Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/2006 B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benharn, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI~I'EE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT DECEMBER 12, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding park standards B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding planning, development and funding of communities, regional parks, bike paths and trails C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding subdivision tree requirements D.Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding status of the hillside ordinance 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Paladino arterial to collector 6. COMMI'i'I'EE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT Staff: ,John W. Stinson David Couch For: Alan Tand¥, ¢it¥ Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMAFI¥ REPORT PI. ANNING AND DEYELOPMI=NT COMMITDEE MEETING Monday, December 12, 2005- 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS (REGARDING CLOSED SESSION) 3. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel--Potential Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 - two cases The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 1:17 p.m. The Closed Session adjourned at 2:27 p.m. The regular meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m. 4. CLOSED SESSION ACTION No reportable action. 5. ADOPT OCTOBER 10, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 7. DEFERRED BUSINESS (This item heard first before Closed Session) A. Report and Committee recommendation regarding establishing a memorial grove Recreation and Parks Director Hoover reported that at Committee direction, staff has been looking for a location for a Memorial Tree Grove. At the same time staff DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 12, 2005 was looking for an appropriate location, the Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary was searching for a significant project that would benefit the City to commemorate Rotary's Centennial Celebration and adopted the idea of the Memorial Tree Grove. Staff met with Dana Karcher of the Tree Foundation who suggested using the open area at the Manor Street bike path parking area. The Manor Street site has existing parking and easy accessibility. Representatives from the Breakfast Rotary also met at the Manor Street parking area and all agreed this would be an excellent location. The Kern River Parkway Committee was consulted and approved of the project and site. The Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary Club has approved $5,000 for the purchase of 100 trees to be planted in the memorial grove and budgeted $2,000 to apply to the irrigation required for the trees. Jackie Maxwell, Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary, spoke and provided pictures of a sample grove at San Luis Obispo. California Arbor Days are March 7th through the 14th. The Breakfast Rotary Club would like to have a dedication ceremony.~and place a plaque at the site noting the club's donation and celebration of the 100'' year of Rotary International. With Committee approval, staff will begin preparation of the site and work on a layout for the trees in cooperation with other City departments, the Tree Foundation, and the Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary. The goal would be to have the site ready and have volunteers plant the trees before the annual Arbor Days in March 2006. Committee Member Maggard thanked the Tree Foundation and the Breakfast Rotary Club for participating in a private/public project and made a motion for staff to proceed with the Memorial Tree Grove project at the Manor Street bike path area location. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. 8. NEW BUSINESS A, Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding General Plan Updates Planning Director Movius provided an overview of the memorandum included in the Committee packet, which outlined two different options for updating the General Plan. Both options would provide the ability to use 2020 visioning again as the public outreach component. The difference between the two was Option B included assigning land use designations. Option A will take from three to four years. It will require at least one additional principal planner in Planning, affects staffing needs in other departments, and would require a consultant. The estimated cost would be $700,000. Option B will take from four to six years. As it includes the land use designations (mapping component), it is more controversial and will require more meetings. Much more staff would be needed and the estimated cost is $1 million. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 12, 2005 Planning Director Movius explained Option A will provide a way for the Council to communicate to the community that the City is addressing the issue of growth. It will address many issues and policies such as, provide a new EIR to address cumulative impacts, policies for walkable communities, a parks and trails plan for new development in the southwest and northwest, address super center retail, and expedite the transportation plan provided for by the "Thomas" funding. It could also designate such things as the ratio between residential, commercial and industrial development and how it will look. City Manager Tandy explained Option A needs to be done. Option B would be very complex, require work from the entire organization, not just a couple of planners. He noted this was a referral from the last Joint City/County meeting and updating the General Plan is a cooperative effort between the City and County. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, spoke on the importance of undertaking the process to update the General Plan, a new EIR to address cumulative impacts from growth, and specific plans. Planning Director Movius stated a fee is charged on building permits that is designated for the general plan update. It may be necessary to review the fee, change the assumption of the number of years it is based upon, or raise the fee to cover the cost of updating the General Plan. Committee Chair Benham made a motion for staff to proceed with Option A, meet and coordinate with County staff, and place on the next Joint City/County agenda. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding streamlining the General Plan amendment cycle and process City Attorney Gennaro explained the Council had a special meeting beginning at 5:15 p.m. on November 16 dedicated to general plan amendment hearings. If this process worked well for Council, another Council meeting could be designated to hear only general plan amendments and consent calendar. At least 21 general plan items are anticipated for February. Committee Chair Benham made a motion to have one of the meetings in February designated for general plan amendment hearings, consent calendar hearings and eliminate all other business. She requested staff to encourage the applicants and other parties to resolve issues prior to the meeting. Committee Member Maggard suggested the Mayor include in his explanation that if Councilmembers have issues to refer to staff, staff will be available after the meeting. Committee Member Couch expressed that since this may happen four times a year, if a Councilmember had something they really wanted to say that night, they could be limited to three minutes. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 12, 2005 Committee Member Maggard did not want to keep other Councilmembers from speaking and wanted to have the invocation and flag salute at all meetings. Committee Chair Benham amended her motion to have one of the meetings in February designated for general plan amendment hearings and eliminate all other business with the exception of consent calendar hearings, invocation, the pledge to the flag, emergency items, emergency closed session items and Council statements. The Committee unanimously approved the motion and requested staff to prepare a report and forward to the next Council meeting. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation on 2006 Committee meeting schedule The Committee unanimously voted to schedule meetings on the following Tuesdays in 2006 at 1:00 p.m. January 31 February 28 March 28 April 25 May 30 June 27 July 25 August 22 September 19 October 17 November 28 December 12 9. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Development Services Director Stan Grady; Planning Director Jim Movius; Recreation and Parks Director Dianne Hoover; and City Clerk Pam McCarthy Attendance-others: Dana Karcher, Tree Foundation; Jackie Maxwell, Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary; Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants; Kevin Burton and Scott Howry, Young Wooldridge, LLP; and Scott Blunck, Castle and Cooke CC: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\05Planning&Development~&D 05 dec 12summary.doc B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: January26,2006 To: Alan Tandy e ~ o~~o~ From: Diann r, Recreation and Parks Director Subject: Park and Park Credit Policy The following information is provided in response to the letter regarding the above mentioned subject provided to the committee by Mr. Bruce Freeman - President, Castle and Cooke Bakersfield. Staff from the city manager's office, the City Attorney, NOR and recreation and parks met and discussed issues. Staff recommends no changes to the existing local park provision program. This recommendation would not allow park credit for parks less than 2 % acres in size or for regional type parks as was suggested by Mr. Freeman. Several reasons were considered in arriving at this recommendation, including "Quimby" requirements, efficiency, programming opportunities and the effect on park development and maintenance programs. Following is background information on Mr. Freeman's request and the existing park provision program as well as a summary of the reasons for the recommendation. Background Mr. Freeman's letter, dated October 14, 2005, suggests doubling the minimum acreage requirement of the cities current park provision program as a result of new development to 5 acres per 1,000 population and giving park credit for parks less then 2 % acres and for regional type parks. It further suggests a distribution of this provision program to include park credit for mini parks less than 2 ~ acres in size and park credit for regional type parks. Finally, Mr. Freeman's plan would reduce the ratio of parks currently designated as local parks to approximately 1.75 acres per 1,000 population. While some of Mr. Freeman's insights have merit, the implementation of such a plan would not be achievable or advisable under the cities current local park provision program. The Recreation and Parks Department implements the local park provision program as outlined in the Parks Element of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and supported by the Recreation and Parks Master Plan 2000-2005 as well as other specific plans and documents. These controlling documents suggest, as a condition of approval for all new development, the city provide local parks, defined as mini, neighborhood or community in nature at a rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. The minimum size for these park classifications are suggested from 2.5 acres for mini parks, 10 acres for neighborhood parks and 20 acres for community parks. Minimum acreage alone does not necessarily define a park classification. Effective land use, amenities, and program opportunities are also indicators of a park classification. For this discussion we will assume acreage as the sole determinant for classification. To specifically address Mr. Freeman's interest in mini parks, less than 2 ~ acres in size, they are not precluded from receiving credit as local public parks but restricted to projects "where neighborhood standards are not met and where it is impossible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood facilities". Staff is unaware of a park less than 2 ~ acres receiving credit and would not recommend it without direction from City Council. However, there may be an instance where an infill project with very limited opportunities for park land and an underserved community could receive a favorable recommendation. Mr. Freeman also discusses regional parks, defined more by features and service radius than size, they can range up to 1,000 acres or more and are discussed in controlling city documents but are not intended to be provided or financed as a part of the local park provision program. They are historically provided by County and State agencies. However, staff believes this trend is changing and we can no longer rely on other agencies to provide for the regional park type needs of the community. The city has been successful in providing a few regional type amenities in the past such as Centennial Gardens, the Bakersfield Ice Center and the McMurtrey Aquatics Complex. None of these projects received park credit, utilized park improvement funds for construction or benefit from district assessment fees for maintenance costs. Quimby Title 66477 of the California Government Code contains the "Quimby Act" which is the enabling legislation our local park provision program (Title 15.80 and 15.82 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code) is modeled after. The act does not allow the extraction of 5 acres of park per 1,000 population unless the city was currently providing that ratio. We are not. The current provision ratio is about 2 acres per 1,000 population. In providing local parks, which are also referred to as "Quimby" parks, the department has a well established policy. First, preliminary size and location of future local parks are projected within the entire sphere of influence area. As development occurs, the final location of local parks becomes more defined and a recommendation from the department for placement and size is provided to planning commission for their consideration. This generally occurs during the tentative map phase of development but can occur sooner. The 10 acre minimum size requirement for neighborhood type local parks is where discussions begin for most local parks. However, the Recreation and Parks Director has authority to enforce a 6 acre minimum as a result of a number of constraints both physical and financial. On occasion, staff will recommend a 2 ~ acre minimum size local park but only through direction from city council through an improvement agreement. Efficiency Increasing the ratio to 5 acres per 1,000 population and allowing park credit for parks less than 2 % acres in size will result in higher maintenance costs system wide. For example mobilizing tasks, undertaken for mowing operations, are greatly increased by equipment unloading and loading activities. The more stops that have to be made the more time is spent mobilizing and not mowing, therefore, more and smaller parks are more expensive to maintain and not recommended. Programming Opportunities Smaller parks, especially those under 2 ~ acres in size, provide limited opportunity as a platform to deliver public recreational opportunities. These small parcels of land are often not buffered well from adjacent residential development resulting in problems with sound and lights, therefore, active recreation such as soccer, tennis or softball generally go not occur. Only limited passive activities such as walking paths or picnicking can be provided. Park Development and Maintenance Programs Increasing the ratio to 5 acres per 1,000 population would also necessitate an approximate doubling of the park improvement fee from $1,400 per equivalent dwelling unit to $2,800 and doubling of assessment fees for maintenance costs. An important factor to understand is that the cost to maintain district parks receives a general fund subsidy of 66% so the burden to that fund would greatly increase as well. Another factor to consider is that North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District is currently working with the city manager's, attorney's and recreation and parks departments to allow for NOR to receive park maintenance fees along with their current park development fees. This should provide more continuity in city park projects in the area. Changing our standard will effect NOR's park land, development and maintenance programs as well. 3 In closing, regional type parks are being discussed as an amenity the city may provide in the near future but the most likely funding source for doing so would be from development agreements for large annexations and not as part of the local park provision program currently in place. Staff is in support of exploring some other methodology for providing future regional type facilities for new development. That process should provide earmarked revenue for the acquisition of land, improvement of facilities, long term maintenance and possibly staffing cost. Again, staff recommends no changes to the existing local park provision program for the reasons stated above and the continued effort to be opportunistic in the provision of regional type facilities and exploration a methodology to secure a revenue source for future regional type facilities. p:Bruce 4 B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: January 26, 2006 To: Alan Tandy From: Dianfi-eHbover, Recreation and Parks Director Subject: Planning and Development Council Committee Re: Master Trails Plan Staff members representing public works, planning, city manager's and recreation and parks departments formed a working group to discuss a methodology for expanding our existing trails system, using various corridors throughout the city. The primary task undertaken was to identify all of the known corridors that could accommodate trails. Staff is working to identify existing corridors including active, future, and abandoned alignments of freeways, waterways, rail lines, and utilities that could be developed into trails. Parks, schools and major facilities will be included in the plan as well to encourage connectivity of trail alignments. Once this base information is completed any further development should be undertaken by a consultant. This is necessary because of current staffing levels and heavy work loads, technical expertise required, and the desire to solicit community input. A city wide trails plan would need to consider the impacts and coordination with existing city infrastructure, planned developments, and circulation systems. It would need to be coordinated with other effected public agencies including North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District, County of Kern and other impacted agencies. It is anticipated a comprehensive metropolitan trails plan would take a minimum of two years to complete and potentially cost from $750,000 to $1,250,000 not including city staff time. Possible grant funds or TDA funds through Kerncog could be sought towards this project however, the amount and availability of such funding is uncertain at this time. Staff recommends the committee consider two alternatives. The first alternative is that the project continues to develop with the identification of funding opportunities and further refinement of the cost of hiring a consultant to perform a comprehensive metropolitan Bakersfield trails plan. The second alternative is to undertake a more focused approach for a trails plan in those areas of future development including connectivity to the existing system. Depending on the ultimate scope of work desired by the Council, the cost and timing of a more focused plan could then be developed by staff. p:trailsO6kt B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: January 27, 2006 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Dia~ver, Director of Recreation & Parks Subject: Planning and Development Council Committee - Cost of maintaining trees under proposed subdivision tree requirements The proposed subdivision tree requirements recommend planting two (2) trees in the City right of way in front of each home. The city currently averages about 5,000 new homes a year. This would add about 10,000 new trees a year to the city's inventory. At the same time, more trees are being planted in other residential, commercial and streetscape areas which would add to the already existing inventory. Our tree staff currently handles about 2,500 trees a year, so based on this workload we would have to add about two (2) new two man crews annually plus equipment to address the proposed requirements. Current costs of about $680,000 a year include response to fallen limbs, safety issues, clearance requests, etc. with no regular pruning cycle. The need to add two (2) additional crews would cost approximately $400,000 a year. Funding the maintenance of these trees would have to come from the General Fund or an increased assessment within the maintenance district fee for new development or as is done in some communities a special tree assessment. Planting and maintaining trees in front of residential homes can create other issues as well. If trees or limbs fall on parked cars or on adjacent homes, the city would have an increase risk of liability and would be more subject to claims since we maintain the trees. Due to this additional increased cost and liability, staff recommends that the homeowner or any homeowners association as applicable take the entire responsibility for the proposed additional street trees. ' I NOV 15 2005 B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: Nowmber 14, 2005 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Dl~.r,~~ ~ Rtcr~gdon & Pirk, Subject: Attached At the previous Planning and Development Council Committee meeUng, Councilmember's Benham and Couch requested information on our tree trimming practices and recommendations for a systematic city-wide pruning program. The attached includes: · Currant staffing and equipment for tree maintenance · Cost of staffing and equipment for 8 year city wide pruning program · Contractual systematic pruning costs · Staff recommendation and associated costs Please let me know if you r. ccd addiUonal information. Estimated Pruning Cycle Parks Division November 8, 2005 CURRENT EXPENSES Staffing of(7) at step 5: (3) Tree Il's, (4) SMW's, (1) Supervisor 1 and (1) Supervisor 11. Staff'mg '05-06 Annual Cost $558,678 All staffing expenses are noted at step 5 with a current benefit package estimate. Our current personnel comprise a combination of only three full crews. Normal operations consist of street, alley and sign clearance, removals, safety trimming, emergencies, green waste collection, fallen trees and branches, plantings, residential, council request and intermediate pruning cycle work. With significant building activity comes tremendous requirement to address new tree issues. In 2004, developers planted an estimated 2,100 trees. Currently, we have inventoried approximately 42,000 trees located within of all parks and all Maintenance District streetscapes and medians throughout the city as of March 2005. We estimate this number to approach 100,000 - 120,000 trees upon the additional count of city easements/rights of way trees Our culmination of data over the last two years reflects close to 50% of our time spent within the General Fund and Maintenance District performing our various Urban Forestry activities. Existing Equipment 2004-05 Annual M&O 55' Aerial Truck #4299 $ 16,357 55' Aerial Truck #4300 16,357 Chipper #4305 5,469 Converted Chipper (Dump) Truck 7,433 Stump Grinder #4303 3,278 Loader g4370 15,012 Brush Truck g4390 11,753 Brush Truck g4391 8,944 Brush Truck # 4136 8,700 Brush Truck g4140 6,404 Brush Truck g4382 10,116 Brush Truck g4383 10,116 Dump Truck-Bobtail g4340 10,733 '04-05 Actual Annual M&O Cost $130,672 Existing Staff Plus Annual Equipment M & O Cost $ 689,350 Gcronk 8 Nov 05 S:\Urban ForestryL2005~Estimated Priming Cycle 111 ADDITONAL CREWS AND EQUIPMENT TO MEET 8 YEAR PRUNING CYCLE Additional Equipment Purchase Costs (1 Time costs) (7) 55' Aerial Lift Trucks $105,000 x 7 = $ 735,000 (7) Brush Chippers 30,000 x 7 = 210,000 (7) Chipper Box Trucks 55,000 x 7 = 385,000 (2) Walk-Behind Stump Grinders 19,000 x 2 = 38,000 $1,368,000 One Time Acquisition Costs $1,368,000 Estimated Annual Maintenance and Operation Costs (7) 55' Aerial Lift Trucks $16,357 x 7 = $114,449 (7) Brush Chippers 5,469 x 7 = 38,283 (7) Chipper Box Trucks 10,733 x 7 = 75,131 (2) Walk Behind Chippers 3,000 x 2 = 6,000 $233,863 Annual M&O Estimate $ 233,863 Additional Personnel (7) Tree Maintainer II $421,667 (14) SMW 720,740 $1,142,407 New Additional Annual Personnel Costs $1,142,407 Estimated Equipment M & O Costs 233~863 $1,376,270 One Time New Equipment Acquisition Costs $1,368,000 New Annual Additional Personnel and Equipment M & O Costs 1~376~270 $2,744,270 Gcronk 8 Nov 05 S:\Urban Forestry~2005~Estimated Pruning Cycle 111 CONTRACT SERVICES (West Coast Arborist) Estimated unit price $55.00 per tree (average cost) 100,000 Trees 5 year cycle cost = $1.1 million annually 8 year cycle cost = $700,000 annually Additional work to provide an audit only, no G.I.S. map, at time of pruning is an additional $2 per tree. G.I.S. mapping services, compatible to City software, can be provided for $4 per tree. RECOMMENDATION Contract out a substantial portion of our annual tree pruning work load. Budget the estimated $700,000 cost towards block pruning activities. Add one (3) person crew to assist with existing tree pruning activities. In conjunction with city staff, the combination will help achieve our target of an 8 year pruning cycle for all trees within the city's streetscape, medians, parks and easement/right of ways. The summary below also addresses a key element of continual tracking of our Urban Forest assets via a recommendation to hire a person at Park Technician comparable rates. This person would have botanical and computer knowledge sufficient to keep the asset inventory updated. Again, all City labor rates are adjusted to include current benefit package estimates. Annual Acquisition Cost M&O Cost (1) 75' Aerial Lift Truck (Taller) $140,000 $19,000 (1) Brush Chipper 30,000 5,469 (1) Chipper Box Truck 55,000 10,733 (1) Walk Behind Stump Grinder 19,000 3,000 $244,000 $38,202 (1) Tree Maintainer II $ 60,238 (2) SMW 102,962 (1) Park Tech (G.I.S.) 78,069 $241,269 One Time Equipment Acquisition Cost = $244,000 (not included below) Annual Equipment M & O Estimate = 38,202 Additional Annual Personnel Cost = 241~269 Annual Equipment M & O + New Labor Cost = $279,471 Gcronk 8 Nov 05 S:\Urban ForestryX2005~Estimated Pruning Cycle 111 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COSTS Existing Urban Forestry '04-05 M & O and Labor $ 689~350 Recommended: New Crew & G.I.S. Technician $ 241,269 New Equipment Acquisition 244,000 New Annual M & O 38,202 New Contracted Services 700~000 Recommended Revisions to Urban Forestry $1,223,471 Existing U.F. Labor and Equipment Plus Recommendations $1,912,821 S:\Urban ForestryX2005~Estimated Pruning Cycle 111 Gcronk 8 Nov 05 S:\Urban Forestry~2005~Estimated Priming Cycle 111 The following documents pertain to the: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMM. meeting of Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 2:00 PM. ma._nl)OtVr Page 1 of 2 PI..AI~II~G AlqD DEVELOPI4ENT COI. ll, iITTEE lIEF. TING ON 01/31/06 John W. Sfinson - liE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. From: "Steve Hollis" <shollis@worldoil.net> To: "John W. Stinson" <jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us> Date: 1/30/2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss Paladino Dr. John, It was a pleasure talking to you again the other day. As I stated in our conversation, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Development meeting on Tuesday, February 1st. As discussed, I will provide you with a list of my concerns and comments. 1. The criteria for being an arterial street are not being met. Typically an arterial street will handle 25k vehicles per day. In the 2030 traffic studies, this section of Paladino Drive will average less than 1 lk vehicles per day. 2. The total distance for Paladino is less than three miles. If Hwy 178 is being realigned, the east west traffic would opt for freeway transportation. (Unless the speed limit on my residential street is 55 mph) 3. By making Paladino a collector, it can be changed to 4 lanes without a median and save the city over $1,000,000.00 in unnecessary pavement and median costs. 4. Safety concerns. As allowed for in previous meetings, horses and other animals are permitted on the north side of Paladino. Should an animal get out, the results could be devastating. Not to mention the obvious factors of children playing in yards next to a high speed thoroughfare. 5. Consistency and fairness to current residents. If not for the current residents paying a large percentage of the recently installed water line, construction efforts would have been delayed. Our community has been part of the City of Bakersfield (and paid taxes) since 1977 yet are still without sewer and gas services. We were told by the Planning Committee construction on the northeast side of the City in the Hills project would not commence until Hwy 178 was realigned to handle the additional traffic. One of the first projects scheduled for completion is on the northeast side. The current residents fought in vain for continuity when planning a new community. Instead, we are faced with the prospects of a community with 4 times the average density of the City of Bakersfield and road that goes nowhere being over built with money that could go towards additional schools and other much needed infrastructure. I am confident we have very capable people making decisions based on what is best for the city. I only ask that you also consider what works best for the community and the people directly effected. With the rising costs of goods and services, it is more important then ever to be prudent with the City's finances. Let's plan it right and then build it right. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Steve Hollis file://C:~Documents and Settings\jwstinson\Local SettingsXTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 p.s.-If you feel a presence is necessary, please call my wife Kristy @ 345-2910 by 11:30 A.M. and she will represent our concerns. If you need to contact me, I can be reached @ 343-1912 or at this EMail address. ..... Original Message ..... From: .John W. Stinson [mailto:jwstinson@bakersfieldcity. us] Sent: Wednesday, 3anuary 25, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Upcoming Planning and Development meeting to discuss PaladinoDr.[Steve Hollis], Mr. Hollis, There is a Planning and Development Committee scheduled for Tuesday January 31st at 2:00 p.m. the City Manager's conference room in City Hall. The Paladino item that was deferred from December is to be discussed at this meeting. I will be sending the official agenda for the meeting when it is finalized and available. Just thought you would want to know about the upcoming meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. John John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-326-3751 661-852-2052 fax jwstinson @ bakersfieldcity.us file://C:kDocuments and Settings\jwstinsonkLocal SettingskTemp\GW}00001.HTM 1/31/2006