HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1995 t3 A K E R S F I E L D
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Randy Rowles
Patricia M. Smith
Staff: Gail E. Waiters
AGENDA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, July 11, 1995
12:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA
12:00 Noon Tour: Morning Drive Specific Plan Line
1:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 19, 1995 MINUTES
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. RESULTS OF PILOT SPEED HUMP PROGRAM - Rojas
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES - Councilmember Rowles
B. ADA RETROFIT OF COUNCIL CHAMBER - Waiters
7. ADJOURNMENT
GEW:jp
FILE COPY
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Urban Development Committee of the City
Council will hold a Special Meeting for the purpose of a Committee Meeting on Tuesday,
July 11, 1995, at 12:00 p.m., at City Manager's Conference Room, City Hall - Second Floor,
Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider:
12:00 Noon Tour: Morning Drive Specific Plan Line
1:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 19, 1995 MINUTES
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. RESULTS OF PILOT SPEED HUMP PROGRAM - Rojas
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES - Councilmember Rowles
B. ADA RETROFIT OF COUNCIL CHAMBER - Waiters
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gail' E. Waiters, Assistant City Manager
GEW:jp
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE: June 1, 1995
TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
STEPHEN
FROM:
SUBJECT: SPEED BUMP (PAVEMENT UNDULATION) PILOT PROGRAM TEST
RESULTS REPORT. Final Report
Attached for your transmittal to the City Manager is the Traffic Engineering report of the
Pavement Undulation Study for the pilot program test of pavement undulation type
speed bumps in the City. Following is a brief summary of the test results.
Based on our study results, the speed bumps used did not reduce speeds to the desired
25 mile per hour limit. As shown on the following summary table, the speeds were
reduced by only 3.55 mph on Parsons Way, 5.45 mph on Kleinpell Ave. and 3.4 mph on
Flintridge Drive. On Toluca Drive, which is near a school, the speed increased by 1/4
mile per hour. "After" data was not obtained on Clifton Street due to repeated vandalism
and destruction of our traffic counting equipment. Clifton Street had the lowest "before"
speed of the five test sites with an average of 29.55 miles per hour.
Averaged 85th Percentile Speed Reduction (MPH)
Street Before (MPH) After (MPH) or (Increase)
· Parsons Way '31.70 28.15 3.55
Kleinpell Avenue 33.28 27.83 5.45
Toluca Drive 32.36 32.61 (0.25)
Flintridge Drive 36.8 33.4 3.4
Clifton Street 29.55 (No data due to vandalism/destruction of counters)
Although from a traffic engineering view, the speed bumps did not produce the goal
speed reduction to 25 mph or less, the general public was pleased with the results and
other neighborhoods are interested in getting speed bumps on their streets.
cc: Traffic Engineering File - Pavement Undulations Study
slw:\DATA\WP\1995~bumpcvr4.mem
SPEED SURVEY - CLIFTON STREET
IJAIL 1 ()CAIION DIt~'l'll)llt IItAVLI. /~VEIIA(~E LIb%II E I ~ VEl I1%VEl I I ~ VEl t1% VE~II~ ~llj !eVLl ~ j ~ V~I,Il ~v~ ! IO IAI
[O HUMP iDIIIECTION ~_~ SPEED '- i~6 - ~:~ ~ ' g 26/
5epl 2/, 1994' I/I-I/Il
Sul)l 2/, 1994' 0
SPEED SURVEY - FLINI'RIDGE DRIVE
I,AI[. I(.)(:AII()I~I I)ISI/i)IH IHAVLI AVLIIAGIL: .b%llL I~v~l%V~,ll~v~lll%v~ll~%l~l~VHl ~VLI~I%VLII I()IAI
FROMltUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED I uYb'2g~NilEdtb~ 30]OqOMPH bVEiI46~P~I VEIIICIE8
~p122.1gg4 178 30.21~Z/ 75.3J 59l~ sI 5.I ~ ~ 5~
tg4, 1094 hilhi, ltjuE/()t,,,lullly(;h,l, 2,10'~1 NL,tlhl,,)lul, I 209 364J 2iii 6~6J' ~3J 7fi 96J 224 54 429
;pl2Z, lgfl.t' 162 275J 302J 814J 44JllgJ 25J "~ O 3~,
ZJ)I~, 1994 24 3381 201/ 38.21 941369J 251 238 12 526
r,vlll. ItJ~l,l Z/2 367J 136J 267J ~a/J564J 82J 161 24 509
,;J)I2Z, JOg-J 24 ~521 22gJ 41.91 S~/2ZZI ~"1 ~"~ ~ ~4~
3VlB, 1994 2;J.4 3401 24~j 442j 4~J25.~J ~fl ~"~ ~.Z SSO
1~4, Igg~' I-hlllndtluN/O.l, iarulo 735'8 SolllhboliiKi ~.{ ~l ii~j i8sI 84l~Sij ,.9oI 47.3 ' 9 613
:1)127, 199,1 254 346J 2o31 3, el ~261 354j 991 31 2 i I 639
;)V Ill. Itl94 264 35~J l~/ ~¢~I ~/~1 ,581 396 I 9 65I
l~i 4. 199'~ iHIIII'J,.J,~ :¢/().J,i,,lill~, 76L)' ~; NuflI,I,c)tii,,I "-24 33 81 192J 37 gl 66J 32 Il ~TJ 29 0 4 501
:1,, 2::. ,~,~,1 ~Jd 332J 208J 441J 54J326J 10J .~3 0 4'/2
,v~tL~:l(J.l 2~.~ 3391 ~/ ~5. fl ~1~1 7~1 277 03 6~7
SPEED SURVEY - TOLtJCA DRIVE
l]All: IOCAIION l)lSl'/DIIt ]I~LAVL:I. AVLI:IAGE ub%IIE _~VEItI%VI-II #VEIII%VLI lVEl~l%VEtl IVEIII%VLII1 IOIAI
FROM HUMP DIRECTION SPEED SPEED O'~'2~-M~II ~5'TOao
2, 1994 [oluca E/O Ouinlana "-~6;W ..... W~ib~h~-a ..... i~.5 .... ~.6 -
20. 1994 21.4 339 254
16. 1t)94 201 32 1 290
2, 1994 I~,hl~.~ t/( J (Jllilll;lllU 89()' W baslhuunil 10 3 30 5 103
:pl2u. 1994 162 27 4 265
16, 1994 189 31 279
2, 1994 loluca E/O MazaIlan 320' W Weslbound ~ 3~4 149
~pl20, 1994 19 30 5 363
16, 1994 20 9 32 2 380
2, 1994 'lulu(;a E/O M;lzatlaJl 320' W ~asll)oilll(l ~'g ~ ~ 7 147
20, 19fl,l 1 OB 30 6 3 I
16, 199,1 18 9 30 5 324
28, 19~4 I'uhica EIO I a I'az 280' E Westbound 2~.~ ~1 21'5
20. 1904 22~ 33 3 422
16, I lJg,l' . 0
2, 1994 I oh ll:,~ t /( ) I a I 'a z 3-IO' l: Easlbut u i~1 2:J ~ u~, 203
2ti, 1 girl 20 9 ;J2.3 292
16, 199,1 22 32 9 373
28, 1994 Iohma W/O I a~ Alunas 6/0' E Wcslbound 19.4 31.4 234
20. 1994 25 I 3.1 5 431
16, 1994 24 8 3.1 2
28, 1994 Ioluc~ W/O fas Alumnus U20' E Easlbound ~5.~ ~5 2 2.13
~p120, 1994 259 35 6 381
16, 1994 249 347 382
;achine Failu[e .........
lala ilol coml)lele, vandalsm
SPEED SHRVEY - KI~IEI'JPELL AVENUE
, ~ ~ , ~!~E~TI~H ~ ~ -O~'2~M~ij '~ST~ ~ MPI~ ~o TO ~0 MP~ ~vER ~O MPH vet IiCi ES
y2d. 1994 Kl~cnpullE/OR~oBlavo 70'W Wesl~und 267 35.3 '-~3'-~ --3~-~--~'.~" -- ~ ...... ~ ~ ........... -89,1
pt2t. t994 15 252 1003 88 99 87 36 1140
v d. It~)4 I.I 8 24 8 1176 U9.2 102 7.~ 4t 1319
f,~ 2 i. 199q 17 9 ~ 3 866 73 4 210 17 8 ~9 z ~ 1do
'~ ~, ~ut~4 16.5 28 1053 78.8 213 15 9 67 1337
ly 2b,'1994 Khaui~ll WtC) I I~wloll 440' E W~stbound ~.~; 35~ -~ "~ ~ ~ ~ '848
,.~121, 199q 21 8 326 648 582 278 25 80 I(] ~113
,~ ~, I~t~)4 19 3 30 2 799 62 4 348 2/.2 31 12f11
ly 2b. 199.1 t(l~:J,l,~:ll I./(~ J I~wl,~ll hbO' E EasIl~ou~id 21 I 30 ~ 38~ 50 8 279 368 93 758
:pi21. 199,1 16 1 28 1 861 77 6 195 17.6 47 I 110
.~AI]I.E t~
SPEED SURVEY - PARSONS WAY
I)AIE I ()[-;A lION 1)1~3'1/[)11] 'ItIAVEI AVi:iIA(JL u5%11E # VEl 11%V121 11 # VEl I[ ~,, VI21 !1 # VEl !1%VLI Ii # Vl..i il -,,,VLi ij IL)IAI
FROMHtIMP DIRECTION 8PEEl) SPEED -o~0'2S-I~,Pitl ~,5'~Toa~M'pI:II ~J:I'°*~MP1:11
pi2/, 199-I 17.7 292: 332/ 7~.4 --/ 2~ ]~/ 66/ 21 04] 465
v22, 1994 181 296 .200/ 694 90 21 ]6l °7/ ~1 °21 4~5
pi2'/. 199~ 15 1 249 444[ 89 38 7 IO/ 2/ 7[ I 41 499
i~ 27, 1994 't'alsons S/O Mc Clea[~ 2aO' N Nollhb0und ~ ~.~ 248~ 592 ~ 2~ ~4~ lO 5~ ]71 4 I'1 419
pi2'/, 19U~ 169 2U2 334/ 768 82 ~. ~7/ 39/ 21 05I
,v~, 1~94 174 28a ~66/ 729 8o 2~ 18/ 49/
pI2/.1994 156 265 3101 833 70 ~5 3/ 07/
APPENDIX C
CORRESPONDE!NCti
Novemmer !0, 1994
Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer
City of Bakersfieid
Bakersfield, CA
93306
SUBJECT: STREET SPEED BUMPS
There is a new "speed bump/ramp" on Flintridge between College and
Coun::7 CluB. It has been bo~n my onserva:ion and experience
this has bo~h rou=e~ traffic from F!intridge to Countz
has also created a significant hazard for children, ma~¥ con,act
cars, vans, and other venicies. Ten miles per hour spee~ li~t
signs are located !i0 fee~ from this hazard, but should be five
M.P.H. Maximum.
The barrier will "launch" an E-!50 Ford passenger van if it is
traveiing more than ~hree miles per hour. A situation occurs
whereDy the van is cut of con,roi and is a hazard to my children
and grand cniidren.
Many cars, especially compacts, are suspended, straddling the
oversize, flat topped barrier, with all four tires hanging down.
This is due to the-a~proxima=eiy eight to nine feet of ~la= area
on too of the barrier's f!au
The barrier, !ocate~ on the straight and flat section
Flin=ridge, has rou=ed traffic onto Country Club Drive with it's
many blind curves and hills. The Flintridge barrier has created
much greater hazard than it has resolved.
Wouidn't it be more cost e~fec~ive zo post residential areas with
25 m~ies uer hour s~eed IL~i~ signs than ex~ensive launching
pla=forms. Has anyone cons~dere~ "washboard" areas of three inch
high ridges, three inches auarn, in Uhe middle ten feet of ever~
city residenuiai block?
Better ye=, how about pos=e~ s~ee~ limits and sporadic
enforcement. There are usuai!v 5wo Highway Patrol Officers and
occasionally one City Polics Gfficer on College between Oswell and
~air~ax, equipped wi~h Radar. ~qhv don't they occasionally take
~he ~wo biccK run up F!inUr~dge?
Finally, who is resuonsible ==r death, injury, proper~ damage,
dama=e= veaicie under-carria=es, wneei and aligrn~en= da--ge, when
in full ccmuiiance with the pos=ed ~en mile ~er hour spee~ limit?
Addi=ionaily, how many currenui-; manufac=ured vehicles are capable
o~ ciim~ing cn tod cf a flat piateau, s~raadling a wheel to wheel
Length o~ asonait With the rear wneeis free of tra¢:ion, and the
fron: wheei$ capaDie o~ turning, bu~ not s~eer~ng the vehicle?
Wha: is the ~ifference between a six inch ~eep hole in the road,
eigat fee~ ion~ an~ ~he same configuration above the ground? I
?REFE. R THE HOLE many ~~mes over the rampe~ launching pla=form.
Fun~s for smooth an~ we~l mainuaineu streets make good use of our
roa~ main=enance money --- why uay for dangerous road-to~
des=rue=ion?
Rober~ M. Ashbeck
4283 Coun~; Club Dr.
Bakers~i~id, CA
93306
cc: Members, ~akers~ieid City Council
cc: County of Kern, Board of Supe~zisors
cc: The Bakersfield Californian
Ranay Rowles. Counc~tl~erson
[701 Truxmn Ave.
3akersl'ietct. CA 93301 Aug'ust 19, 1994
Dear
=_nc~oseU are a ser~es o~' pzctures wmcn I tooic of the creation of the first
tragic l~um~ on a B~ersfietcl street. Kleml~etl Ave. You must aclcl tl~ese
pnnts to a scrao t~oo)c o~' your acrUevements!
At t~ts point, we believe tl~at tl~e Oum.~ l~as slowec~ trai'fic anti discourage(l -
cut-tl,irougi~, non=res~ctent trai'fic, as well. Time will tell tl~e coml~lel~ store-
of :l~e success oi' tI~e ~uml~. We are most a,~l=reciative ol' tl~e pilot I~l'ogran~
aha ~l~at Klem.~etl is a ~ar~ o~' ~l~e .orog. ram.
.~t would be remiss o~' me not to mention l~ow tl~ougtttI'ul ancl professional
were all tl~ose wrio worKect on tl~e instailation, jolm ancl I were iml~resse(1
anu ~tease(~ witl~ the entire .~rocess anti all ~ersonnel involved.
Sincerely,
'....,', M',~.~ ' "-)' '~.-7'~'~'"~..~ ~' '%
Ann G. Ba~=
5813 ~empe~ Ave.
B~ersfietd. CA 93309
cc: Saul M. Roias
Steprien L. Waker
:~PPE~DIX D
SAMPLE POLICY
DRAFT
POL.rC.Y OF ~E CITY OF '/EHTURA
~EL.ATIVE TO THE USF. OF ~OAD UNDULATIONS FOR
T,IAFFr. C "PE:.'~ C~HTROL ON P~JBLIC STREET5
-:~e :~r~cse :f :.sis ~oi~c',', '~ "~ -~=~-- ~..,.., :he ~r~cess 6no ~-~teria ~y
]cunc:~ ~v c~e ']itv's ~d Joc -ransoor~icn ano Traffic Co~ittee anO to
'~:ent~J',' s~e c:~aitions ~m~er ',,n~c.q cmev may ce ins~aiieo.
BACKG~OUNO
-,~e u:=._ of rcao unouJat~gns is ~.~.~* ~_nc_.: =- as ~. solution for ail traffic
~na ::eeo ~:n:roi groDiems. ~: ,,,iii '-e :~e Citv'~ ~oiic'/ :o carefully
:nat -ne gr~goseO ioc~:ion ano acc~noino circumstances meet alt the --=--. ~us:,ne~ in this soils,/.
~OLIC'F
.. -F~e ~nit!as:on of r~euesss =st E~ee~ ;dumo inssaila~ions snail be in
~cs~roance ~it~ t~e f:licwino:
~. ~ll ~eeuesSs snail sr~nase From s~e residents of the street.
~ii~ Se suooiiee .~v s~e ~uOiic 4orxs ~eoartmens~.
-. 411 -=" ii ~: ,c' las:- ' ,_.
_..~:~ons ~a sl- u ._ s,/ %he '~i~ents themselves.
She sgonsor of s~e gesisign snail .:sntact gne resident residing
unouiacions are :elna r~eues:e~ -- se instaile~, if the s:onsor
is unaoie to csnsacs a r!siaens. '~0 CONTACT," '.ill be noteU on
:he :etition signa:ure soace .~ith the days and times that
,:gn:.~- was attempted. The !:onsor mus~ ~a~e at Teast two
. ~ seoarase ~etici:n snai~ ~e usee r:r each street blacx.
e. ~etiticns sna~ -= clr.:ia~_. ~mono '-hose residents residing in
~uiidinos facino t~e ssr._.:~ ano !,ocase~ within ',~ feet of the
~ace ~f curo ~n ==~-'iecx ~nere roaO unOuiasions are to be
oc...~ ,st wno lyes ., i -=:!cence shat accesses the street
:f San Euenaven:ura.._. :~x ~, .en~ura. -.~" }]002.
ATTACIg~ENT i
DRAFT
~uom~::.:~ :~,q-.=.i~in~ -:~,qa~ures :f residents desiring the
..~.'cn :uoDorc ~ .,,e ;~scaiiaticn of unduiations shall
c=ntain one signatures :f -es~dents r~oresentin~ aU ieast 7E~ of
'~e :ur~ ~n :~e ~:ree~ ~nd .~iii 'nciuoe ail residences that
,~ccess :~e s:r~es 'iocx.
£. ~oao ~nouiacicns ~naii :niv :e '~scaiiee in conformance with design
:~eiines :nat nave ceen estz~i~eo ~v ~e City Engineer.
~=~ce road snOuiacicns ~re ::!il ~x~erimentai roaoway features,
a~itions, alterations cr r~ovai~ ;f ~nv or ali roa~ undulations by
'. :-~cr so sxe !nssaiiasicn cf ~ao 'snouias~-ons the City Engineer will
~ot:fv the Fire ~eoars~enc, ~e Feiice Oeoartment and ambulance
set,cites cf eac~ inssailaticn.
;f, after 'insulations ~re ;~s=ziie~. residents '~isn to have the
~n~uiacions re~ove~, aacn :~i:icn.re~uesting removal of the undula-
cf:ns snail contain 6: '~asc 77~ c? one residents that face directly
cn ~ne scree[ ~)ocX ~nere ~nou)ac:cns ~re to be placeO and located
~it~in 7~ fee~ of :~e :~r~ ~n ~e ~=reet and ~ill include all
-=~i~ence~ :~ac =c~°~s :he ~c ___ ~
..... ~=~ idex. A separate petition shall
~e :rovi~e~ ~or eac~ "iccx. -~e -etition for removal will be
...... ~n ..... cs ,::nsidera~ion.
'4ARRANTS
The ins=ailation cf road unouia~cns :n :u~iic ~tree[s '~ill be considered
~niy ~ ~il cf '~FollcwinQ ccnoi--c~s ~Ke ~et over t~e entire proOosed
~cr__. !e~men~ as ce~ermlne~ ~v c~e Cfc-/ £~Ineer:
_. The average daily traffic volume ~aii ~e ~ore than 500 but less than
Z~O0 through vehicles ~er
~ore than ~--,=;~ of :he -:urveve~, ~o=,'r:s=2 .~ust exceed the posted or
~ri~a facia s~ee~
:. The street snail not
The s=ree~ ~ail have no ~ore --an ~ ::rcugn traffic lanes. The cum
adjacent -~, :~e road ~nouiacizn 'cc=~'-. :ns ~ust be of the raised six
:r i~gh= inch s:anoar~ ~arr'er :'irc ::,?e and not roil-over cur~.
..... =~ "' stance. 2avement surface
:uaiit'/, hor~zzn~ai ~i~n= :!s:znce. :r~:~a~e and s=ree~ lighting. It
~u<.- ~e J-ee. .:f '~nusuai :=a~'Jr_,o~ .,n~c= ~ignt affect the safe
' -~-~ ~nail ~. ~ r_.~dent!ai ~cai ~r ~-,iecc~r ?~reet ~eeting
:,~e foilcw~ng ~efin~:':ns as s:~ea in ~ne Caiif:rn~a ,"en~cie Coce:
ui :~nos :n :,.. ii~e cf ~e r:a~ ,:r ,.: :r nors :uildings on
~uii~i~cs ~us: -= lacace~ ,.~cn~n :~ f__. :f :ne -oaa~av cur~
,:ace ~no :~ev ~usz f.ace 6no 6ccess :~e scr*or. The street must
~e 6c least ~0 ~ee~ !n 'eno:n ~no ~o~ ~xceee a :~tal of one
~. -- avoid a~roacn ~:ee~s ,:f ~r~a~er t~an JO mort, :~e location of the
:n a~vance ~f t~e ::r~: 'JnOuia::cn c~n ~e effectiveiv c:n~roilea via
~ :nvsicai :esign ~acur~ suc~ ~s ~ curve or can~roii~O intersection.
]. '~staiiat!cn of a r:ao un~uia~icn wi il not be ~emitte~ where su~stan-
-'a) dj-version :f traffic ~: ~ner local streets ~iil occur as
!e~e~ine~ ~'/ the Cit'/ Enoineer.
~oao Unouia~ions z~ail no~ ~e c:nsioereO for ~ree~s :hat serve as
~us routes cr are ::~oniv usaa by eaeraencv .,,articles as an access
.::rridor. ' ' '
:_. :aaa Unau~a~ions sna]i qo~ ~= ~ns:~iiea on. a .: .... '~here they would
,:~use ~n a~grega~e ].] ~eccnas :e~6v in Fire De~ar~en~ response time
: -f t~ev louse .~. r~s~onse .: excee~ s~x ~inu~es.
~. --- _,:ncina ~us: ~xis: :n :ne st: __. ~)ock~ '~neKe unouiations are
~OCEDURES
.. ,'er ~ :_ t~on ~ receive~. C:tv Engineer will (usina the
~r:cess euc]ineo in Figure J): ' -
· i ~/e~f'., .-.hat eac~ ~e~-~n -:n~ins -~
...... --- requisite hUm:er of
sionacures ~v ca)cu)a~ino cna c:=ai numoer cf resiuents that are
en:icieo to si~n c:~e ~e~icicn aha ensure ~ma~ the ,:~ criterion
has :een met.
~. ~]btain necessary traffic
-. '/erifv ::mDiiance .,iCh ~ii ~arr~ncs.
ai iec~:e~ :: a ~:ec~fi,: ~:ca:izn :aseO an :~e roi )owine system:
,_r2AFT
ii. :f a c~urcm :r :cmooi ;s 'ocica~ on :he street blocks where
:me un~ul ac: :ns .~ouic :e :nstalle~, 5 ~oints will be given
' ,,~ SC&CiS~ :ir each c~urc~ or
iv. ]ne ~oint .}ii :e a)"cc~cem fsr each :ercent over 85~ that
--~ percentage ef ~en~cies exceeO tme ~osceo s:ee~ limit or
v. :,ne moin: .ill :e :]muc:e~ Frmm t~e mriorit7 in~e~ for
every '00 ,,enis:es -~a: sme un~ulacion wouid dive~ to
~jacens ss .....
Ail reouesss for rca~ sneuiasicns tnas meet ail soiicies anU warrants
~iil be saxen Oefore :~e rraff!- Advisory Co~ittee. The Co~ittee
~iil discsss ail -~;evans ~ssues ~no then make r~co~enUations as to
r ...... ~ndu~ acions
2. Whenever :me rraff!' :dvi:orv ::~it:~e reco~enms ins:ailing road
unduia~icns ,:n a oar:icu}ar ::r~e~. ~ City Council hearing will be
re~ioen:s 'ccate~ ,:~ :~e ~-,:=~ ..... here tree roa~ unOu]ations would be
~nscaile~ ~o:ifvino :~em ;T :~_ :aC_, ;!me ano location of the City
C~uncil hearing.
'. Once fun~inm for reap unouiacicns :~ ammroveu for a specific location
Uv :~e City Council, staff ,vi il -remare ~esion D)ans aha contracts to
czmoie:e c:ns;ructlcn :f t~e :~ .....
-~D ..... r~ao unauiations.
Thcse iscacions :~a~ ~r9 ~:: ~':nced ~,/ the Cit'; Council' will be
:)aceo on a new cr~erit,/ 'is; ~no ,,ill comoe~e again for funming in
-~e ~ex: ~ix mon:n c','cie ;n ~n e~uai ~asis with ail ot~er requests.
oc..,:n .......~- ~-- q four ::n~ecu:ive perio~z, it
DRAFT
.~NST~LLATIOH
~n~ ]. ~here -~ere ~ ~ :ocen~iai F~r ~iversion '~ a
r ....... ,Jnou,acion~ ~av ~e ctns~r'Jcceo t3 a height of two
_. F~e unoula~icns shall ~e ~n~taiie~ across the entire roa~wav to the
'~ of the ~uct~r ,~i:h the !as: she foot taDere~ flush ,~ith t~e pave-
~en: to ~inimize ~u:ter -'Jnnin~ in~ -: ~reserve gu~ter flows (see
_. : ~:anoar~ ,]~itrans '437 ]0" .~arnine sion sca:ina "]umos" '~ith 5 inc~
s=-+es E .esters snouid ~e inssaiiee as least !00 feet from the
,Jnou) a~i on.
Z. Eeeeo aUvisorv signs ssasin~ '~0 ,ton Should be inssalleU below the '-
'~um:s" '~arnino sions.
]. fringe ftaes s~ouid ~e ~iacee on the street si~e of each sign for a
:er~oo of '~O ~avs as '~nicn ::me smev should be r~moveO.
~Qvance '~arn~no zos~t:on :n ~o~ a:oroacnes to the street se~nt
::nsroilee :v humos ~'~:~ nouid h~
. ,n.._ s .. accc~anie~ bv the
sensary ~lase ")(exs xxxx ,.. -~ indicate wner~ unoulasions must be
~umos sions ~7-oi~rai) snouiu .~iso oe oiacee cn she ao~roac~es on
cress streets from wnic~ sionificans vo)umes of traffic tu~ing onto
sx.e unouiasion controlled street, ~f ~os on all cross streets inter-
s__sino s~e unUu]asion consroileO seement. These should b~ accom-
~anieo by suo~)emensarv '~arnino. ~rrcw ~iases ('~56 or '~57) indicating
t,.e ~irecssen or directions ~n '~n~cn she undulations are to be ex-
5. Ei,Gns an~ ~arZings snail be inss~ileq ',~it~ unouiacion conss~ction.
F. ~-foot hion ~gumo'' 'egen~s s~oui~ Ce ~ainse~ ~n '~nite at app~xi-
~aseiv ~0 so !00 ==~- in ~ovance cf r~ao each unoulation. These
'eoenos should remain for 'Jo sc she year after installation of t~e
~sncu~ecicn ~fser '~,n~cn time the 'eeeno ~av ~e remove~.
~. .Z~e f~ot .,Joe ienoisucinai '~oeer ~arxines snouio ~e ~'ainteO on eac~
:~uoie ve;'s'~ ~:enseri~e s~cuid ~e :revi~eo ~n she vicinity of the
'sncui
DRAFT
:et=tans, ~t~o ~ns ~r ~naro cur'/e~ ~o c~at drivers are unlikeJy to
~c~r~acn :~em ac -:~n ~aee~. ,his en~ures t~at sufficient ~river
2. ':n~uiaticns ~ouid :e ~oace~ =r:~ :~0 :~ ~00 f~e~ aoar~.
T~e final zositionino of t~e ,Jnouiations s~ou)d take into
-~:n t~e f~Jlo~ing .nic~ ~ouid ~e field verifieU prior to instatla-
-~:~:
All =noulati~ns snail :~: ~e !~ca:e~ over ~annoles or ~ithin
-. Undulations should be :::ca~e ~o~nstre~ of sto~ Urains.
-. ~nouia:ions snouid be :.=ca:e~ ~n ~rone~y lines ~hen possible.
-. Unouiations snou~d ~e '.~ f~e: a~av from driveways.
Ver~icai curves anO ;ra~es ~nouid be evaluated ~ith res~t to
aUvance visibility ~:f =nouia:ions. Typically, all unUulation~
shoui~ ~e p)ace~ a~ 'eas= :00 :=~, a~ay from sha~ horizontal
curves an~ ~e reaoiiv ','isibie fr~ at least 200 feet if plac~
dnOuia:ions ~n~uid ~o~ =~ .~)aceo ~n horizontal curves of less
:~an ]~0 fee~ :zoius.
'Jnouia~ions snouid ~ot be :~ace~ cn ~=reets '~ith grades gr~ate~ than
1C~ o~ in ~ locaticn tha~ :~ :~: -:early visible fo~ at least 200
·
e=
CITY OF SAN BUENAVENYURA ~^.~..,,,' o, ,,,.,.,c ,,o.~
C~RAWN BY ! ~
, STD. OET. NO.
c.~f. cxzn aY ; STANDARD PAVEMENT UNDULATION
RE;C3d'O. 5Y ~
CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA · °'-'"""'""-"' °' ~'"~..~
c~,,c~ sY j ~C~O UNDULATION 'I'E.MPLATE '
I
:CT:~N$ :CT:~S CgHNITTE~ ACTIONS I , ACTZOI~
':RCULATE
SUBMIT ;ETITiON ~ i
ACK~ICWLE~GE
E~TABLi~H OATA
COLLECT ~IECES~ARY
! P~EP~RE ~EPORT
!~NO :EC2~ENOATTCNS
;~RE?ARE CiTY
! HEARING tlOT~C~
LETT~ TO ~LL AFF~CT~Di
UNDULATIONS
FOR !'~r:LLATTCN
CONDUCT
STUD~
PAVEMENT UNDULATION
('SPEED BUMPS)
PILOT PROGRAM TEST
STUDY RESULTS
.APRIL i995
PAVEMENT UNDULATION STUDY
GENERAL BACKGROUND
The City of Bakersfield Councilmembers. and Public Works Traffic Engineering staff,
continue to receive comments or commaints from residents about cut through traffic and
speeding along prima facie 25 mpn locai residential streets. These concerns cannot always
be met bv traffic law enforcement due to the limited available resources of the Police
Department. _.
Some Councilmembers. anti citizens, have travelled in other cities where speed bumps,
rechnicailv called "pavement undulations" by traffic engineering professionals to
differentiate this design feature from the abruix "bumr~" placed on some private parking lots,
have been installed by the 'local aaencv to curtaii excessive speeding. Therefor, the City
Council requested that Public Works staff explore the possibility of installing speed bumps
to reduce speeding. The reouest was first investigated by the City Traffic Committee whose
members include the Risk Manager. the Police Department's Traffic Lieutenant, an attorney
from the City. Attorney's Office anti the Public \Vorks Department Traffic Engineer.
In Au__tmst [993. the City Traffic Committee :ecommended that a City-financed Pilot
Program be initiated..-k list of potential locations for each council ward was prepared by
the Traffic Engineer and distributed rd the Councilmembers for their review. These
locations were ones in which muitipie complaints of speeding ha~a been received over the
previous year or more. and were of a street type where pavement undulations might be an
appropriate tool to use.
The Public Works Department presenteti the initial proposal to start a pilot program to the
Council's Urban Development Committee on October 11, 1993. Over the next several
montins, the Traffic Engineer worketi witin the Committee to develop the list of test locations
for the project, refine the irfformationai notice letter to be mailed and define the area to be
noticed. On June 16, 1994. the Committee recommended to the Council that the Public -
Works Department be given authorization to implement the pilot program of pavement
undulations. The implementation plan for the pilot program was submitted to the full
Council on JuN 20. 1994 for a public hearing and approval of the plan.
Upon receiving authorization, notice ietters were mailed and construction initiated. For this
pilot program the construction of the unciuiations was performed by the Public Works Street
Maintenance Division. The pilot program test location speed bumps were constructed in
late Au_mast 1994.
PROIECT PURPOSE
The purpose of a speed bumo installation is to reduce speeding on prima facie 25 mph local
residential streets. The pilot program would allow the Public Works Department to
evaluate the effectiveness, safety and public acceptance, of the type of speed bumps
currently used by various California cities, within several residential areas of Bakersfield.
PROIECT DESCRIPTION
The pilot program involved the installation of no more than seven pavement undulation t~e
speed bumps, one in each council ward. and all on local residential streets. The test period
would be for six months, during which time no additional pavement undulations would be
installed. The Traffic Engineer would perform t~efore and after traffic studies at each
location. A report would be prepared for submittal to the Urban Development Committee
with conclusions of study results. The Committee ~vould then make a recommendation to
the full Council regarding future use of speed bumps.
PROIECT APPROACH
A.n initial list of seven locations, one in eaci~ ward. was formulated with input from each
Counciimember. From this list. design proceeded for each location, utilizing' the practices
set forth in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Guidelines for the Design and
Application of Speed Humps." A traffic survey, prior to speed bump installation, would be
set at a minimum of two locations aloha t:ne street segment. This survey would be for a
txventv-four hour period and would provide speed bump and volume data at various
locations along the street segment prior to speed bump installation. Installation of the
3
speea bumr~s and required signing, srrimng and marl<lng would be installed by the Public
Worics Department, at no cost rd the resicients. Upon completion of speed bump
installation, a traffic survey wouid be set at the same locations as the "before" speed bump
survey was taken. This "after" survey would be done two times, one month and three
months after speed bump installation. The "after:' survey would be for a twenty-four hour
period and would provide speed bump and volume data that would be compared with the
data gatt~ered in tine "before" survey. Conclusions are to be made from the study results and
included in the report.
Prior to any studies or installations, an informational letter was sent to residents in the area,
who would be affected bv the speeci burnt> installation. These residents were asked to
respond on a survey card whetiner or not r~ev approved of a speed bump installation on the
subject street segment. The survey information was summarized and provided to the City
Counciimembers prior to the public hearing on the pilot program. The hearing was held
during the July 20, 1994 Council Meeting. The City Council was to approve the
implementation of the pilot speed l~umD program, prior to proceeding.
PROIECT LIMITATIONS
Utilizing the [TE Guideline .sr~acing recommendations (200 feet to 500 feet) it was our
original design to install muitime speeci bumvs on most of the chosen street segments.
However. during the course of making the final plans for implementation, staff was directed
to limit the installation to one pavement unctulation type speed bump per council ward.
Due to the lengtPi of several of the street segments, it was noted that one speed bump
would tikelv have limited effectiveness anti possibly skew the results of the pilot program.
Using oniv one speed bump on the longer street segments may reduce speeds adjacent to
the sr~eed bump, but would have little or no impact On speeds a greater distance from the
speed bump.
The number of installations was reciuceti from seven to five. as none of the proposed
locations in nvo wards were considered appropriate as test locations. The reduction in the
number of locations somewhat limiteci the amount of data we would be gathering to
measure the effectiveness of the pavement undulations. The wards that did not receive
speed bumps were Ward: '~ and Ward 6.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
War~i 1 - Clifton Street is a local residential street 1.930 feet in length and 36 feet wide,
that begins at Wilkins Street on the south and extends to Virginia Avenue on
the north. The terrain is fiat and speed limit 25 mph. The center block,
between Texas Street anti East 3rd Street. of this three block (600' blocks)
street is the location of tine speed bump installation.
Ward,." - No test location.
Ward: - Flintridge Drive is a iocai residential street 3200 feet in length and 40 feet
wide (the southerly t300 feet is within the citv limits), that begins at College
Avenue on tine south anti dead ends on the north. The terrain is
approximately a five aercent slope from north to south and the speed limit is
25 mph. The north end of the segment within the city limits, approximately
270 feet south of Country Club Drive (city limit) is the location of the speed
bump installation.
Ward 4 - Toluca Drive is a local residential street 2.180 feet in length and 44 feet wide,
that begins at Hildalgo Drive on the west and extends to Boca Del Rio on the
east. The terrain is flat anti soeed limit 25 mph. Del Rio Elementary School
is located on the north side anti at the west end of Toluca Drive. The center,
between Los Mochis Drive and La Paz Court and at the east boundary of the
school, is the iocation of the speed bump installation.
Ward r - Kleinpell Avenue is a locai residential street 1,650 feet in length and 36 feet
wide. that begins at Rio Bravo Drive on the west and dead ends on the east.
The terrain is flat ann speed limit 25 mph. Van Horn Elementary. School is
located on the south side and at the east end of Kleinpell Avenue. The west
end. approximately 350 feet east of Rio Bravo Drive is the location of the
speed bump installation. This street is subject to cut through traffic travelling
between Stockdale Highway and California Avenue. thereby avoiding the
signalized intersection or' t~,ese two streets.
Ward 0 - No test location.
Ward 7 - Parsons Way is a locai residential street 900 feet in length and 36 feet wide,
that begins at Panama Lane on the south and extends to McCleary Way on
the north. The terrain is fiat and speed limit 25 mph. The center,
approximately 4.00 feet south or' .X. lcClearv Way. is the location of the speed
bump installation.
DESIGN
Design of the pavement untiutation r. ype speed bump was based on the Institute of
Transuortation Engineers. "Guideline for the Design and Application of Speed Humps."
Spacing recommendations were not used due to the one speed bump per street limitation.
The single speed bumps were located on each street so that the greatest impact may be
achieved, and to allow additional speed bumo installation, should a speed bump policy be
adopted. The speed bump location pianned for Kleinpell Avenue was originally to be
locateci at the approximate midpoint or' the street. However, after working with the
residents the proposed location was moveci to the west. closer to Rio Bravo Drive. This is
the oniv location that was altered from the original one speed bump design.
The speed bump profile was construcre2 per the ITE Guidelines as a parabolic shape three
inches in height. It was determineti after severai speed bumps were installed that the profile
may be too "soft" or ineffective, anti a more abrupt alternate profile was constructed on
Ftintridge Drive. This alternate profile, also in the ITE Guidelines, is a trapezoidal shape
four inches in height. Additionally. warning signs and pavement markings were imtallcd,
per the ITE Guidelines, to alert motorists or' the upcoming pavement undulation. See
Detail~ and ,. ~ Appendix A.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the speed bumr>s were performed in August 1994..4.11 work was done by
City emmovees from the Streets and General Services Divisions of the Public Works
Department. Emmovees of the Streets Division. with assistance of those in the Equipment
Division manufactured a screed that was used as a slip form for the speed bump profile.
The screed was attached behind a "boi~cat" tractor and dragged across the street to make
the asphalt conform to the proper profile. The screed was manufactured with an allowance
for compaction of the asphalt when it is was rolled. The materials and labor costs for the ~
speed bump installations were less than S 1000 per speed bump, including the signing and __
pavement markings.
STUDY RES U'LTS
INTEREST SURVEY - Results of the survey card sent to residents were positive for all
locations. The return of the survey cards ranged from a low of 43% for Tolucca Drive to
a high of 68% for Parsons Way. Of the survey cards received, those in favor of speed bump
installation ranged from a low of 67% r'or Tolucca Drive to a high of 91% for Klienpell
Avenue. See Table 1, AppendLx B.
TRAFFTC SURVEYS
Clifton Street - Vandalism occurrea during the first attempt at gathering data after the
speed bump was constructed. We were advised bv the Police Department not to do further
studies in this area. No comparative data was obtained for this location. See Table 2,
Appenaix B.
Flintr/dge Dr/ye - No reduction in tine number of vehicles traveling on the street was found.
The average speecis at all survey it)cations were reduced, with the greatest reduction near
the speed bump of 4.5 mph. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced, after vehicles had -
traversed the 'speed bump, bv 8.5 mpn northbound (uphill) and 3.4 mph southbound
(downniil). The percentage of veinicies traveling 30 mph to 40 mph was reduced at both
near and far locations. The greatest reduction, occuring after vehicles had just traversed the
speeci bump in tine northbound direction, was :1.4 percent and the smallest reduction,
occuring further away from the soeed bumrx was 0.9 percent. See Table 3, Appendix B.
Toluca Drive - No reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found.
The average speeds at survey locations near the speed bump were reduced, with the greatest
reduction being 6.3 mph. The average st~eeds at survey locations further from the speed
bump. showed an increased of up to 5.{5 mr~in. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced,
after vehicles had' just traversed the speed bumm bv 6.3 mph westbound and 1.8 mph
eastbound. Further away from the speeu bump, the 85th percentile speeds also increased,
with tine greatest increase being 8.5 mph. The percentage of vehicles traveling 30 mph to
· :'0 mr~n was reduced at locations near ti~e soeeci bump with the greatest being 13.9 percent
I0
in the westbound direction after traversing the speed bump. Increases in the percentage of
vehicles traveling 50 mph to 40 mpi~ were founci further away from the spee0 bump with the
greatest being 24.Spercent. See Table 4, Appendix B.
Klienl~eil Avenue - No reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was
founci. 'Fhe average speeds at ail survey locations were reduced, with the greatest reduction,
occuring near the speed bump, of 11.9 mph. The 85th percentile speeds were reduced most
in the westbound direction with the greatest reduction being 10.5 mph. The 85th percentile
speeds in the eastbound direction were also reduced with the greatest reduction being 6.0
rnph. The percentage of vehicles traveiing 50 mpn to_40 mph was reduced at all locations
with tine ,.reatest reduction of ~'
_ _-,.4 oercent occuring in the westbound direction prior to
traversing the speed bump. See Table 5, ,-Xppenciix B.
Parsons Way - Reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on the street was found, with
the greatest being 13%. The averaee sr~eeds at all survey locations were reduced, with the
greatest reduction of 8.2 mph occuring near the speed bump. The 85th percentile speeds
Were reduced the most south of the speed burno and was also 8.2 mph. The percentage of
vehicies traveling 50 mph to 40 mph was reduced at most locations. The greatest reduction
for this speed range occuured in the southbound direction after traversing the speed bump
for a change of 22.,3 percent. One location showed a small increase of 1 percent in the
number of vehicles travelling 30 mon to .;.l) mr>h in the southbound direction before
traversing the speed bump. See Table {~. ,-XppenciLx B.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Many phone calls were received during :ne interest survey and prior to installation of the
speed bumps. Examples of tlne comments received are: "good idea": "need more than one
speeci bump:'; "speed bump located in tine wrong location": "not good in street, tickets would
be better": "waste of tax payer money, have a volunteer parent give tickets."
Comments or letters received after instailation of the speed bumps were few. Two phone
calls were received from citizens in the Tolucca Drive area, one expressed an opinion that
the speed bump does not work anti the other declared that the number of vehicles on San
Estaban had increased due to the sueeci bumr> installation on Tolucea Drive. Two letters
were received from citizens in the Ftintridge Drive area. One said that the speed bump was
reducing speeds and the other called the st~eed bump a "barrier" or "hazard" and said that
vehicles are "launched" when going over tine bump. One letter was received from a citizen
-on Kleinpell Avenue who reported that tine installation was a success at reducing both
speeds and cut through traffic. See Appen0ix C.
[2
CONCLUSIONS
Public Response - While little in the way of response was received from citizens after
installation of the speed bumps, what was received indicates that the public perception is
that the speed bumps have provided some reduction in speeds and finds them acceptable.
Traffic Volumes - The before installation soeed studies were taken in August, when schools
were not in session. Many of the streets nave school.frontages or were affected by school ~
activities. Therefor. manv of the trat'fic volumes showed an increase, not allowing a proper -_
comparison to find the effect the installations had on traffic volumes and cut through traffic.
85th Percentile Sveeds - The speed data gathered indicated only a slight overall reduction
or' the 85th percentile speecis, with the exception of some locations near the speed bumps.
Some of the 85th percentile speeds actually increased, indicating that the speed bumps only
impact a short length of the street segment. Most 85th percentile speeds were between
28 mpn and 34 mph, wetl above the 25 mob speed limit. The speed bump's effect on the
85th percentile speeds was minimal and did not provide the reductions desired.
30 mph to aa mph Range - The most dramatic impact the speed bumps had was in the
reduction of vehicles travelling 30 mph to 40 mph. Many of the "before" study vehicles
traveling 30 mph to 40 mph. reduced sveecis to the 25 mph to 30 mph range. This reduces
the perception of numerous vehicles travelling at excessive speeds. While we were limited
to one speed bump per street segment. :ne .~up,'ev data indicates that ail locations would
have better results if more than one s.~eed bump was installed. It is believed that
constructing additional speeti bumps along each segment would have a greater impact in
slowin~ traffic.
In summary., the technical results do not indicate that speed bumps reallv slow down traffic
to the extent desired. The public, however, seems to embrace the speed bump as a cure to
spee0ing and perceive the results to be a oositive improvement. Based on the technical data
collected. I cannot make a recommendation for speed bumps of the .type tested.
Should speed bump installation still be desirable to the Council, we recommend installations
be made in accordance with spacing recommendations of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Guidelines. and a specific poiicy similar to that of the "Policy of the City of
Ventura Relative to the Use oi Roaci Undulations for Traffic Speed Control on Public
Streets." See Appendix D.
APPENDIX A
MAPS AND DETAILS
'~'~
~ ,~ C¥/ ~
~--AV ENUE~-
SPEED SURVEY
EPEED HUMP
ESTEBAN-- ---~-----AVENUE -
:1 I '--
5 '57 58 ..... '- .
,l IJ A ~ E Z -~ AVff. ~ ...... COURTIl-.
8] 16 IO 5
41
~Z IZ ~ 6 I
'F~ACT 4709 ,8 8 ~ ~ -
_~ I _. 4-/0-/ J~l T~
A ' -- L~CA .... DR
Z8 49 43 44 58 17 II lZ 45 23
z6 ~, ~, *, ~6 '~ z9 A SPEED SURVEY
0
,
Z5 3Z 40 4~ 5S ' ZO Z8 Z~ Z6
, , ~,
e~ a~ a, 48 ~ i z, SPEED HIJMP z8 z7 '
~8 ~ ~6 ~VE;
" - .... LENNox
~'
'? ,2 R M. 199
15 PM. BI,. 9. p
- - ~1 _ --I AVENU ·
· EARISSA ........ AVENUE ~
V/\ i,I ll~)l{il "
SPEED SURVEY
SPEED HUMP
[)irection of Trovel
in. mox I Rood Surtoce
Lenglh = 12 [t
Cross Section ~ Bump dimensions Detail 1
,,...,,, .......... Type 1 Design 'l~(~/li~' Fr~]ineerin9
~:u~l ~ .... 1'2" I?ellectivu Wliitu
iici '.,ilJll \ '---T___~] Stfil~t:s @ 6' O.C. A,lv,l~l,
Typical Street t'::~l(]rl View
Direction oj iravel
uitjhl -. - 'I .........
in. inox ~ I~o~d St. lace
'L
k.---I ~--- ~ io I
Cross Section & Bump dimensions Detoil 2
,,,,~,.~.,,,,,,,,,,,., Type 2 Design. lraffic Engineering
..........j, ~ ;i~
APPENDIX B
SURVEY DATA
TABLE 1
INTEREST SURVEY
Ward ! - Clifton Street
.Maiieci - 25 Receiveti - i4 (56%) Yes - I0 (72%)
· No - 3 (21%)
Neutral- t (7%)
Ward 3 - Vtinrridge Drive
MaiieO - -t6 Receiveci - 24 152%) Yes - 21 (88%)
No- ~' (8%)
Neutral- i (4%)
Ward a - Toluca Street
Maiieci - ~.75 Receiveci - 75 (~3%) Yes - 50 (67%)
No ~8 ~24%)
Neutral - 7 (9%)
Ward ~ - Kleinpell
Mailed - (53 Receiveci - 32 (5I%) Yes - 29 (91%)
No - 3 (9%)
Ward 7 - Parsons Way
Maileci - 31 Receiveu - 21 (68%) Yes - 18 (86%)
No- ,." (10%)
Neutral- 1 (4%)
PROPOSED RENOVATION OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Pursuant to the Urban Development Committee's direction, the City's ADA Task Force
has been working with an architect to address bringing the Council Chambers into
compliance with the Americans with Disability Act. A preliminary architectural services
proposal has been completed which provides for the scope of the project in three
phases. The Task Force has developed a ranking of major pdority improvements based
on three design options for the Committee to consider.
Priority #1: Concentrate Solely On ADA Improvements
1. Renovation of restrooms
2. Renovation of foyer
3. Installation of automatic door at front entrance
4. Speaker podium changes to include wheelchair height and two-way positioning
5. Signage
6. Wheelchair access to Council dias and staff dias
7. Wheelchair access in public seating area
Priority #2: Implement ADA Improvements and Other Amenities
1. Items listed under Priority #1
2. Increased width between rows for easier ingress and egress
3. Provide permanent display area for big maps, etc.
4. Improve communications equipment: better acoustics, television monitors, big
screens
5. Eliminate "standing room" only area (Vestibule) inside the Chambers
6. Relocate entry doors to side entry
Priority #3: Total Renovation of the Chambers and Ancillary Facilities
1. Items listed under Priority #1
2. Items listed under Priority #2
3. Improve communications equipment: close captioning, teleconferencing,
broadcast booth, government access channel
4. Feasibility of increasing seating capacity
5. Investigate completion of walkway between second floor of Annex. and Main
Building
6. Seating area for staff outside of public seating
7. Separate HVAC'system from the rest of City Hall
i_~ A ~ E R S F I E L D
Alarb~andy, City Manager " Kevin McDermott, Chair
Staff: Gall E. Waiters Randy Rowles
Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, June 19, 1995
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order 12:25 p.m.
Present: Councilmember Kevin McDermo~, Chair; Councilmember Patricia M. Smith
Absent: Councilmember Rowles
2. APPROVAL OF MAY 1, 1995 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. WARD REAPPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGY
Staff has completed the process of re-mapping all the precincts. Several options for
determining the reapportionment structure will be presented to the Council at its July 19
meeting. Staff will develop the parameters that should be followed that take into account
future growth in all areas of the city.
Urban Development Committee
Agenda Summary Report
June 19, 1995
Page 2
B. STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAYS
A written status report was distributed for all freeway and state highway projects. Staff
presented three alternatives to constructing the South Beltway project -- McCutcheon
Road, Taft Highway and DiGiorgio Road -- to get some idea from the Committee if they
were on the right track. The Committee asked that the alternatives be placed on the
IGRC agenda so that the County Supervisors would have the same information. Staff
suggested that the Mayor and Council ask Kern COG to place the item back on their
agenda.
C. UNDERGROUND UTILITY COSTS
The procedures used for determining the allocation of Rule 20A funds for
undergrounding utilities and the projects assigned to those funds was distributed for
Committee information.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES
This item was deferred until Councilmember Rowles is in attendance.
B. HOSKING SEWER TRUNK ASSESSMENT
Mr. Degeer spoke regarding his property (assessor's parcel #373-060-22). This parcel
had a deferred assessment under previous ownership because there were no immediate
plans for development of a multi-family unit. When ownership of the parcel changed, the
assessment became due and payable. Because Mr. Degeer has no immediate plans to
have any development other than single-family residence on the parcel at this time, Mr.
Degeer is asking for continued deferment of the assessment or a zone change. The
Committee recommended that the deferred assessment on the parcel continue. This
action requires Council to amend its current resolution to reflect the assessed difference
between R1 and R3. Mr. Degeer can later decide whether to apply for a General Plan
Amendment for the zone change.
C. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Staff provided a listing of all projects included in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Plan. Staff will provide additional written information on Casa Loma, Taft
Highway and White Lane. The Committee voted to adopt the interim plan and asked
that staff placed this item on the agenda for the next IGRC meeting. There was also a
Urban Development Committee
Agenda Summary Report
June 19, 1995
Page 3
request for staff to make a change to the 1995/96 CIP Budget to include the widening
of Calloway Drive between Brimhall and Rosedale.
D. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORNIA
The following issues were brought before the Council on behalf of the CELSC, and
subsequently referred to the Urban Development Committee: 1) Request to participate
in the selection of a committee to review the effectiveness of the habitat ordinance. The
Committee asked staff to relay to Mr. Moreland that staff cannot defer the grading permit
required for mitigation, and to inform him of the habitat conservation credits the city
currently has. 2) Establishing a process to allow for phasing of improvements for large
subdivisions prior to development of a parcel map. Staff recommended suggested
amendments to the ordinance which take into consideration some of the valid points
raised in Mr. Moreland's letter. The Committee concurred that for very large subdivisions
it is costly to have all improvements completed prior to development of a parcel map.
Staff's proposed changes will require an amendment to the affected ordinance. 3)
Suspending the collection of the fish and game fee. The Committee asked that staff
check on the status of the legislation introduced by Senator Costa regarding the fish and
game fee. The City Attorney explained that a trial court in Sacramento ruled that the fee
is a local tax and, therefore, is not bindinc~ to collect by cities. Since a project approval
is not final until the fee is paid. staff has ~dvised developers that until the City receives
information otherwise, they sr'ould follow the law.
E. DRAINAGE ISSUE: KERN CITY/WES'i'WOOD ESTATES/ASHE ROAD AREAS
Staff has identified that the pump station which services these areas should be upgraded
and has identified this project in the 1995/96 CIP. A final report of this study will be
presented to Council in July 1995.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned 2:05 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
GE-VV:jp
June 19, 1995
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Marian P. Shaw, CE III
This report is intended to update the members of the City Council on the progress of various freeway and
State Highway projects in the metropolitan area since the October, 1994, status report.
Kern River Corridor (Kern River Freeway)
June 30, 1995 is the termination date for all consultants on this project. CalTrans will be completing the
remaining portion of the environmental document and engineering study with their own staff. CalTrans is
considering a couple of design variations at Allen Road in order to lessen the impact on the recharge ponds
and the homes in that area.
The completion date for the environmental document is now in the spring of 1996, with a preferred alignment
chosen by that time. Funds for the acquisition of the right-of-way will be available for the 1996-97 fiscal year,
and acquisition will start soon thereafter. Construction funding may become available as early as 2009.
State Route 178 (Crosstown Freeway)
There has been no change in the status of the Crosstown Freeway from that last reported. The House has
authorized $4.5 million for this project. The project was not included in the recent appropriations bill and
may be considered for funding next year.
State Route 178 (Mesa Mar'in to Rancheria)
At their meeting of March 16, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield approved the Specific
Plan Line for State Route 178 from Mesa Matin to Rancheria Road. This Plan Line did not include any
provision for interchanges: interchanges were deferred for further consideration. Interchanges are planned
at "old" S.R. 178, Alfred Harrell Highway and Rancheria Road.
Kern COG has now provided information on predicted turning movements from their traffic model. This
information will be used in the design of the interchanges. However, the detailed traffic study of Northeast
Bakersfield has been dropped from the Kern COG work plan due to budget cuts. This study is integral to
the further development of the Northeast.
Staff recommends that the Council send a letter to the Kern COG Board protesting the removal of the
Northeast Bakersfield study from their work plan and requesting that this study be placed first on the list of
those projects to be reinstated if funding is restored.
State Route 99
Freeway Status Report
June 19, 1995
Since the October report, two of the three major projects for State Route 99 have been completed: the
Rosedale interchange landscaping and the Golden State/Airport Drive interchange modification. The widening
of S.R. 99 to eight lanes between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is still under construction.
The landscaping of the Rosedale interchange was completed in January of 1995. The work was performed
by the California Conservation Corps with daily supervision provided by City Public Works staff.
Construction on the Golden State/Airport Drive interchange modification was completed in late 1994.
Construction for the widening of S.R. 99 between Wilson Road and Airport Drive started November 15, 1994.
Most of the road work south of California Avenue is done: however, a Change Order has been processed
regarding the Palm Avenue bridge - the freeway will be lowered in this area to eliminate the problem with
the "low bridge". The contractor will start detouring the southbound traffic next week to allow for this work
to be done and the northbound traffic will be detoured the following week. This portion of the work will take
approximate.ly 6 weeks. Once this work is complete, S.R. 99 south of California avenue will be open for
traffic, and the work north of California Avenue will begin. Work on this project will be closely coordinated
with the City's California Avenue Widening project, which will include redesign of both the eastbound
California/northbound 99 ramp and the westbound CaLifornia/northbound 99 ramp.
For the most part, the bridge widening portion of this project is progressing well. The Calloway Canal,
Gilmore, Rosedale and Truxtun bridges are 30% to 40% complete. However, work on both the Kern River
and Bakersfield Railroad Yard bridges have stalled at about 10% completion. With respect to the Kern River
Bridge, work on the bridge will wait until there is less water in the Kern River. The delay at the Bakersfield
Railroad Yard bridge is due to the railroad's tardiness in relocating their tracks.
Originally, this widening project was scheduled to be complete in November of 1996. However, due to the
delays discussed above, the work is now expected to be complete by mid-1997.
South Beltwav
A response received from Kern County staff in mid-May indicates that the County also prefers the Hosking
Road-McCutcheon Road alignment between I-5 and Cottonwood Road. East of Cottonwood Road they
indicate a preference for an alignment that will connect to Edison Road. This may provide a future route for
ultimate connection to S.R. 178 through the Breckem'idge Hills.
The process to complete the adoption of a specific plan line will be generally as follows: 1. Schedule the matter for an Urban Development Committee meeting to review the alignments
and the staff recommendation.
2. Present the proposal to the IGRC (optional).
3. Consult with CalTrans for informal approval and recommendations.
4. Using the preferred alternative, after consultation, prepare the legal descriptions for the
specific plan line including interchange areas (2-3 months).
5. Prepare a supplemental EIR.
6. Schedule and notice a public hearing before the Planning Commission with Kern County staff
participation for EIR approval and specific plan line consideration.
7. Schedule the specific plan line for adoption by the City Council.
Freeway Status Report
June 19, 1995
West Beitway
There has been no change in the status of the West Beltway since the last report.
Coffee Road Grade Separation
The design of this project is progressing on schedule. The right-of-way appraisals were completed and
approved by the District on June 8, 1995. The environmental testing and draft report are complete. The
plans, specifications, and estimates will be submitted to the City in October of 1995. Bid advertisement is
tentatively scheduled for December, 1995 with award of bid in January of 1996. Construction should begin
mid-February, 1996.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
March 21, 1995
TO: F'fles - South Beltway
FROM: Fred L. Kloepper, Assistant Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Analysis of Alternatives
The attached matrix contains information that may be used to evaluate the various
alternatives. The three basic alternatives are McCutcheon Road (AA), Taft Highway (BB),
and DiGiorgio Road (CC). Evaluation of the various factors follows for each route ("AA',
etc. includes all variations.)
"AA' and "BB' are clearly superior to
'AA' is generally better than "BB' at reducing SR 99 congestion.
Cost
"AA' is clearly cheaper than
'AA' and 'CC' are about equivalent.
Environmental Impacts
Except for farmland impacts 'CC' is superior to 'AA" and
'AA' affects fewer residences than
'AA' affects far fewer commercial operations than
Alternative Analysis
The 'Section D' analysis does not differentiate much dramatic differences between
'AA', 'BB', and 'CC'.
Recommendation
Since 'AA' provides good service characteristics at 30-50% less cost than 'BB' and
'CC'is not as efficient as 'AA' at about the same cost, 'AA' is the set of alternatives
that should be prepared and presented as the preferred alternative.
Ratings
Alternative Groups
Factors Weighting "AA" "BB' 'CC"
Service Levels 10 10 9 2
Cost 10 9 0 10
Environmental i0 9 0 10
Alt. Analysis 5 ~ ~ ~
Totals: 33 14 27
EVA!.UAI!ON O~: ALTERNAIIVES
SOUTH BEL lWA Y AL IONMENTS )
Alignment "AA" =
AIK:Jnment"A#" =: 1- 2--3 4-X-Z- 12
Alignmenl "AAI" =
Al~nment "AA2": = I-2-3-4-X-Y-5- 13- 14 ,
Al~nment"AA3" =~. t -2--3 4-X-Y--5--13-15
Al~nment"BB" ~:. I 2- 3-7-8
Al~nment"BBl" = ~ I -2-3 -5-7 Z- 12 Ming Ave
Al~nment"BB2" == 1- 2-3--7-5. 13--14
Al~nment"BB3" == 1-2-3--7-5 13-.15
Al~nmenl "CC" =
AI~ nment "CC1"
Al~nment"CC2"== I-2--9-10--1 5--13-14
Alignment"CC3" == I--2 -9 10 7--5 13-15
9 "
~ O ~ .-
o o
IEVAI.IJATION OF AI.TERNATIVES
( SOt / I I t IiEl 1 WA Y A l IGNMENI-$ )
ALIGNMENTS
A. GEl:B/ICE LEVELS O~' MOBILITY '
i'.'Sa'qi~ t~i~'~ [J~ing laciJiiy ii 2 points (I) 50/49 50/49 52~39 54148 54146 50/49 49~28 50141 49/,10 35~44 32121 36/25 34/22
in (t ,O00's)
2. Average V/C ratio on all links in corridor 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.30 030 0.29 0.22 026 026 0.23 0.15 01~4 0.16
3. Total daily vehicle miles on congested links(2) .............
(in millions)
4. Tolal daily vehicle hours on nelwolk (in t,000's) 16.5 16.5 15 0 j, 16.8 16.5 16.5 127 1502 14.7 13.0 8.7 10 1 9.2
5 RegionaJ centers served (3)
(within 1/2 mile of interchange)
6 Improvement in congestion down,town 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Improvement in congestion on S. R. 99 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + o 0
A. CO9T8 AND PRODUCTIVITY
i. C~i{~ ~:0~i io ~cquir~ dghl- of- way $109 $130 $127 $121 $112 $164 $17:~ $174 $159 $105 $127 $121 $113
and construct facility (m millions)
C. ENVIRONMENTAl.. IMPACTS
'i. iviiib~, &i ~;i~i~ msidentia~ (level()pmenl 1.10 120 1.10 1,10 1.10 315 25 2.00 200 0 0.50 0 0
adjacent lo aligr~nent
2. Number of sensitive land uses wdhin 1/2 mile 2/0/0 2/0/0 2/0/0 3/0/0 2/0/0 1/0/0 1/0/0 2/0/0 I I0/0 0/010 01010 t I010 0/0/0
of alignment (schools/hospitaJs/pa~ks)
3. Number of houses and commercial buildings 12 17 12 12 12 155 128 128 128 1 1 1 1
displaced by facilily
4. Miles of wetla~ds and lipauan habitats I
adjacc'nt to aligr~el,t
5. Acres of agriculture ~emoved horn production 420 323 350 305 386 359 343 377 360 366 407 442 424
6. Oil and gas wells ~emoved from produclion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
i. [J~-di~ii~-d id ~/atet Quahty Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2. Impact to Path of Flood Waters Yes@ Yes@.i No Yes Yes@@ Yes@ No Yes Yes@@ Yes@ I'1o Yes Yes@@
3. Encroachment on IO0-year Flood Plan Yes@ Yes~ No Yes Yes@@ Yes@ No Yes Yes@@ Yes@ No Yes Yes@@
4, Impact on Surface ttydrology Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5. Increase of Surface Runoff Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. Alter Existing l'opog~aphy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Impact on Soils Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 Impact on Seismicity Nn No No Nu Fl() No No No No No No No No
9. Alter Existing Air Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10. Impact on LocalAir Quality Yes Yes ] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I1. Impaclon Regional Air Qualily Yes Yes Yes i Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
! 2. Alle~ Exisling Land Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
13.1mpacts Structures During Construclion Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
14.1mpacts on Structures During Construction Yes Yes Yes , Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
! 5. Alte~ Existing Circulation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
16. Impact on Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
t 7. Impacts ~'om Oil Field Waste Yes Yes Yes@@~d Yes Yes Yes Yes@@~ Yes Yes Yes Yes@@~ Yes Yes
18. Impacts to Pipelines Yes Yes Yes@@(.~'i Yes Yes Yes Yes@@(~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
18. Impacts f~om Agricultural Waste Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
19 Imp_acts on Fuel Storage No No No No No Yes Yes@@(~ Yes@@~ LYes@@(~ No No No No
N~)I'~! *~i ~l[rn[~{~ ~xcliJd~ inleichang~ ri~Hi-°i- g;~i~;-g-osis: (ii Ti~e t~b ~bi-r{{~, ai~ W~Si of Hw;~. bi3 and ~a-~t ~JJ Un{o~-Ave
*Dala on C- t and C-2 are on Ihe sections of lhe alignment starting from G.slord Rd e;,~;Iward (2) Congesled links are those wilh V/C g~ealer lhnn 0.90.
*Proposed school near lhe norlhwest corner ol So, Union Ave, and Hosking ltd. is wilhin I00 feet of Alignmenl "At/". @ Eastern podion only,
*Data on "D" were laken from Amendment No.t, Final Tier 1 Environmental Impacl Flepo~t @@ Degree of impact is less than Option
Save under P:~.d,¢l~cv2 ]~ Wes, rem end only. ,,,,
EVALUAIION OF ALIEHNATIVES '~'-'~*-'
-( g~)UTH t~EL 7 wA Y ALIG~ ~'
ALI~NMEN~ /
MEASURES OF EFFEC~VEN~S .~. ~" "~-I~ ~ '"~-2" 'AA-3" *BB" ~B-~" '~B-2" "BB-3" "CC" "CC-i" *CC-2" "CC-3"
A. 8E~IGE L~E~ OF MOBILIW .... . ..... . ..... 34/22
i. DailY trips using facility at 2 points (1) ('~9 _.~. _~(~ J _ ~4/4~ ~4~ ~/~ __ %9/~ ...... ~ld! _.. 4~ ~
in (t ,O~'s) i
2. Average V/C ratio on all links in corridor 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.22 0,26 0.26 0,23 0.15 0.18 OA6
3. To~ daily vehicle miles on congested links(2) .............
On millions)
4,5. Total daily vehicle Region~ centers se~edh°Urs on(3) network (in 1,000's) 16.5 165 15.0 ~ 16 8 16.5 16.5 12.7 ~ ~15'02 14.7 ~.~13.0 8.7.~, ~Y10'1 /~ 9.2
(within 1/2 mile of interchange) .... .
/
6. Improvement in congestion downtown 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Improvement in congestion on S. R. 99 0 + + r 0 0 --' d + 0 0 0 + 0 ~ 0
L CO8~ A~ PRODUCTIVI~ -~~ ......... ~ ~' ............................ -- ~'
l.~pi~costtoacquirer~ht-of-way ~09 $130 $127 ~ $121 $112~ $164 $173 $174 $159 ~ $127 $127 $113
C. E~I~NMENTAL IMPACTS ..... ~ _ ~,e~ ~
--'~. Miles of e~sthg residenti~ development ~ ~) 25 2.00 ~ ~. 0.50 0
adjac~t to alig~ent
2. Numar ol sensitive land uses within 1/2 mile ~[~ .....?0(~ ~ ~ 3/0/0 2/0/0"~. ~:~/~ -'~ ~ ~---:.~']~: ~' 0/0/O
of al~nment (schools/hospit~s/parks) ......... ~--
3. Number of houses and commercialbuildings ~: .... ~ ............ ~_ ~ ..... ~'~') ~':':~ ................. .... ~8 ~~ 1'~ ~_ ...................... ;~-
displa~d by facility
4. Miles of wetl~ds and ripari~ habita~ ~ ....... ~.~.. ~.._ ~ ~
adjac~t to alig~ent .............. ~ ..................... 7": ..... -
5. Acres of agricul~re removed from production 420 323 350 ~ 385 386 35~ ....... ~-:__3ZZ.~___~__ 366L-
6. Oil and gas wells removed from production 0 O ....... 0 ...... ~ ..... 0 ..... 0 ......... ~ ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. ALTERNATIVE ANAL~IS ~ ~
- t. Decrease in Wat~ Quality ~es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2, Impactto PathofFIoodWa~rs / Yes~ Yes~ No ~ Yes Yes~ Yes~ No Yes Yes~ Yes~ No Yes Yes~
3, E~roachment on 100-year Flood Plan Yes~ Yes~ No Yes Yes~ Yes~ No Yes Yes~ Yes~ No Yes Yes~
4. Impact on Sudace Hydrology( Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5. Increase of Sudace Runoff Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/ Y~ Yes -' Yes Yes Yes
6, Alter ~sting Topography Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes , Yes ,~ Yes/ ~ ~.~ Yes Yes Yes
Yes~ ~ Yes Yes
7, Impact on Soils Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes
9. Alter ~sti~ Air ~ality Yes Yes Yes Yes · ~ ~ ~es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10, Impact on Local Air Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ ~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
11. Impact on Regi~al Air Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
t 2. Altw Exist~g ~nd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
t3, Impacts Structures During ~nstruction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
t 4, Impacts on Struclures During ~nstructio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
15. Altm Existhg Circulati~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
16. Impact on Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
' ~ 7. Impacts ~om ~1 Field Was~[ Yes Yes Yes~ Yes Yes Yes Yes~ Yes Yes Yes Yes~ Yes Yes
18. Impac~ to Pipelines ~ Yes Yes Yes~ Yes Yes Yes Yes~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
18, Impac~ ~om Agricultural Was~~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes
19. Im~ on Fuel Storage No No No No No Yes Yes~ Yes~ Yes~ No No No No
· Da~ on C-1 and C-2 are on the sections of Ihe alig~ent sta~ing from Gosford Rd. eas~ard. (2) ~ngested links are those with VIC greater than 0.90,
· Proposed school near the nodhwest corner ol So. Union Ave. and Hosking Rd. is within ~ 00 feet of Alig~ent "A~". ~ Eastern podion only.
· Dala on "D' were tak~ from ~endment NoA, Final ~er 1 Enwonmental Impact Report. ~ Degree of impact is less than Option 2.
Save under P:~bcltc~ ~ Western end only.
?LANNING. DEPARTMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
TED JAMES, A.I.C.P.,
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 1001~ ~ ~'* ~ i.~ i~~ JOEL HEINRICHS, AGENCY DIRECTOR
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 L"~ ~5" *~ ~,~' Air Pollution Control District
Airports Department
Phone: (805) 861-2615
FAX: (805) 861-2061 i='[.:*~. !' ~- ~ 1QC~q Engineering & Survey Services Department
'" "" Planning Department
Transportation Management Department
: !) i-,~ ?,-:. *'! ('~ ~ ~( ~: !7 ~: i~ ~ ,~ T Walte Management Department
May 16, 1995
Fred Kloepper
City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Draft South Beltway Alignments
Dear Fred,
This Department has conferred with the County Transportation Management Department to
review the various alternatives for the South Beltway alignment. Both departments agree with
the City with regard to the preferred alignment west of State Highway 99. That is an alignment
that generally follows Hosking Road.
As the Hosking Road alignment heads east and crosses Highway 99, we prefer the alternative
shown in purple on your large map. However, instead of transitioning this alternative into
Oswell Street in a northerly direction, we would prefer that it extend to the east and turn north
into Edison Road. It is our opinion that it would be much more cost effective to avoid existing
development along both Oswell and Weedpatch Highway. Edison Road at Highway 58 is
currently developed with an interchange and existing development along Edison Road is also
much less intensive than to the west. Additionally, the Edison Road alignment is currently
classified as an arterial with the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan with a conceptual alignment
shown to connect with an interchange at Highway 178. Furthermore, this alignment bisects the
Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan in a north-south direction and could be a very important
transportation feature within the Plan area. This area will begin developing in the near future
since sewer service will soon be available.
If you have any questions with regard to the above comments or would like to discuss this matter
in more detail, please contact me at 861-2892.
Very truly yours,
Glenn A. Barnhill
Special Projects Div. Chief
GAB:ih
LT.c:glenn
cc: Transportation Management Dept.
Resource Management Agency
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
FROM: (~.-3acques R. LaRochelle, Engineer IV
DATE: ~/ June 19, 1995
SUBJECT: Underground District Procedures
Underground Districts are formed by local jurisdictions in order to utilize the Public Utility Commission's
"Rule 20A" funds. Rule No. 20 of the P.U.C. is concerned with the replacement of overhead with
underground facilities; subparagraph A is concerned with those facilities along public rights of way which a
governing body of the city or county wishes to have undergrounded. Paragraphs B and C is concerned with
facilities which a private party wishes to have undergounded.
Generally, the criteria for undergrounding facilities with Rule 20A funds is as follows:
1. The area to be included in the underground district must be in a public right-of-way, must include
both sides of the street, and must be at least one block or 600 feet long, whichever is the lesser.
2. After consultation with P.G.&E. and after a public hearing, the City must determine that one or more
of the following reasons exist for a particular project:
a. Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate a heavy concentration of overhead electrical
facilities:
b. The street or road right of way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heaw
volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic: and
c. The street or road right of way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation
area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public.
3. The City must adopt an ordinance creating an underground district in the area requiring that all
existing overhead communication and electric distribution and service facilities in the district shall be
removed, and that each property owner within the district shall have installed any changes necessary
to receive service from the underground facilities, and that the utility is authorized to discontinue it~
overhead service.
4. The City may request that the utility pay for no more than 100 feet of each customer's underground
electric service lateral. As a matter of past policy, the City has required that commercial property.
owners convert their services when their property, is within the underground district being formed.
When the underground district contains many private residences requiring conversion, the City sends
out a letter requesting their support for the underground district. The City will not pursue the
formation of the district unless we have the support of the residential property owners who have to
make a considerable outlay of funds to convert their existing service.
Pacific Gas and Electric makes the final determination of what projects qualify, for the Rule 20A funds. Funds
for the undergrounding projects are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric from a part of their rate base. Other
utilities, such as telephone and cable, do not have similar revenue sources and must find funds in order to
underground their facilities.
The total annual Rule 20A budgeted amount for undergrounding projects in any ciW or unincorporated area
is allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in such city or unincorporated area bears
to the total svstem overhead meters.
Facilities can be also undergrounded by private parties under Rule 20B and 20C, provided the applicant pays
all costs associated with the undergrounding. This includes engineering design, right-of-way procurement (if
required), changing all services within the affected area to receive underground service, installation of
substructures, conductors, etc., and removal of the overhead facilities.
AD 3.I:\UND RG KND'~ RO C.MF_M
JR.L:m~s:m~s
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Urban Development Committee
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 19, 199~
SUBJECT: STATUS OF RULE 20A PROJECTS
For your information, the following is a list of Rule 20A projects in the next few years. The
City's allocations are shown m the table below:
Project Resolution # Clear Date Revised Estimate cost
Date
Columbus Street 32-92 (3/11/92) 06/30/94 12/31/96 $ 435,000
Stine Road 67-92 (4/22/92) 12/31/94 12/31/95 $ 650,000
Oak Street 79-94 (5/04/94) 12/31/95 ....... $ 400,000
$1,485,000
The limits of the projects are:
Columbus Street--from Chester Avenue to San Dimas Street
Stine Road--from White Lane to south of Wilson Road
Oak Street--from Chester Lane to north of California Avenue
As of March 22, 1995, no additional undergrounding projects were planned and the balance
of available funds was $ 410,537.00. These funds are available for any undergrounding
project which meets the Rule 20A criteria.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: GREG KLIMKO - FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR / '":
DATE: APRIL 5, 1995
SUBJECT: HOSKING TRUNK SEWER A.D. 91-1
PARCEL NO. 373-060-22-00-1, ASSESSMENT NO. 100
SLATER/DEGEER PARCEL
The above referenced parcel was sold from Mr. Gordon Slater to Mr.
Roy Degeer. Mr. Degeer was unaware of the restrictions placed on
his newly acquired parcel by Resolution No. 30-93. As a result, a
deferred assessment amount has been billed to Mr. Degeer's tax
roll.
If it is at all possible, I am requesting that the Finance
Department reinstate the deferrment on this parcel. Please let me
know if this reques~ can be accomodated.
cc: Jacques LaRochelle
DeWayne Starnes
Marian Shaw
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 27, 1995
TO: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO, FINANCE DIRECTOR~//~
/v
SUBJECT: DEFERRAL OF ASSESSMENT (HOSKING TRUNK SEWER ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
Your request that the Finance Department reinstate the deferment of
an assessment for the Slater/Degeer parcel within the Hosking Trunk
Sewer Assessment District is unreasonable. At the direction of the
City Council the terms of the deferment were clearly outlined and
according to paragraph 4 of Resolution 30-93 the amount of the
Deferred Assessment will be added to Parcel No. 373-060-22-00-1
annual assessment to total $4,131.00 for the 1995-96 tax bill. If
you feel that this is not fair to the new property owner, you may
want to introduce an Amendment to Resolution 30-93.
krc
MGR.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TAND~, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAiL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: NOIFEMBER 7, 1994
SUBJECT: HOSKING TRUNK SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1
ASSESSMENT NO. 100 - SLATER PARCEL
On March 3, 1993, the City Council approved Resolution No. 30-93
with respect to the aDove referenced parcel. This Resolution
deferred a portion of the :otal assessment until such time as the
owner transferred title, or any development entitlement occurred
including: building permi:, parcel map, rezoning at the request of
the property owner etc. Another condition of the deferment was
· that the property owner mus5 annually request in writing that the
deferment of assessment be continued.
Since that time, we have no5 received any written request to
continue the deferment and %he parcel has been sold to Mr. Roy
Deguere. Mr. Deguere knew about the assessment, but tells us that
he did not know aDou~ the wri%ten recuest recuired. Mr. Deguere
now maintains that his assessment should be reduced to the deferred
level.
The Finance Department has billed the full assessment on the tax
roll, but did not bill for the balance of the deferment due because
they did not know the parcel was sold. It is my understanding that
we cannot amend and reduce :he assessment back to the deferred
level without Council action.
Gil Rojas has indicated that a chance can be made ~o %~e tax roll
aU this time, but he felt %hat :h~ Council hau approved a very
specific Resolution and for ssaff to make a change to the tax roll
would, in effect, be countermanding a Council action without
consent.
Attached is a copy of the Resoiu:ion and various memos and letters
which ~vil! provide some relevant history on this matter.
P: t MEMOS \ RAUL8
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
~0: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~
DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1992
SUBJECT: HOSKING TRUNK SEWER ASSESS~TT. DISTRICT NO. 91-1
ASSESSMENT NO. 100 - SLATER PAR_e~.T.
The basis of Mr. Slater's protest was that his assessment was
unfair. He owns a 1.97 acre site on Berkshire Road, east of Wible
Road. This parcel is zoned R-2, but has a High Density Residential
{HR) 2010 Plan Land Use Designation. It is one of several parcels
in the district which has a zoning inconsistent with land use, but
is the only parcel under 2 acres with this inconsistency. The
assessment spread was based on the maximum density allowed for each
land use designation, then reduced by 30% to allow for loss of
developable land due to street right of ways, canals etc.
This methodology was the basis for assessment for undeveloped
land. Land which was "substantiaily developed" (meaning that
developing the property to its maximum potential would not be
possible without first demolishing the existing development
completely) was assessed based on the existing density of
development. A further breakdown was to include any parcel 1 acre
in size or less with a house as "substantially developed' as there
is not much that can be developed on a one acre lot with a house,
without first demolishing the house.
Since Mr. Slater's parcel is undeveloped, his assessment was
based on the existing land use of HR, the maxlmum density equating
to an R-4 zoning. This assessment amounted to approximately
$39,000.00. The Assessment Engineer, at the request of the City
and on behalf of Mr. Slater, conferred with Planning staff to
deterrnine if the maximum R-4 density was realistic. Planning staff
indicated that a more appropriate density for Mr. Slater's parcel
would equate to an R-3 zoning. Mr. Slater's assessment was
modified at that Doin~ and reduced to approximately $18,000.00, or
about half of the original assessment. The assessment methodology
was revlewed and approved by Public Works as belng fair and Bond
Counsel also determined that the assessment was not only fair, but
defensible in court.
..... · -~.~~,-,,~?]. has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which
.h~~_ ~ that a change to the existing spread methodology, in
'.~~o~_a..reduction of assessment for Mr. Slater, would require
_..Ci~C~£1 action and was not recommended by him as it exposed
~Ci~ to legal challenge, with a spread methodology which would
not be-defensible. The roi!owing are the alternatives:
1. Follow Bond Counsel's recommendation and make no change to
the- assessment spread methodology and no change to Mr.
$1a=er's assessment.
2. Instruct Bond Counsel and Assessment Engineer to Prepare
a Change and Modification Resolution to go before Council.
This modification would effectively reduce Mr. Slater's
assessment by about $~00.00 (reduced from R-3 to R-2 zoning
density). This would be funded through the Assessment
District contingency cr earned interest thus avoiding a
noticed hearing since other assessments in the district
would be unaffected.
3. Implement a reduc~ion of Mr. Slater's assessment by
assessing his parcel according the existing R-2 zoning as
opposed to the R-3 zoning it is assessed at now, and defer the
r=_maining assessment, making uD the difference by funding
through the distric~ from contingency or earned interest.
This would be done a~iniszra~iveiy on an annual basis. The
deferrment would continue until the property is developed.
The definition of ~deveicDed" would need to ~e ascertained.
At the time of deveicDmen%, 5he deferred amount would be paid
~o the Assessmenu Distrlcu. An opinion from Bond Counsel
would be required as uo wheuher or not this requires a Change
and Modificauicn.
Staff has discussed various cpsions with Bond Counsel and a written
reply will be transmitted uo the Office of the City Manager from
the Bond Counsel regarding how ~o proceed with option number 3 by
Monday, December 7, 1992.
2
TO: ED SCK~LZ - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: DEWAYNE STARNES - CIVIL ENGINEER iii
DATE: DECEMBER 2, ~_992
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-i, HOSKING TRUNK SEWER
A cursory review cf the dissric5 reveals several parcels which have a zoning
inccnsisnent with the land use designanion, including Mr. Sla~er°s parcel.
- have eszzmated 5ha~ the tctai cosn ~o reduce these assessments %o be in
ccnfc_~mance with 5heir zoning woui~ be $211,450.00.
A lis% cf nke parcels which have been assessed by !and use and curren~!y have
a zoning tka~ is inconsissen5 wink nheir land use are lisned below along wi5h
%he ccsn associaned wisk each zarcei %o bring %~eir assessments in5o
ccnsis~encf w~tk ~ne zoning.
assessmenn
20.
~ i4.61 acres assessed as ?-~P-,, reduced to LR (R-! zone) = 531,422
~! ~.43 acres assessed as ~-_-~R_ ,reduced 50 LR (R-! zone) = $13,826
~43 6.~ acres assessed as ~LMR ,reduced to LR (R-i zone) = $14,149
#46 9.78 acres assessed as L~2% ,reduced to LR (R-i zone) = $9,300
~47 14.80 acres assessed as ~MR, reduced ~o LR (R-i zone) = $14,210
~5! 19.98 acres assessed as ~MR, reduced to A20-A = $66,800
~54 5.24 acres assessed as ~R, reduced to LK (R-! zone) = $5,000
~55 3.76 acres assessed as LMR, reduced to LR (R-I zone) = $3,600
~57 13.98 acres assessed as L~5~/GC, reduced to A20-A = $44,000
~100 1.97 acres assessed as HR, reduced ~o ~fR (R-2 zone) = $9,i52
Total = $211,450.00
,q,flwoa ,. -..mem. F~.lo Mo. 7003,76
150X 'l~'uxCnn Avemm
KS 7~7~. ~2
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 19, 1995
TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITFEE
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ,.4., ×/ /
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE ISSUES IN KERN CITY/WESTWOOD ESTATES/ASItE ROAD
AREAS
At the request of Councilmember Rowles, staff has been performing a drainage study for
the subject area. The request for this study came after a drainage problem emerged in the
area.
Initial indications from the study, as well as reviewing all pertinent plans and documents
associated with existing drainage systems in the area identifies a pump station that needs
to be upgraded. In addition, an existing agreement between the City and the Golf Course
should be modified to better address drainage requirements during wet periods of the year.
Staff is finalizing the study which should be complete in early July, 1995. In addition, a
separate Capital Improvement Project for the pump upgrade in shown in the proposed
budget to be approved June 28. All improvements should be in place prior to the beginning
of next years rainy season.
cc Alan Tandy
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ×. '''''~
DATE: June 19, 1995
SUBJECT: Council Referral # 14907
Hosking Trunk Sewer assessment (Degeer)
Correspondence has been received from Mr. Roy Degeer, current owner of Assessor's Parc, el #373-
060-22. While under the ownership of Mr. Gordon B. Slater, this parcel was the subject of City of
Bakersfield Resolution No. 30-93 which granted a deferral of the Hosking Trunk Sewer assessment
so long as certain conditions were fulfilled. The deferred assessment becomes due and payable if
the parcel received any additional development entitlement from parcel map. site plan approval,
building permit, rezoning, etc. or if the parcel is transferred. In addition, the owner of the parcel
must annually request that the assessment be deferred. Mr. Slater did not request that the
deferment be continued, and the parcel has since been sold to Mr. Degeer. According to the terms
of the City's resolution, this makes the deterred assessment due and payable.
Public Works staff has requested of the Finance Department that the deferment be continued.
However, staff has been informed that this will require a new resolution with Mr. Degeer referenced
as the owner of APN 373-060-22. At the Council's direction, staff can prepare the appropriate
resolution and place it on the City Council's July 19, 1995 agenda.
AD95AgI_l\14907.REF
RMR:mps
· c: Reading Fil~
Pmj¢c~ File
lactlu~ R. La Rochalle
Marian P. Shaw
:..-..~',,..,G~._, P-_-FEF=EC C' ~T'--== ANC URBAN OE"/ELCPHENT
~-=' ......... ~'-.-=:',.~.'- zROM ROY,_r",=GE==,.,, 'VICEROY
- --:. :-Z'3.:,:r-'''' -: -"DS" :'iG ....
· : ]-'- -- L :-:" E',T.
HOMES
'Fo: Mark Salvaggio Ro~,,, DEoEE,
(805) 834-3672
Re; Sewer Assessment. Parcel r, 373-060-224)0-1
As per our teIephone conversation April 24th I am writing with regard
to the sewer assessment levied against the above listed parcel and the history
surrounding it.
When the Hosking Sewer Trunk was proposed for this area and the
land eventually assessed based upon an "equitable formula", a number of
land owners were present at the hearings to voice their concerns. Gordon
Slater and I met with you regarding his eighteen acres across the street fi'om
the two acres in question, to son out the discrepancies in assessment
amounts levied against different parcels in the area. It was apparent at that
time he would be forced to sell the property tbr development as he would no
longer be able to afford the taxes levied against it. As a result he now lives in
'Idaho. But back to the item at hand. At the next hearing Gordon and I
engaged in a rather heated conversation with Ed Wilson, a so-called
specialist hired fi.om out of town, in the lobby of the council chambers.
Kevin McDermott offered his assistance in trying to resolve the problem. Mr.
Wilson was reluctant to back off his position, even though it was resulting in
an assessment that was more than the subject property was worth. He told
us it had the potential for high densi~ development, and I'm sure that on
paper it could be so construed. We argued that I intended to build a home on
it tbr myself as soon as utilities were available to do so. The conversation
ended with a proposal to assess it at an R-2 rote, 55728.34 per acre, with a
deferment to R-l, $2864.17 per acre as long as the property was used for a
single family residence when utilities became available. Kevm called us a
couple of weeks later to assure us that what we had talked about had taken
place. A letter, a copy of which Iq/e enclosed, was sent to, but never received
by Gordon. It has been inferred by members of the Planning Department
that perhaps Gordon didn't share this information with me. That might seem
like a lo,cai way to escape the mess, but what they donl know is that
Gordon not only wouldn't jeopardize the sale of the two acres, as he carries
the note on it, but also a larger transaction in the development of Tract 5768
would also be put at risk. For the sake of a piece of property worth less than
the assessment? Not prudent business sense! Aside from that, Gordon and I
have a relationship that would preclude such a situation.
At any rate. the letter was never received. It should be clear to anyone
looking at its contents that it isn't what was initially discussed and ha~l we
known of its contents we would have immediately contested it.
Gordon's next tax statement was unchanged from previous years and
we were moving along with the development of Tract 5768. I took
possession of the two acres in the tall of 94. I was unpleasantly surprised to
receive the next tax statement and find the whole situation rearing its ugly
head again. I contacted Kevin regarding the matter and atter several calls to
him I received the letter from Raul Rojas ( enclosed ) stating the City's
position. I met with Raul, Dwane Starnes and Jack Larochelle and the
upshot of that was that thev could do nothing, unless so directed bv the
council. Their advise was to contact you since it is in your district. G~rdon
and I had not tried to circumvent you by going to Ke,~m, it was he who had
intervened at the hearing.
Ultimately I would like to have the sewer assessment assigned to the
property at a rate of $5728.34 per acre, with a deferment to $2864.17 per
acre so long as its ultimate use shall be one single family residence for the
entire parcel. Nothing short of this will be satisfactou. An inspection of the
property will allow anyone with common sense in local economics to see its
limited potential use. I am in no way an opponent of the sewer project,
though the economic timing of it forced a lot of people to alter their planning
and lifestyles, and I would think that the City would show a little sensitivity
in dealing with each individual's concerns.
I shall await word fi.om you before initiating further action.
Sincerely,
Roy Degeer ,,.,,
cc. Gordon SIater
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
~AKLR~I-IP. LD. C^LII-ORNIA ¥33OI
RAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
Apni 4, 1995
Roy Degeer
3101 Tomlinson Street
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Re: ,Assessment District No. 91-1 (Hosking Trunk Sewer)
Parcel No. 373-060-22-00-1
Dear Mr. Degeer:
I have reviewed the history, of the above referenced parcel with staff and reading through various documents.
The way in which this parcet was asse.~ed is consistent with the way all other parcels with the same land
within the district were assessed. This parcel was assessed based on its land use which is high density
residential, the assessment was not based on zoning. A portion of the assessment on this parcel was deferred
after the City Council levied assessments on ail parcels within the Assessment DlstriCL This deferral could
legaiJy, be accomplished on.iy through a Council approved Resolution, which was drafted by our Bond Attorney
with certain caveats. A.s whh any deferral payment has only been deferred to a later date, not deleted. L~
this particular case. according to the provisions of the Resolu'tion No. 30-93. that payment would become due
at the time of any development entitlement, failure to armuaitv request deferment by the owner, or sale of the
proper ,ry.
I have enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 30-93 and a copy of a letter from this office to the previous owner,
Mr. Slater. This letter was written to Mr. Slater as a courtesy to inform him of the restrictiom plac~l on the
above referenced parcel by, Resolution No. 30-93. Whether o'r not Mr. Slater shared this information with yo~
w~s b~yond our control.
At this point. I am making a request to the Finance Dicector to reinstate the deferrment. However, because
the deferred assessment has alrea~/been billed to the tax roll. even if the deferrment is rein.stated, we will
be unable to make any changes on your current tax bill. We are continuing to reviewvour situation and will
contac: you when we have more information. '
Very. tru.ly yours,
Raul M. Rojas
Public Works Director //te.,SA ~L ~,C..C_ ~~~~.? ---~+
cc: Jacques R. LarocheLle ~ ' ~ ~.
Marian P. Shaw ,~ ~ ,
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1
(HOSKING TRUNK SET~)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (the
"Council") OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (the "City") as follows=
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 191-92, A Resolution Adopting the
E~gineer's Repoz-t, Confirming the Assessment; and Ordering the
Work, City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 91-1 (Hosking
Trunk Sewer) (the "Resolution,,) was approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield on September 30, 1992; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution confirmed assessments on various
properties within the boundaries of City of Bakersfield Assessment
District No. 91-1 (the "District,,) and a Notice of Assessment was
filed with
the County of Recorder of the County of Ker~ on
October 1, 1992, affecting the properties within the bo~ndaries of
said District; and
WHEREAS, said assessments were to be paid in cash by
November 2, '1992, or bonds would be issued against said
assessments; and
WHEREAS, assessments remain unpaid and bonds have bee~
issued therefor and the installments of principal and interest are
to be collected to be paid in semi-annual installments on the tax
roll of. the County of Kern; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913, the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield (the "City
Council") may determine by resolution to allow landowners to defer
payments of their assessments; and
WHEREAS, 80 percent or more of the area has development
entitlements permitting development of facilities that are using,
or will use when in place, the facilities being constructed
pursuant to the District proceedings; and
WHEREAS, Assessor,s Parcel No. 373-060-22-00-1 (A~ss-
merit No. i00) owned, by Gordon B. Slater, Jr., does not currently
have approved development entitlements that impact the use of'the
sewer facilities to be installed by the District but the parcel
size and zoning under the assessment formula requires a benef~
assess=ent in excess of 30 t:~es ~e average res£de~l:£al lot
assessaen~ and.the current R-2 zoning is subs~antially less.
NOW, T~FREFORE, IT iS HE~F~Y FOUND, DETERMINED AND
ORDERED 'as follows:
i. -~. -- ---~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~m~nt Feoresentin~ the
~=~= .... ?,-2 ~- P.-2 !~_.-.d u?e i~ the amount o~ $9,162.98
(herein the "Deferred Assessment") and currently a par~ of the
payments due for the installment of assessment to be collected with
t. he County of Kern tax billings due December 10, 1993, and
April 10, 1994, on said Assessment No. 100 (the 'Parcel#) are
deferred and the Deferred Assessment payments will and can be made
from the available funds of the District, including but not limited
to interest earnings and unexpended proceeds.
2. If the City authorizes by parcel, map, site plall
approval, building permit,' rezoning at the request of the property
owner of the Parcel or any other development entitlement, or if the
Parcel is transferred, the .Deferred Assessaent shall be due and
payable, including interest at the rate applicable to prime rate at
tim~ of development entitlement (but in no event to exceed twelve
percent 12%) plus applicable bond call premium.
~. At any regular meeting of the City Council occurring
after April 10, 1994, and prior to June 30, 1994, the owner of the
Parcel may ask to have the Deferred Assessment payments due in the
fiscal year 1994/1995 of the City of Bakersfield deferred PrOviding
there is no change in the status of use or development of the
Parcel. Approval of such deferral is at the sole discretion of the
City Council and any and all such extensions of deferral' shall not
extend beyond one year for any such extension given. Deferral
requests must be sought and given on an annual basis.
4. In any event, the amount of the Deferred Assessment,
including the aforesaid interest, shall be due and payable whenever
the Parcel is transferred or at the time of the last mattlrit¥ of
the Bonds issued under the proceedings for the District.
///
///
/// .'
III
~'~' "'~':~'~I ' ~:~~;~·
HEREB~ ,.ERTXFY ~hat the foregoing Re',olu~Xon w~ pa~se~' ..... "' ~'~"~'
and adopted by the City Council of th~ City of Bakersfield
regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: hDWMu%6, ~J~,-~D,
~ERH3TT, SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCII24EMBERS: NC~E
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NC~E
ABSTENTIONS: COUNCII24]~MBERS: Nf~E
city clerl~ and. Ex
Clerk of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield
APPROVED this 3rd day of
Mar~ .
MAYO~ ~f ~he C£~y of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JACKSON HARGROVE EMERICH PEDREIRA & NAHIGIAN, Bond Counsel
By. Richard H. Har~rove
COUNTERSIGNED:
CItY ATTOHNEY o~
C~y of BAkersfield.. .
/ ..
700376RH.R01 ........ =:"-' ;.
'...~,~.~'~ ~~ ~. . ',-.".: _:'~.. .~-. ....~ .. ';..'; ..
- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
5593
I CREENLA~Y/v
R- ~ CEA,IET~-RY
R-~
Wd~q/IN-EDISON ~L ~
cH
R-~
....~ ~ A-20A
o~,. ~ R-~~~-- ~.E A..
T3OS, R27E
B i K E R S F I'E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I~11 T'~ux'ruN AVENUe.
ED W SCHULZ. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
July 9. 1993
.M~. Gorao- B. Sla~-
.314~ Be~lr..~tm~ Rd.
Bake~fietcL CA 93313
Re: Parcel No. 373-060-22430-1..&~.se.ssment Dismct No. 91-1 (Hoslciag Truatc Sewer~
I have enclosc~t a cot~y ot t/'a Resoluuoa which ~e Ckv Council acloptexl regatciiae ~e aefe~ of a~eat
on ~ a~ve rez'~nc~ p~cel. P~e~ no~ p~agmp~ : ~a ] on page 2. ~is~luUo. ~il r~ ~t
upoa ~y Oeveto~mem eautlemeat or ~as~ at' own~io ~t ~e t~ll de/~ ~at ~acluOiag im~
be pm~ ~s R~tuuon ~ r~u~ you to ~aumly r~u~ de~t of ~at to ~ a~t t]~ v~.
~is rmu~ m~ ~ ia ~ung ~a may oe aa~e~ to mv atteanoa a~ ~'City ~blic Wor~ ~~L
.~ iaai~ ia ~ R~oiuuon. ~"as must ~e orouent ~efore ~e City Co.cfi ~w~n Apm 10~ ma June
30~ ~m y~ uaui e:~r t~ Cefe~ ~smeat ~s o~a or ~e t~ of ~e Ooaas h~ exp~rm.
Should you have ~v qumnons reg~mag u~s matter. 7ieme f~t fr~ to call me a ~805) 32&3581.
Very truiy yours: ..
Ed W. Sctmiz
~btic Wortrr~Dix~:mr ...~----~--- '
~Wa~e
Civil ~gm~ I~
GENL.LOGAL GOVT 1.0000001 72.]2 KCWA ZN 17 DEBT .011 .85
KCWA ZN 19 DEBT' .018640l 1.34 GRNFLD UN SCH 90A .046415 3.34
GRNFLO UN SCH 90B .025938) 1.86 KERN HGH SC 8D90A .004955 .35
KERN HGH SC 80908 ,0046471 .33 ~<ERN HGH SC 8D90C .003931 .28
KERN HGH SC 8D900 .006294l .45 AD-HOSKING-T 91-1 2097.60
X 15'
1 · 1226~Z 40.46 1,048.80 40.46 1
~ 7[ 208 ~ ~ ~
~UR CANCELLED CHECK '.S ~UR RECEIPT
373-060-22-00-1 ~01-334 94-292~6-00.6
~ ~ov~ 7208
ih';I,'lh,lhih,h,lh,h,h,,hhlh,,hhih,,,,h . ,..~.~...,~ ~.~ -
S~R FAMILY ~ -- -. ;-PROPER~
OlD s~R GORDON B & ~ M ~S ' T~ "~'~'"'" ~
~2 VISTA DR
~PA ID ~ STATEMENT F~RST~STALL~E~ 1~089,26
eE.o-~ ~,~ ~~"~"~ '"~"--TAX~ECT~~iF~y~~ SECOND INSTALMENT 1,089.26
LOCATION
OF PTN LOT 23 TOTAL CURRE~
P~OPER~ 25 ~ 27 T~ 2,178.52
' '~:'?' ............. ") FEB. 1, 1995 ,E i '
. 373-060-22-00-1 001-334 94-292006-00-6 DELINQUENT A~R 1,089 26'.
APRIL 10~ 1995 '
. .: :--:...~ ;...... :~-;:-.:. :....~..,' .- ~'~:(~.:: ~,.
O~ ~ ~ INSTA~E~ ·
S~B ~ R~RN WI~ ~UR
REMi~E. 2~ INST. ~OTH IN~.
DEL ~. DEL AMT.
1,208.18 2,406.36
2942920060060000010892600000010892100000000108926000000108929
- RETURN THJ~3.'~'~'"UB..~v~"~IT~,~C~0~?:~-~'ME'NT, _'~, i~,~.*.~:~~~,~f; }' ~O~Oo~<.,T,~T,oN '-:~ :..z3--
' ~ ' "~5"?:" ~J ~" I ' ' "
"~'" .... :~""- 3 3 060 .~ :NOV. I,I~--:~.
~'-.~/.... 7 - -22-00-1 ~1-334 94-292006-00-6 -~"/DEL~~R 1, 9.26t '
' : - ' ~ ~ ~ .... '..~ - ~ "~ ~ '
~'1 ........ ' _; .... ' '" ' ' ~ ' ' ~ ' '.:' ~ '"'- INSTALLMENTS ~EN ~E FIRST INSTALLME~
. . · ~~1~ ~ - ~ ...... ~- ' ' '-:' G~
;~AGH ]H~ 3st INS~AL~IE~ ]
] ] · S DUE. TO PAY TOTAL TAX SEND BOTH STUBS
~. J S~B ~D R~ WITH ~UR ~ ' ~ ~UR PAYMENT.
~ REM~ · ' . : .". - lstlNST.~ lstlNST. DEL~. ' ' ~ TOTAL OF BOTH
. , · - . DEL ~. , & 2n~ INST. ~ INSTALLMENTS
.'-- :'~- ~'-," "~' 1,198.18 2,287.44..;.- .- ' 'I] ~o~~,~~
1942920060060000010892600000010892100000000108926000000108921