC's sole cost, comply with all of the requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in .._ force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations now in force or which may hereafter be in force. ' 18. coRPORATE AUTHORITY..Each individual executing this Agreement represents and warrants they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the corporation or organization, if any, named herein and this Agreement is binding' upon said corporation or organization in accordance with its terms. 19. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. ConsurnerScienceCorl3e~tio~ D~a~..~micBurger S:~=LIBWO~KS~AG RS~S o~ic,~g r.d r2 .wl3d I'~ -.~ Jo. ~ee~ -- Page 8 of 12 Pages -- ~ ORIGINAL 20. ~. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached. 21. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this Agreement shall be instituted in Kern County, California. 22, IJ~[~..M~. SONIC shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by SONIC, SONIC's employees, agents or independent contractors or companies in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the termS and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except as limited by California Civil Code section 2782. 23. lJ~. In addition to any other insurance or bond required under by ~his Agreement, the SONIC shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement the following types and limits of insurance ("basic insurance requirements" herein): 23.1 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and the policy shall: 23.1.1 Provide coverage for owned, non-owned and hired autos. 23.1.2 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement. 23.2 Broad form commercial General liability insurance, providing coverage on an ,occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and the policy shall: 23.2.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement. Agreement ToPayNICosts Co~lS u mec~ cie nc, eCorporaliorIDBASG nic B u rg er 4~~ ~K~O~ S:~BWORK~RS~ni~r.d~.~ Page 9 of 12 Pages - ORIGINAL 25.2.2 Contain an additional insured endorsement in favor of the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and designated volunteers. 23.3 Workers' comDensation insuran¢- with statutory limits and employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident; and the policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and designated volunteers. All policies required of SONIC shall be primary insurance as to the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self: · insurance maintained by the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers shall be excess of the SONIC's insurance and shall not contribute with it.-' Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. Any 'deductibles, self-insured retentions or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance rated below Bests' A:VlI, must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and approved by the CITY in writing. All policies' shall contain an endorsement providing the CITY with thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation or material change in policy language or terms. All policies shall _! provide there shall be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any.:. .~.. policy. , The insurance required hereunder shall De maintained until all work required to De ..... ~ performed by this Agreement is satisfactorily completed as evJclenced by written ........ acceptance by the CITY. 80NIC shall furnish the City Risk Manager with a certificate of insurance and required- endorsements evidencing the insurance required. The CITY may withdraw, its offer of ~ contract or cancel this contract if certificates of insurance and endorsements required have not been provided prior to the execution of this Agreement. Unless otherwise 'approved by the CITY, if any part of the work under this Agreement is subcontracted, the "basic insurance requirements" set forth above shall be provided by, or on behalf of, all SUbcontractors even if the CITY .has approved lesser insurance requirements for SONIC. 24. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. All prior agreements betWeen the parties are incorporated in this Agreement which constitutes 'the entire agreement. Its terms are intended by the parties as a final expression of Weir agreement with respect to such terms, as are included herein and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement Agreement ToPayAJICosts Consume~ienceCorporafio~l::~ASonicBurger -~,~ ~0, ~ -- Page 10 of 12 Pages -- ~.. OR~INAi or contemporaneous oral agreement. The parties further intend this Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial or arbitration proceeding involving this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the CITY Council and signed by all the parties. 25. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. CITY shall not become or be deemed a partner or joint venturer with SONIC or associate in any such relationship with SONIC by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. SONIC shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of CITY. 26. NON-INTEREST. No officer or employee of the CITY shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090). 27. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice: CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California, 93301 SONIC: CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION dba SONIC BU~ ~6Q~ ?~n~ View Drive Bakersfieldr California 93307 28. TAX NUMBERS. "SONIC's" Federal Tax Identification No. 77-0292908 "SONIC" is a corporation? Yes x No (Please 'check one.) 29. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon execution and terminate upon the deeding of Rosedale Highway from Caltrans to the CITY. 30. TIME. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Ag~ ToPayAZlCos~s Con~umerS~ienceCorporationDBASonlcBurger S :'4=,UBVVORKS',A~R$'~o~ioAgr.dr2.wlxi -~,, ~o. ,~ -- Page 11 of 12 Pages - ~- o~ CRIG!NAL 31. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreementl 32. BROKERS AND FINDERS. The parties acknowledge and represent that no broker or finder has been used in connection with this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties heret° have caused this Agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION dba SONIC BURGER Mayor Title: ~~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR I~AUL ROJAS" Public Works Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney " COUNTERSIGNED: ' ADD:dlr Attachments: Exhibit "A" and "B" Agreement ToPayNICosts · Consu merScienceCoqx:~at~nD~icBu rger $ :~:~LR~NOR K S~.G R S~o~ic. Agr. dr2 .wpd --^~ ~o. ~ -- Page 12 of 12 Pages -- ORIGINAL EXHIBIT A rr~ ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE DATE: 5/14/98 SONIC DRIVE INN, ROSEDALE AT EL TORO SITE SUMP IMPROVEMENTS ~CAL TRANS) ITEM ESTIMATE UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY COST COST I. SITE GRADING: I. Sump Grading · Excavate Sump 6262 c.y. $8.00 $50,096.00 TOTAL GRADI'NG: $50,096.00 II.STORM DRAIN: 1. 24" Storm Drain (KC.P.) 451 I.f. $42.00 $18,942.00 2. Storm Drain Manhole 1 ea. $2,200.00 $2,200.00 3. Catch Basin 2 ea. $3,000.00 $6,000.00 4. Standard Outlet Structure 1 ea. $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TOTAL STORM DRAIN: $28,642.00 III. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. 6' Chain Link Fence (Rdwd. Slats/Conc. Ftg.) (Including Gates) 722 l.f. $24.00 $17,328.00 2. Site Landscaping 1 ea. L.S $10,00000 $10,000.00 (El Toro Drive) 3. Civil Engineering 1 ea. L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS: $32,328.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $111,066.00 CONTINGENCY 200/0 $22,213.20 TOTAL $133,279.20 NOTE: This estimate is issued for the purpose of bonding for improvements associated with the construction of a drainage sump for Cfi-Trans. No development of surrounding properties is included. Street improvements will be included in the development of the property to the north. are not required. Pole relocations BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~./~~ DATE: February 15, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRALWF00183811001, WARD 4, TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES. "COUCH REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANETA L. ADAMS REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES THROUGH NEW FREEWA ¥S/PARKWA YS . " The main subject of the letter from Aneta L. Adams is her complaint that the City of Bakersfield does not "synchronize" traffic signals. Traffic Engineering staff do not recall talking to Mrs. Adams in the recent past although she may have called in the past 20 years, as indicated in her letter. Many roads in the City are coordinated for traffic flow. Over the past 20 years, Traffic Engineering has programed more than 100 of the approximate 240 traffic signals in a coordinated or "synchronized" operation. The coordinated signals are all on major streets with a high traffic demand. One of the first areas to have the traffic signals coordinated in timing operation was the downtown grid of traffic signals. The signals then were on a simple time clock coordination in which two signals were green while the next two signals were red and so on. This is called by traffic engineers a "double alternate coordination" operation. About 15 years ago, new traffic controllers were installed on the California Avenue corridor from Oak to Stockdale which allowed a time-based coordination of signals while still allowing the signal to be traffic actuated (operate based on volume demand of traffic). As more traffic signal controllers were replaced with new units that could be coordinated, more major traffic corridors were placed in a coordinated operation to improve the traffic flow, reduce travel time and reduce fuel consumption. The primary means of coordinating these individual signals was an internal time clock in the controller unit's computer. To keep these units on the same time base, many of the corridors have signal controllers connected by paired wires to received synchronization impulse signals. This keeps the time base from drifting out of synchronization. Some of the traffic corridors that are coordinated are: Gosford/Coffee from Truxtun to White Lane; White Lane from Wible to Ashe; California from Oak to Stockdale; New Stine/Stine from Stockdale to White Lane; Stockdale Hwy from New Stine to Ashe Road; Ming Ave from Castro Lane to Ashe Road, and others. Rosedale Highway, mentioned in the letter from Mrs. Adams, is not a City roadway and is not fully coordinated by Caltrans. One common misunderstanding of coordinated, or "synchronized", signal corridors is that traffic will not ever have to stop. This is simply not true. Traffic that enters in to a coordinated system from a side street may have to pass through more than one signal before it is in the platoon traffic flow. Many of the coordinated signal systems are prioritized for directional flow of the traffic. For instance, California Avenue coordination gives priority to traffic flowing towards downtown in the morning and away from downtown. in the evening. If a driver is heading away from downtown in the morning, he may have to stop several times along the corridor for red lights while those headed into downtown may not stop at all. The same is true for Gosford, Stockdale and Ming Avenue corridors. Even with priority directional coordination, if traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the roadway, traffic backups will occur and the driverwill be out of the platoon flow coordination of the group of signals. The best example of this is on 23r~ or 24th Street, Highway 178, which is a couplet of one-way streets. Because it is one-way, the flow is very efficient with the coordinated signals, but this breaks down when the traffic volume exceeds capacity as during the evening rush hour and traffic back-ups occur. Because even the best coordinated system will not flow if there is too much traffic on the road, new freeways or parkways and improved connections are needed. This was clearly outlined in the report by Jack LaRochelle to the Council on a systems approach to reduce congestion, which was mentioned in Mrs. Adams letter. Mrs. Adams letter also mentions the use of video cameras to catch red light violators. The City does not have airy red light enforcement cameras. The video cameras that are located at several signals are for vehicle detection only and are not of photographic quality required for red light violator systems. They are used because they are less expensive to operate for traffic signal vehicle detection than using loops of wire cut into the street surface. No money for vehicle detection cameras was used in place of signal coordination funding. Over the past fifteen years, the Traffic Engineer has taken advantage of Federal and State funding to improve traffic flow and signal coordination efforts. Staff has attended classes in modeling traffic and coordination systems. Grants from the State have funded the purchase of coordination modeling programs and implementation of signal timing improvements for coordination of signals. A grant project that studied the California Avenue corridor and the Ming Avenue corridor resulted in new signal timing that saved an estimated $490,500 for motorists by reducing delays, stops and fuel consumption. Another Page 2 of 3 grant project resulted in new signal timing that reduced the number of stops by 44 percent and reduced travel time by 23 percent on Oak Street. The same study resulted in a reduction of stops by 74 percent and a reduction of travel time by 34 percent on the Stockdale Highway corridor. While past studies and implementation of new coordination timing plans for the signals have resulted in great reductions of stops and travel times, additional improvements are needed to meet the changing traffic demand and increases in traffic volumes on major streets. The Traffic Engineering Staff continue to make improvements and add more segments of coordinated streets each year, but more must be done to reduce the congestion caused by too much traffic which overloads any coordinated street system. Coordinated signals have reduced the impact of high volumes on our roads, but they cannot eliminate the congestion that continues to grow with development. cc: Traffic Engineering File - WF0018381 .SignalSynchronization.ref. wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\WF0018381.SignalSynchronization.ref. wpd Page 3 of 3 City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~ ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018381 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~11~00 REQUEST DATE: 2/09/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:38:15 · . SCHEDULE DATES. LOCATION: COMPLETION:' 2/16/00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: FACILITY NODES GEN. LOC: FROM: TO: FACILITY ID: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS *** COUCH REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANETA L. ADAMS, REGARDING TRA. FFIC CONGESTION STUDIES THROUGH NEW FREEWAYS/PARKWAYS. COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES Catggory: PUBLIC WORKS TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / /__ COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ ARRACm ,, CLARK & P02 J:ER · Attorneys at LawL, uj,~ ~00 Easton Drive, Bakersfield, CA 9330~9424 ' ' ~ ~ ~ ¥ ;;L £,~ juas ~ AmucE8, J~ Telephone (1943.199o] (1{61) 828-1800 TS0MAS S. CLARK Fax DAVID IL POT/~It (661) 328-0380 ANETA L ADAMS, CLA Patalegal ' FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Cotmeilman David Couch - COMPANY: Bakersfield City Council FAX NO-' 323-3780 FROM: Ane~ L Adams, CLA SUBJECt. Traffic Congestion DATE: January 28, 2000 NUMBER OF PAGES (including this page): 3 A HARD COPY WILL ~ Oft WILL NOT FOLLOW THIS FACSI1VflLE. MESSAG~ NOTICE: "l'him page and the other documents included in thlm facsimile tran.~ml-~sion contain lnformaUon which is confidential andler le .gaily privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copTin~, dlstribuUon' or the t~kin_~ O! any acUon in reliance on the contents of this telecopied Information is strlctl7 prohibited. If you have received this facsimile jn error, please notify us at (661) 328-1800 immediately. We 'are transmitting on it Canon FAX-5500. If you do not receive an7 or all of the pages, please call ANETA ADAMS at Attache, Clark & Potter at (661) 328-1800. Tb~nk you. & POTI~R ~0~ Dean & Aneta Adams 12800 Overton St~cet Bakerafield, CA 93312 .[anuary 28, 2000 ~_VIA FAX & U. S. MAIl. Mr. David Couch Co- nc_;Jman, 4th Bakersfmld City. Council 1501 Truxt-tm Avenue Bakex~dd, C,A 93301 -. -' ......... RE: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES Dear Mr. Couch: On 'Wednesday evening, January 26, 2000, my husband and I watched the televised presentation to the City Council of the various alternatives for alleviar~-g tra~c congestion through new freeways/parkways. The point was m~de that additional study of the problem and potential solutions were necessary before proce~;ng. I couldn't agree more! In one very important area, however, the City is getting the cart before the horse. We really don't know how much traffic flows could be improved if we simply synchronized all the traffic signals on all the main thoroug~ares ha Bakersfield. This subject was gever addressed on Wednesday even;ng. I can only assume that it was never part of any study. WHY NOT? Anyone who has done any amount of driving in Bakersfield knows that synchro-;~ation of tr=~c signals in th;~ town is still ~lmost non-existent. Los Angeles and San Francisco have used this technology for years. H you drive the speed llm;t on Hollywood Way in the San Femando Valley, you can get from Sun Valley to Toluca Lake without ever having to stop. The s~me is true for downtown San FrancisCo. Yet, no matter what speed you drive, you cannot drive east or west on Rosedale Highway, Stockdale Highway, Ming Avenue, or Wl~te Lane without having to stop at many, if not, all the signalsI! Sync-hroni~6on of traffic signals is llke a parkway, without having to build one!! My f~,;ly has lived ia Bakersfield since 1979. Over this 20-year-period, I have had innumerable conversations with city traffic engineers oa this subject. One response which I received was that it was not possible to synchronize certain sig-~Is to achieve traffic flows because it would inconvenience cert~;- poetically powerful residents! 'OTrER 0 0 ~ Mr. David Couch RE: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES January 28, 2000 Page Two The traffic engineers must still be ~-~id o£ offend;-g the polkically powerful. If ~at is not the case, I would certainly like to know why th~ obvious measure to ~-~prove tr~c flows has been ignored for so long. We have the funds to put video cameras on every major intersection in town to catch people who nm red lights. I'm surprised that no one thought that if people weren't forced to stop at ~ signal, they might not nm as many_ red l~ts! I~ tile money for video cameras ha~ been invested in uke technolo~ for synchron;~g the tr~f~c signals, the people of Bakers£eld would have been better served. Mr. Couch, would you please address this issue and have it added to the traffic study which was approved at the City Council hearing on January 26, 2000? If there is anything that my husband or I could do to help in tkis matter, please let us know. I can be reached during the week at my office at 328-1800, or at home at 588-3717. Yours ye_fy truly, ..////AN-ETA L. ADAMS ~ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WF00183827001 South Beltway Alignment Councilman Couch has referred to staff a copy of a letter from Kenneth Kind regarding the South Beltway alignment. The letter, addressed to the Planning Commission, asked for written assurance that the Hosking Road alignment is no longer under consideration by the City of Bakersfield; and that the hearing set for February 3, 2000 be continued. Please find attached a copy of a letter response from the City Attorney's Office dated January 31, 2000. S:\COUNCIL\COUNCIL.REFX0018382.wpd CITY ~ATTO RNEY . ~-~'~'~-~.~'~ Bart J. Thiltgen ?~' ?~:'~~. ..-~¢~'~ ~ '. ~. /~' ' ~' ' ~ D. D~el ~lcn M. S~w W~r H. Porn Jr. ~i~.~, ~. ~ CITY OF BA~RS~LD C~I H~z ~ J~ic~ Sc~l~ O~CE O~ ~ C~ A~EY ~nia ~ 1501 ~U~ A~ ~w C. ~n BA~RS~, CA 93301 ~~~ ~IST~ ~LEPHO~: ~1-32&3721 ~fi A. Aquil~ FACS~E: ~1-852-2020 January 31, 2000 ;' ' Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail (661) 587-2070 Kenneth W. Kind, Esq. 4042 Patton Way Bakersfield, CA 93308 Re: South Beltway- Hosking Road Alignment Dear Mr. Kind: By facsimile letter this date, you requested that the City state in writing that the Hosking Road Alignment is "no longer under consideration" by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. City staff believes that the Planning Commission has clearly stated its position on the Hosking Road Alignment. However, we provide you with the following observations. As a practical matter, City.staff interprets the Planning Commission's action to "eliminate" the Hosking Road Alignment from further consideration as an indication that the Commission will not recommend that option to the City Council. CEQA requires that the Hosking Road Alignment remain as a project "alternative." The Commission has stated that the Hosking Road Alignment is not a viable alternative. Furthermore, you will note that the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the South Beltway Specific Plan Alignment. The noticing for the continued hearing is still in effect. Legally, due process requires that all members of the public who.desire to speak and give input on the Hosking Road Alignment be given an opportunity to do so. Finally, we note that the Planning Commission will consider the South Beltway Specific Plan Alignment at its February 17, 2000 meeting. Therefore, should you wish to provide further comment regarding your concerns you may do so at that meeting. KENNETH W. KIND, ESQ. January 31, 2000 Page No. 2 Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to Very truly yours, CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:lsc cc: Planning'Commissioners Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney Stanley Grady, Planning Director S:\Planning\LETTERS\Kind0131 Itr..wpd OFFICES FA;( NO. 66158?20?0 P. 1 Kenneth W. Kind .Ouv~lq3n ..._ ! ~}qll: ).5 Attorney at Law 4042 Patton Way. ,. ,- , Bakersfield, CA 93308 ' TELECOPIER COVER SHEET DATE: January 31, 2000 Please Deliver The Followin~ ~a~es To: ~~ME: BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS~~ FAX NUMBER: 323-3780 FROM: KENNETH W. KIND TOTAL NUMBE~ OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE): 4 RE: South BeltwayA.li~nment ENCLOSURE: SENDING OPERATOR: JULIE OPERATOR'S PHONE NUMBER: (661) 587-5463 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE OPERATOR' S PHONE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. F-~RD COPY: WILL FOLLOW BY UNITED STATES MAIL. WILL FOLLOW BY X WILL NOT FOLLOW (UNLESS REQUESTED) This faczimile is tn~ended only for che use o named above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of =his ~ax is not =he in=ended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminazion or copying of this fax is prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please not~fy us by telephone. Thank you. Phone: 661.587.5463 Fax: 661.587.2070 email: kenklnd~worldnet, att.net Kenneth W. Kind Attorney at Law 4042 Patton Way Bakersfield, CA 93308 January 31, 2000 VIA TELECOPIER ONLY BAKERSFIELD CITY PLA/TNING COMMISSION 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Proposed South Beltway Alignment/H°sking Road Ladies and Gentlemen: As I advised during the last Planning Commission hearing on this subject, I represent landowners directly affected by the proposed South Beltway Alignment that goes down Hosking Road. Recently, in processing a proposed tentative map, staff has required a disclosure that the City is still considering a South Beltway Alignment that goes down Hosking Road. I have been further advised that this alignment will be considered at the City Planning Co~nission hearing on February 3, 2000. At the last Planning Commission hearing, the residents directly affected by the Hosking Road alignment were told, unequivocally, by the Planning Commission that they need not attend the next hearing and that the consideration of a South Beltway Alignment down Hosking Road is "off the table". The residents had been told once before that the Hosking Road alignment was no longer under consideration and then the alignment was resurrected and presented to the Commission as the preferred alternative. When the residents were told the first time that the Hosking Road alignment was no longer under consideration and then told at the last minute that they had to Phone: 661.587.5463 Fax: 661.587.2070 email: keukind~worldnet, attuet BAKERSFIELD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 31, 2000 Page 2 attend the Planning Commission hearing because the Commission was, in fact, on staff recommendation, considering ~he Kosking Road alignment, they lost much faith in the credibility of the political process. If we have to con~act the several hundred residents who attended the earlier Planning Commission hearing and advise them that once again they must attend the hearing to protest even though they had been told, ._without.reservation, .they .did not have to, I can predict a disgruntled, angry and very disappointed. citizenry. Not only were they told they did not have to appear, but they have been given no additional notice a hearing is going forward considering an alignment through their neighborhood. The purpose of my correspondence is two-fold: 1. The City of Bakersfield issue something in writing available to property owners affected by the Hosking Road alignment that the Hosking Road alignment is no longer under consideration by the City of Bakersfield} or 2. The hearin~ presently set for February 3, 2000 be continued to allow the affected citizens time to rearrange their schedules so they may attend the Planning Commission hearing, once more, to make their views on this alignment known. in my opinion, any consideration of a Hosking Road alignment without a re-notice of the hearing to affected property ow~ners will be invalid due.to the notice requirements. Please do not make me contact these citizens once more and advise that they need to attend the Planning Commission hearing because the Kosking Road~alignment is being considered. BAKERSFIELD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 31, 2000 Page 3 Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KWK:jh · C: Carl ~{ernandez, Esq. via telecopier Bakersfield City Attorney's Office Bakersfield Public Works via telecopier Bakersfield City Council Members via telecopier City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018382 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~11~00 · ' REQUEST DATE: 2/09/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED~ 12:48:28 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION:~ START: 2~09~00 LOCATION ID: ~· ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 2/16/00 FACILITY NODES GEN. LOC: FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: SOUTH BELTWAY ALIGNMENT REQUEST COMMENTS ***DUAL REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS (LEAD) & CITY ATTORNEY*** COUCH REFERRED TO STAFF A LETTER FROM KENNETH KIND REGARDING THE SOUTH BELTWAY ALIGNMENT FOR RESPONSE. COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: SOUTH BELTWAY ALIGNMENT Cat~gory: PUBLIC WORKS TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION ~DATE __/ ! : FEB I 52000 POLICE February 11, 2000 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager Honorable Mayor Price and Council Members From: Eric W. Matlock, Chief of Police/~ Subject: Response to Council Referral for Police Patrol CRR WF0018377 Council Member Couch February 9, 2000 Council Meeting Couch requested the police department respOnd to a phone call from resident Kathy Murotani who is concerned about the lack of police patrol in her neighborhood... The matter was referred to the Operations Division Captain, Brad Wahl, and assigned to Patrol staff for response. Telephone contact was made with Ms. Murotani with favorable results. Officers will provide extra patrol in the area. Please refer to the attached memorandum by Sgt. E. Bowen for complete details. EWM/vrf attachment: Memorandum by Sgt. E. Bowen "Contact with Kathy Murotani, 10009 Cheyenne" BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 To: CAPTAIN B. WAHL From: SERGEANT E. BOWEN Subject: CONTACT WITH KATHY MUROTANI, 10009 CHEYENNE On 02/11/00, at 1545 hours, I called Murotani to set up an appointment between Murotani and a district officer regarding her complaint to Councilman Couch. She was concerned about the apparent lack of police patrol in her neighborhood. Murotani said she would be more than happy to discuss the matter with me over the telephone. She confirmed a problem with "speeders" on her street, vehicle burglaries in the area, and the lack of routine patrol. I assured Murotani I would route a request to the Traffic Division for enforcement in her neighborhood and would personally direct the district cars on all shifts to provide extra patrol to her street. I also advised Murotani that the police district in which she lives is staffed daily with officers as other districts within the City. Our conversation was informative and pleasant. EASTBOUND/mwd (File: murotani.313) City o~ Ba~ersfield *REPRINT*, R Q/JoB: WF00 8377 / 001 PRO OT: DATE PRINTED: 2/1 00 REQUEST DATE: ~7 09/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 1 :30:11 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'r~'r: 2~09~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 2/16/00 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: POLICE PATROL CONTACT KATHY MUROTANI Phone 1 661 - 5871120 ( ) 10009 CHEYENNE Phone 2 - ( ) REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO POLICE*** COUCH REQUESTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPOND TO A PHONE CALL FROM RESIDENT KATHY MUROTANI WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF POLICE PATROL IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD. APPARENTLY, THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT BREAK-INS AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. Job Order Description: POLICE PATROL atp~ory: POLICE SERVICES DEPT asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: POLICE SERVICES START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /