Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1996 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 16, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. KIOSK SIGNS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS - Hardisty 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - Rojas B. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CLEAN UP - Hardisty C. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE - Hardisty D. CITY OF SHAFTER FREE TRADE ZONE ANNEXATION - Hardisty 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE COPY B A..~E R S F I E L D Alar//T~ d~/-Z0i~arn~ger Randy Rowles StOl E. Wait Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 18, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:35 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Patricia Smith Absent: Councilmember Randy Rowles 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 14, 1996 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. UPDATE ON FREEWAYS Staff distributed a written status report.. The County has adopted an alignment change on the West Beltway, but staff has not been able to get a status report on this issue. We will keep working on it. Councilmember Smith asked if anything is being done to the intersection of Comanche and State Highway 178 to make it safer. She asked staff to look into it. Councilmember McDermott asked staff to URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, September 18, 1996 Page -2- check with KernCOG on why the Kern River Freeway is being scoped out again. Staff believes it is because new players have entered into the project and CalTrans wants to bring them up to speed. B. FIRE STATION LOCATION Staff reported that there is adequate fire coverage in the western area of Bakersfield with the current fire station locations, but suggested that in the future Station 9 may have to be moved to have better coverage for the southwest. Chief Kelly assured the Committee that the level of service with siting a new fire station in the west would be consistent and within established response time criteria. Councilmember McDermott asked staff to report to the Ad Hoc Committee that discussions around fire station location should ensure that the residents in the western area of Bakersfield have the same level of service as all other city residents; and that a temporary station be constructed as soon as possible to provide better coverage for citizens in that area. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. KIOSK SIGNS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Staff reviewed the proposed ordinance regarding the new kiosk sign program for developers. The purpose of the program is to unify all of the directional signs that litter the roadway and to make directional signage more consistent. The kiosk sign will go in the public right-of-way, but Councilmember McDermott is concerned that this would lead to other issues. Concern was also expressed because of the 12-foot height of the sign and the inflexibility of choosing colors to differentiate between developments. The BIA is in favor of the program because it levels the playing field for all developers and it enables developers to put signs up in the right-of-way and not be concerned about getting permission from residents to have signs on their property. Staff will come back to the next meeting with comments on different colors for the signs; the City's level of involvement in regulating the program; and what we are doing about monitoring the current distance regulation for banner signs. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 1:57 p.m. "-. EW:jp MEMORANDUM Development Services Department Planning Division October 11, 1996 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROML~c'~STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED KIOSK ORDINANCE- QUESTIONS/ISSUES At the last Urban Development Committee meeting, question, s were asked by Committee members regarding the proposed kiosk ordinance. The specific question or issue is noted below with a response: 1. Use kiosks as an #tcentive to encourage developers to use it rather than individual signs. The kiosk program is designed to replace the offsite signs a developer may be currently allowed. Developments could only be identified on a panel of the kiosk. Although limited to one panel per kiosk, the developer could have a panel on unlimited kiosks with no restrictions as to distance from their development. Under the present ordinance, a developer is limited to 4 offsite signs but they cannot be sited less than 25 feet apart or more than 1 mile from the boundary of the development. A developer will still be allowed individual signs within their subdivision (2 onsite signs). The Planning Commission did not feel that the subdivision sign program would be improved if both the kiosk program and the existing offsite signs were allowed. If this were the case, there would not be any incentive for developers to participate in the kiosk program. Comments from other cities that have similar kiosk programs suggested that the kiosk program will not be effective in reducing the number of signs or be economic to operate with both options. If both are wanted, the existing sign regulations already provide a means for developers to get together and put up kiosks with restrictions. Castle and Cooke was able to develop their existing program in this manner, and Riverlakes Ranch recently put together a proposal for their developers to install kiosks similar to the city's program (BMC Section 17.60.020 D.4.). 2. Why allow kiosks itt the right-of-way? Since the ordinance was prohibiting offsite signs except kiosks, allowing the kiosk in the right-of-way (subject to Public Works approval) was viewed as an incentive to developers to support the kiosk program. Under the present regulations, all signs are prohibited in city fight- of-way. 3. Height and area; how do they compare with existing regulations? A kiosk is limited to a height of 12 feet consistent with the 12 foot height allowed for existing offsite signs. The width of a kiosk is limited to 6 feet (there is no maximum width limit for existing signs). The total area of a kiosk is 72 sq.ft. Offsite directional signs are currently limited to an area of 32 sq.fi, but may be increased to 64 sq.ff, by the Building Director where multiple projects and builders are identified. 4. Why is the City controlling kiosk design? The purpose of the kiosk sign is to have one design (~.rchitectural style, color, font, etc.) ~.. that can be easily identified by individuals searching for new homes. Programs in other cities have found this single design approach to be successful in reducing confusion that Occurs when directional signs are different colors, styles, shapes, and text. The Sign Committee of the Planning Commission worked with both sign contractors and developers to choose the proposed design and color scheme. 5. ShouM city profit fi'om a/lowing kiosks itt the right-of-way? As proposed, this program will be handled by an administrator to oversee consistency in design, maintenance, and permitting of kiosks. An RFP will be prepared and sent to interested parties to bid on the program. Staff has found that cities have required fees to help offset staff time and other management of the program that the administrator may not have authority to carry out. Staff has also found that bidders for some cities have included in their bid package that a percentage of revenue is given to the city. Since the program will not be implemented by City staff, there wouldn't be any operating costs to recover. A value could be assigned if a kiosk is in the fight-of-way and used as a basis for a fee. 6. Can kiosks' be different colors? The Sign Committee explored the possibility of using different colors for kiosks placed in different areas of the city (ie. blue in the northwest, maroon in the southwest, etc.). However, this was felt to be too confusing to the public as they would probably not associate that the colors were depicting different geographic areas of the city. The reason the same color was chosen was that it presented a consistent appearance citywide and is the easiest for the public to identify. The blue color selected is based on the sign colors used by Caltrans for 2 informational/directional signs and does not conflict with other colors used for traffic safety signs. Sign company representatives noted that some colors are more difficult to maintain and that overall maintenance could be more costly when kiosks are moved and panels redone due to color changes if multiple colors are used. 7. What are the penalties for refractions? The City presently picks up signs and requires that the violator pay a $30 fee (per sign) if they want to retrieve the sign. If it is not picked up within approximately 30 days, the sign is taken to the Corporation yard and either thrown away or recycled into compost (if it is wood). Under the proposed ordinance, anyone violating the code would lose all rights to have a panel on a kiosk for 180 days. If they already have panels on a kiosk, these panels are removed and they may not be replaced for 180 days. Because the kiosk program replaces the existing offsite signs allowed by a developer, this means that the developer in violation will not be permitted any offsite advertising for the 180-day period. 8. Separation of signs - what does the existing ordinance require attd shouM that separation be amended as a short-term sohttion ? Under the present ordinance, offsite signs must be set a minimum of 25 feet apart from each other. All other signs are required to be a minimum of 50 feet apart. If multiple builders get together and request a larger sign (as allowed in the ordinance by the Building Director), then no other offsite directional sign can be placed within 100 feet of this larger sign. The ordinance could be amended to require a greater distance between offsite directional signs so that they are not clustered at intersections. If there are intersections where it appears that signs are closer than the 25-foot separation, staff can investigate and enforce the code if necessary. MEMORANDUM Development Services Department Planning Division October 11, 1996 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM.'~.~STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED KIOSK ORDINANCE - QUESTIONS/ISSUES At the last Urban Development Committee meeting, questions were asked by Committee members regarding the proposed kiosk ordinance. The specific question or issue is noted below with a response: 1. Use kiosks as an incentive to encourage developers to use it rather than individual signs. The kiosk program is designed to replace the offsite signs a developer may be currently allowed. Developments could only be identified on a panel of the kiosk. Although limited to one panel per kiosk, the developer could have a panel on unlimited kiosks with no restrictions as to distance from their development. Under the present ordinance, a developer is limited to 4 offsite signs but they cannot be sited less than 25 feet apart or more than 1 mile from the boundary of the development. A developer will still be allowed individual signs within their subdivision (2 onsite signs). The Planning Commission did not feel that the subdivision sign program would be improved if both the kiosk program and the existing offsite signs were allowed. If this were the case, there would not be any incentive for developers to participate in the kiosk program. Comments from other cities that have similar kiosk programs suggested that the kiosk program will not be effective in reducing the number of signs or be economic to operate with both options. If both are wanted, the existing sign regulations already provide a means for developers to get together and put up kiosks with restrictions. Castle and Cooke was able to develop their existing program in this manner, and Riverlakes Ranch recently put together a proposal for their developers to install kiosks similar to the city' s program (BMC Section 17.60.020 D.4.). 2. Why allow kiosks in the right-of-way? Since the ordinance was prohibiting offsite signs except kiosks, allowing the kiosk in the right-of-way (subject to Public Works approval) was viewed as an incentive to developers to support the kiosk program. Under the present regulations, all signs are prohibited in city right- of-way. 3. Height and area; how do they compare with existing regulations? A kiosk is limited to a height of 12 feet consistent with the 12 foot height allowed for existing off'site signs. The width of a kiosk is limited to 6 feet (there is no maximum width limit for existing signs). The total area ora kiosk is 72 sq.ft. Off'site directional signs are currently limited to an area of 32 sq.ff, but may be increased to 64 sq.ff, by the Building Director where multiple projects and builders are identified. 4. Why is the City controlling kiosk design? The purpose of the kiosk sign is to have one design (architectural style, color, font, etc.) that can be easily identified by individuals searching for new homes. Programs in other cities have found this single design approach to be Successful in reducing confusion that Occurs When ..... directional signs are different colors, styles, shapes, and text. The Sign Committee of the Planning Commission worked with both sign contractors and developers to choose the proposed design and color scheme. 5. ShouM city profit from allowing kiosks in the right-of-way? As proposed, this program will be handled by an administrator to oversee consistency in design, maintenance, and permitting of kiosks. An RFP will be prepared and sent to interested parties to bid on the program. Staff has found that cities have required fees to help offset staff time and other management of the program that the administrator may not have authority to carry out. Staff has also found that bidders for some cities have included in their bid package that a percentage of revenue is given to the city. Since the program will not be implemented by City staff, there wouldn't be any operating costs to recover. A value could be assigned ifa kiosk is in the right-of-way and used as a basis for a fee. 6. Can kiosks be different colors? The Sign Committee explored the possibility of using different colors for kiosks placed in different areas of the city (ie. blue in the northwest, maroon in the southwest, etc.). However, this was felt to be too confusing to the public as they would probably not associate that the colors were depicting different geographic areas of the city. The reason the same color was chosen was that it presented a consistent appearance citywide and is the easiest for the public to identify. The blue color selected is based on the sign colors used by Caltrans for informational/directional signs and does not conflict with other colors used for traffic safety signs. Sign company representatives noted that some colors are more difficult to maintain and that overall maintenance could be more costly when kiosks are moved and panels redone due to color changes if multiple colors are used. 7. What are the penalties for infractions? The City presently picks up signs and requires that the violator pay a $30 fee (per sign) if they want to retrieve the sign. If it is not picked up within approximately 30 days, the sign is taken to the Corporation yard and either thrown away or recycled into compost (if it is wood). Under the proposed ordinance, anyone violating the code would lose all rights to have a panel on a kiosk for 180 days. If they already have panels on a kiosk, these panels are removed and they may not be replaced for 180 days. Because the kiosk program replaces the existing offsite signs allowed by a developer, this means that the developer in violation will not be permitted any off.site advertising for the 180-day period. 8. Separation of signs - what does the existing ordinance require and shouM that separation be amended as a short-term sohttion? Under the present ordinance, offsite signs must be Set a minimum 0f25'feet' apart from each other. All other signs are required to be a minimum of 50 feet apart. If multiple builders get together and request a larger sign (as allowed in the ordinance by the Building Director), then no other offsite directional sign can be placed within 100 feet of this larger sign. The ordinance could be amended to require a greater distance between off.site directional signs so that they are not clustered at intersections. If there are intersections where it appears that signs are closer than the 25-foot separation, staff.can investigate and enforce the code if necessary. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CIIAPTER 15.84 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan it has been established that land development shall not be permitted unless adequate transportation facilities exist or are assured; and WHEREAS, in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan the policy has been established that land development shall bear a proportionate share of the cost of the provision of the new or expanded transportation facilities required by such development; and WHEREAS, in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Circulation Element (Implementation Measure 33) it has been established that a Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance is a method of ensuring that land development is adequately supported by a regional transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Circulation Element designates the regional transportation system necessa~ to support the Land Use Element ol-'the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan; and WHEREAS, a transportation impact tee is necessa~w to provide a regional transportation system xvhich is closely, systematically and reciprocally related to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan: and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 54992 of the California Government Code have been satisfied as they relate to revision of planning, zoning, development and related processing tees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to change the existing Transportation Impact Fee program to more adequately address regional trait-lc impacts: and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted in accordance with Section 15153, State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and it ,,,.'as determined the use of the prior Final Environmental Impact Report prepared tbr the Metropolitan 13akersfield 2010 General Plan is adequate tbr this change to the existing Transportation Impact Fee program; and ~VHEREAS, all required public notices have been given; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is in the public interest, necessary t-hr public convenience, health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, the provisions of CEQA have been i'bllowed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION I. Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 15.84 TRANSPORTATION I~IPACT FEE Sections: 15.84.010 Short title. 15.84.020 Purpose. 15.84.030 Definitions. 15.84.040 Imposition of transpo,'tation impact fee. 15.84.050 Comln, tntion o1' tee. 15.84.055 Reduction or waiver for Iow-income housing projects. 15.84.060 Payment of fee. 15.84.070 Use of funds. 15.84.080 Refund of fee paid. 15.84.090 Exemptions and credils. 15.84.100 Appeal. 15.84.010 Short Title This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance". 15.84.020 P~,rpose A. This ordinance is intended to implement and be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. B. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the use and development or'land to assure that new development bears a proportionate share or'the costof capital expenditures necessary, to provide a regional transportation system consistent with tile Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 15.84.030 Definitions Whenever used in this chapter, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings: A. "Administrator" means the City Public Works Director or designee. B. "Building permit" means an official document or official certification which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Area. In the case ot'a chanue in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, the term shall specifically include Cc~'~'il'icates of'Occupancy, as defined in Section 109 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, and subsequent editions as may be adopted by the City Council. 'C. "Capital improvements" means transportation planning, preliminary, engineering, engineering design studies, land surveys, right-ot'-way acquisition, engineering, permitting and construction of all the necessary, features tbr any transportation/hcility projects including, but not limited to: 1 ) Construction of new through lanes. 2) Construction of nexv turn lanes. 3) Construction of new frontage or access roads. 4) Construction of new bridges and wicteninu. 5) Construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway construction. 6) Purchase and installation ot'tratlqc si?alization (including both new and upgrading signalization). 7) Construction of curbs, medians, and shoulders in conjunction with new roadway construction. 8) Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction. 9) Other capacity increasing improvements, such as transportation systems measures. D. "Construction Cost Index" means the ENR .,'\nntml Construction Cost Index (Los Angeles) as published bv Engineering News Record, .,'X lc©raw-Hill Cos. E. "Expansion" of'the capacity ora road means all road and intersection enhancements and includes, but is not limited to extensions, widening intersection improvements, upgrading signalization and improving pavement conditions. F. "Fee payer" means a person commencing a land development activity which generates or attracts traffic and who is applying to the City t-hr the issuance ora building permit for a type of land development activity specified in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, regardless if the flee payer owns the land which is developed. G. "Land development activity generating trafi'ic" means any change in land use or any construction or expansion of buildings or structures, or any change in the use of any building or structure that attracts or produces vehicular trips as determined by the Administrator. H. "Level of Service" (LOS) means a qualitative measure that represents the collective factors of speed, travel time, trafl'ic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience and operation costs provided by a high,,¥ay facility under a particular volume condition as set forth in the 1985 (or current edition ) Highway Capacity Manual. I. "Major residential i"acilities" means only multi-l'anlily complexes consisting often (10) or more individual units constructed under one permit. J. "Regional Transportation Facilities List" means those projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan area which are included in tl~e adopted Capital Improvement Plan annually updated by the City Council. These facilities constitute some oi"the regional facilities needed to maintain a LOS "C" or to prevent the degradation of roads which are currently below LOS "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakerstield 2010 General Plan - Circulation Element. K. "Site-related improvements" means capital improvements and right-of-way dedication l'br direct access improvements to tile development in question. Direct access improvements include but are not limited to the l'bllowing: I) Site driveways and roads. 2) Median cuts made necessary, bv those driveways or roads. 3) Right turn, let-'t turn, and deceleration or acceleration lanes leading to or from those driveways or roads. 4) Tra/t~c control measures l-hr those driveways or roads. 5) Access or frontage roads not identified on Regional Transportation Facilities List. L. "Transportation lnlpact Fee Schedule" means tile schedule of fees imposed on various land use types which is annually adopted by Resolution or'the City Council. This fee schedule contains the fee per living unit l'br residential land use types ami the fee per trip for non-residential land use types. 15.84.040 Imposition ofTranSlmrtation Impact Fee. A. Except as provided in Section 15.$4.090 or'this chapter, any person who applies to the City for the issuance of a building-permit to make an improvement to land for one of the uses which is specified in the current resolution adopting tile Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and which will generate or attract additional traflSc, as determined by tile Administrator. shall be required to pay a transportation impact fee in the manner and amount set fbrth in this ordinance, provided that the land development activity is consistent with the designations of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan at the time of the adoption or'this ordinance. B. In the case of structures, mobile homes, or recreational vehicles which are moved from one location to another, a transportation impact tee shall be collected for the new location if the structure, mobile home or recreational vehicle is a type of land development listed in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, regardless of whether transportation impact fees had been paid at the old location, unless the use at the new location is a replacement of equivalent use at the new location. If the structure or mobile home so moved is replaced by an equivalent use within 5 years, no transportation impact the shall be assessed the replacement use. If replaced within 10 years, 50% of the otherxvise applicable t"ee shall be paid. If replaced after 10 years, 100% of the otherwise applicable fee shall be paid. In every case, the burden of establishing past payment of transportation impact fee or equivalehcy of use rests with the fee payer. C. Nothing in this ordinance shall exempt land development from the requirements of the site plan review policy regarding major retail projects adopted bv City Council Resolution No. I 11- 83. D. In the event ol"development that necessitates a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, the transportation impact Fee shall be determined independently of the tee schedule adopted by resolution and shall be based on tile actual impacts of said development. The independent study shall measure tile impact of the development in question on the road system by tbllowing the prescribed methodologies and Ibrmats l'br the study established by the Administrator. E. Each fiscal year, the administrator shall present to the City Council a proposed tee schedule as defined in Section 1' ' ' 3.84.0,,0. The fee schedule shall be evaluated to account t'br changes in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, changes in cost estimates tbr the various projects on the list, the annual Construction Cost Index increase, if any, and any other item which would change new developrnent's proportionate share or' tile cost of the Regional Transnortation Facilities List. TNs fee schedu e shall be adopted by a Resolution of the Cit5 Council fo']lowing a noticed public hearing. Except upon a tinding ol-'unusua] circumstances by the City Council, in no instance prior to July l, 1999. shall the ti~e be raised more than tile Construction Cost Index increase. 15.84.050 Computation of Transportation Impac! Fee A. The fbllowing rules shall govern tile computation o1' the tee: 1) The reference in the schedule to square t~ct ref)rs to the gross square tbotage of each floor ot'a building measured to the exterior walls, and not usable, interior, rentable, mm-common or other rbrms o/' net square tbotage. 2) When more than one Land Use Type is proposed within the same structure (i.e., an office as part of an industrial complex), each Land Use Type will be calculated separately and the total of the various uses will be assessed. 3) If the type of development activity tbr which a building permit is applied is not clearly specified on the current tee schedule as adopted by resolution, the Administrator shall use the tee applicable to tile most nearly comparable type of land use on the above referenced tee schedule. The Administrator shall be guided in the selection ora comparable type by the report titled Trip Generation: An Information Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers (latest edition). If the Administrator determines that there is no comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule, then the Administrator shall determine the fee by: a) Using trafiqc generation statistics fi'om the above-named sources; and b) Applying tile tbrrnula set tbrth in Subsection B of this Section. 4) When a change of use, redevelopment or modification of an existing use requires the issuance ora building permit, the transportation impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee l-bt the new use as compared to the previous use. However, should the change of use. redevelopmenf or modification result in a net decrease, no ret'rinds or credits tbr past transportation impact fees paid shall be rnade or credited. The Administrator shall follow the same procedure to determine "increase" as is outlined above tbr a determination of"comparable use". B. The Transportation Impact Fee tbr residential uses shall be as specified in the current resolution adopting tile Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The computation of non-residential fee will utilize the t'blloxving t:ormula: Transportation Impact Fee = ADT x Units x Fee per Unit xvhere the "ADT" is :\verage Daily-Fratlic per 1,000 square t"eet, acre or unit listed; "Units" is the land use rate (number et' 1,000 square feet, number et'acres, number of units); and "Fee per Unit" is the established fee tbr each "Unit" proposed. Tile established "Fee per Unit" to be used in computing the required fee is specilied in the current resolution adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. C. Where there is any question regarding tile land use and corresponding ADTs, the Administrator shall make the determination regarding the appropriate ADT. D. Ifa tee pay'er decides m>t Io have the transportation impact tee determined according to the requirements et'this Section. then the fee payer shall prepare and submit to the Administrator an independent fee calculation stuctv tbr the land development activity for which the building permit is sought. The independent Ibc calculation stuctv shall measure the impact of the development in question on the road system by lblloxvin,g the prescribed methodologies and tbrmats tbr the stuctv established by the Administrator. Upon approval of the study by the Administrator, the fee determined by the stuctv shall tie the transportation impact fee tbr that project, and the lye payer no longer has the option to pay the t'ee as originally determined. Any decision of the Administrator purstmnt to this subsection may be appealed as set forth in Section 15.84.100. ' 15.84.055 Reduction or waiver for Iow-income housing projects. A. Reduction of fee lbr rental housing. The fee may be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) for those projects xvhere rent levels t'br all units will be aflbrdable to low-income families as defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project units shall remain affordable for a minimum period often 10) years. B. Waiver of fee for oxvner-occupied housing. The f'ee may be waived entirely for owner occupied housing if it can be demonstrated that the cost of the home would change from being affordable to a low-income family to being afl'ordable to a moderate income family solely as the result of payment of'the impact fee. C. Documentation required lbr reduction or waiver of fee. 1. Rental prQjects sod<in,_, a t`ce reduction purstmnt to'subsection A of this section shall follow the tbllowing procedt~rc: a. l)av the current/'ce as set tbrth in Section 15.84.050. b. Submit evidence certit?'ing that the units xvill be occupied by Iow-income tenants. This inlbmmtion shall include any mortgage or rent subsidy contracts requiring occupancy' by Iow-income t'amilies as a condition of approval or recorded deed restriction rcslricting occupancy el'tho units to low-income families, project data ccrtil?ing tenant population to be low-income families, project data certi~ing tennnt occupancy change to a higher income, or any other information deemed necessary to determine eligibility et'the project For a fee reduction. An agreement to p:ly' thc fitll Ibc, .should occupancy chanue to a higher income group shall also be submitted. c. Once it is determined that tile pro ect qualifies for a reduction in fee, txventy-live percent (25%) of the fee paid pursuant to Section 15.84.050 will be refitnded. 2. Owner-occupied )re ects seeking a t`ce waiver pursuant to subsection B of this section shall following procedure: a. I'av the curt'em l'ce required as set tbrth in Section 15.84.050. b. Submit evidence that the cost or'the home would change from bein,2 affordable It3 i1 lt~xv-income t'amilv to being afibrdable only to a moderate-income I'an~ilv st)lclx' as :1 rc~,;ult el'payment el'the impact fee. This information shall include a copy et'ese 'ow instructions, closing statements, family income tax statements, loan cIosim~ stntements and any other intbrmation deemed necessa~ to determine eligibility et'the pro eot tbr a t'et:, waiver. c. ()ncc it is determined that the )roicct qualifies for a waiver of the tee, the m('mics p;lid pt~rstmnt lo Section 15 84. )50 xxill be refunded. 7 15.84.060 Payment of Fee A. For residential uses, other than major residential fi~cilities, the tee payer shall pay the transportation impact tees required by this ordinance to the appropriate city department prior to the issuance ora building permit for xvhich the tee is imposed. No building permit may be issued for any residential development other than major residential t'acilities, until such fee has been paid. B. For non-residential and major residential facilities, the fee payer shall pay the transportation impact tee required by this chapter to tile appropriate city department, as determined by the Administrator, on or befbre the date of tile final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. "Final inspection" and "certificate of occupancy" as used in this section, have tile same meanin,.z, as described in Section 305 and 307 of tile Uniform Building Code, International Conference of l:~uilding Officials, 1985 Edition. C. In lieu of cash, tile transportation impact tee may be paid tSy the use of credits which are created in accordance with provisions of Section I 5.84.'090 of this chapter. D. All funds collected l~urst~ant to this ordinance shall be deposited into the appropriate Transportation Impact Fee Tl'ust [Triad and used solely tbr tile purposes specified in this chapter. 15.84.070 Use of Funds. A. Funds collected Ii'om trzmsportation impact fees shall be used fbr the purpose of capital improvements to transportation I'~cilitics associated with tile Reaional Transportation Facilities List. Such improvements shall be el'the type as are made neces~m3, by new development. No funds shall be used lbr periodic o~' ~'outine maintenance, t:tmds shall be used exclusively tbr capital improvemems within the Cilv or lbr projects outside tile City but xvithin the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 Plan area xx. hicl~ arc a direct benetit to the City. 13. In the event that t;onds or similar debt instruments are issued for advance provision of road capital improvemems. Ibr which roads impact Ibte Imp,' be expended, transportation impact fees may be used to pay debt sc~'x'ice on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in Subsection A above. C. Each fiscal vc:,,~', thc ,Adminislrator shall present to tile City Council a proposed update to the capital improvcm,.'m l,l:~n liar-~'(>:~ct construction pr2jccts as set tbrth in Section 15.84.030(C). Such plan shall inc!icnte the :~}',pr,:,~:im:lte location, size. time of availability and estimates of cost fbr all improvements to be Ii~]:~ccd with transportation impact tees. Such plan shall be updated by the City Council at a noticcd l>ublic hearing as required by Government Code Section 66002. 15.84.080 Refund of Fee I'nid. A. Ifa building permit expires, is revoked or is voluntarily surrendered and is theret-bre voided, and no construction or improvement ct'land has been commenced, the fee payer shall be entitled to a refund together with any interest accrued thereon, of the transportation impact tee paid as a condition Ibr its issuance. B. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following five (5) years from tile date the transportation impact t'ee was paid shall be refunded to the then current owner or owners o1-' lots or units of the development project or projects on the prorated basis, pursuant to tile provisions of Government Code Section 66001. 15.84.090 Exemplions nnd (;,'edils. A. The following shall be exempted ti-om payment of'the transportation impact fee if claimed at the time ofapp~icntion tbr a bt~ilding permit: 1) Alterations or expansions of'an existing buildinu or use of land where no additional lix'in~ t~ni~s will bc prodt~ced over and above those in the existing use of the Iwo!,~.rxs'. thc t~sc i, ~t>t changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will be prodt~ced ox'er :~t~(t above those produced bv the existing use. 2) Constrt~clion ol':tcccsxorv buildings or structures which will not produce additional vohict~lar trips over :~nd above those proctt~cod by the principal building or use of tho land. 3) TI~c rcl>ktccmc,,~t ol"a I'axvlk~Ily permitted building, mobile home or structure, the buit,'~i,,,, ,,ormit Ik,,' which was issued on or betbre the eltbctive date of this ordin:~nce or tt~c rcl>lacemont ot'a building, mobile home or structure that was co~s~ rt~c'ted sttbscqt~ent lhereto and Ibr which the correct transportation impact Ibc. xv!~ich xx-as ox,.ed at the time the building permit was issued, was paid or otl~<.r,.,, i50 prox'i(~cd lk>r. with a new building, mobile home, or structure of the same usc and at thc same location, provided that no additional vehicular trips will be prodt~ccd over and above those produced by the original use of the land. 4) A buii<!ing permit ~br which the transportation impact fbe thereof has been or will bo paid or othorxvisc provided tbr pursuant to a written agreement, zoning il?1'FO'.':lI ~)1' (~O'.'c'J{'l',l't',,t agreement which, by the written terms thereof} clearly and ~r~c, ct~i,..oc:~llv was ir~ended to provide lbr the tk~ll mitigntion of such impact by etll}'r'ct~cHt {~l'![~t' :~uFccment. zoiliHg zll)pFoval Or development order, and not by 5) ..X b,,i~,t',,,, Dorm;' ,,',[~ich does not result in any additional ueneration or attraction B. Credits n::~,.' "., ~rantcd ~>t!c~' the tbllowing iwot:cdtu-e and when proper claims are made at tine time ot'app}}c:~,;,~ li)r :~ },t~ildi~ [~crmit: ~',) c: :..~il s}l:lil bL' mix'cH lk)l' local roads or payments to special assessment or taxinu 10 2) All other capilal improvements tbr approved roads on the Regional Transportation Vacilities List slmll lie credited against roads impact fbes in the amounts to be established pt~rsu'ant to paragraph B.3) of this section. However, determination of xvl~cti;cr a capi~a[ i~p;'ovement will be approved fbr credit purposes lies exclt~sivdv with ~!~e Administrator, unless the improvement is required under state or city development approval, in which case credits shall be given to the extent recitals'cd by law. 3) When a ~k'e payer requests that a credit be given tbr construction of any Facility included in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, including dedication of I'i,,ht-ol2wav tbr an a~proved road permitted by paragraph B.2) of this section, the tL, e p:~?.'er shn[1 submit a lwoject description in sufficient detail and with complete costs estimates consistent with the unit costs established by the Regional T~'ans?~'ta~ion UaciIi~ies List support data to permit the Administrator to evaluate tho ~.....,.~st. ("~'edit reclt~ests Ibr land ctedication or roads listed in the Regional · ,, ti~, T~'at~s?)~'tation I":~ci[itios List require: a5 [>ced ~o co~wex, lille to the aploropriate governmental body; b) 'l'it[c ~'cpo~'t I>~-cpzn-od within sixty (00) days'of submission thereot~, c} ('osls consistent xvitb the unit costs established by the Regional TI''~ .... ', ,,'~ , ' ......... ~,,~ ........ ~os I.ist SUpl)Ort data. ::s ........... '.~o~ shall be created when the constmclion is completed and a:cc:,t...t lw ti~c :~',p~'~},~'ialo governmental body tbr maintenance. Credits tbr land ,, .... ':'c:~tcd when the title to said land has been accepted by the amount oFcredit s~,.:,.':i J..: ::ctt::t} c!,:c'.::'.'.c~,.ted costs, m~t to exceed the thdlitv's Reuionat Transportation I':~cili:ics i.iNt ~t)t:~i cc)st m)r shall the total credit granted tbr anv one development exceed the total 'l'z':~r:-:~-.~,~'~:~ti<>~ !~:~,'.:ct Fees attributable to that same development. Any decision m':d: i',,' thc ~..'itx' ..'xd~nimstrator in the course ofadministerinu this chapter may be appealed to the (;i'.7,' ('or,roil and l;<~:~'ct of Supervisors by filing a written m-~tice of appeal within ten davs a~er tl,.~ .... · ....... ;'~' ':'.~ t':',' Clod< and Clerk et'the Board sotti~u lbrth the grounds ~br appeal. The :,',-'t '., *.it: :~ ~t>tt,.... ,,t':~ppoal with the City Clerk shall be :~s set tbnh in Chapter 3.70 of the Bakc~-:-::!..': .',It~i<.i~>:~! ('~>, c 'l'.hc cost to tile a notice of al>peal with the Clerk of the board is three 1 Appealofanyd ...............~. , . :' , 'i:v ..Xdministrator shatl first be heard by the Board of Supe~'isors who ,':'. '" ':c:~' st~,'~. , ,c',l at a regular' mootin~ no later than Ibm- (4) xveeks Ibllowing the fill: '.":'>c .:},~,..::~ ,., 5,~. ~c Clerk of the Board. The Board ot'Sui>erx,isors shall makearecommc:.:.. ':' ~ ,,t~c~lxxhid~shallbcconsideredbvt~cCityCouncilwhena ~ ,' ' ....',~<'::.': ::: :~ ~'c~tllarlv schecttttcd Council mectit:,2 xxithin tbur (4) weeks II modify, reject or overrule the decision of the City Administrator, which decision shall be final and conclusive. A reversal of the ;~bovc procedure ;vi!l be utilized fbr an appeal of any decision rnade by the County Administr::tor. SECTION 2 This Orctin:~o: shall be posted i~ accordance with the Bakersfield Nlunicipal Code provisions and sh:i!! !',:come c!~.::c!ive (~n tile d'fective date of the same ordinance adopted by Kern County, but in no cvc=:t less than Illin't>' (30) days from and aPter the date et'its passage. ........... o0o ........... I ttEREI;',' (;I.~RTI I%' tkn thc lbregoing Ot'dinance xvas passed and adopted by the Council of the City ofBal<c,'stit:!d ;,,t a reut~!;~r meetinu thereof hdd on by tile following vote: (7,1TY CLERI,~ and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAYOR of the City of P, akerstield .Approved as to I'~-:~- October 9, 199(, 12 feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. If an acceptable independent fee calculation study is not presented, the .feepayer shall pay transportation impact fees based upon the schedules referenced in Paragraph (A) of this section. Determinations made by the City Engineer pursuant to this paragraph may be ~ppealed. to the City Council by filing a written request with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the City Engineer's:determination. Upon acceptance of an independent fee calculation study, the .City Engineer shall determine the impact fee per unit of.development pursuant.,to %he formula established by resolution of the City Council~ (8918) SEC. 9505. PAYMENT OF FEE. A. The feepayer'shall pay the transportation impact fee required by this ordinance to the City Engineer or his designee prior to the issuance.of a building permit or a permit for mobile home installation. B. Al! funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Transportation impact Fee Fund as determined in Section 95t0 of this Ordinance and used solely for the purposes specified in this Ordinance. (8918) SEC. 9506. TIMING OF FEE PAYMENT. (9418) A. 'Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 9505, the City Council may, be resolution, ~uthorize the payment of the fee at a time other than that identified in Section 9505. B. In adopting the resolution identified in paragraph "A" above the city Council shall make the~ following findings:.. 1. That the s~ate of the economy in the City 'of Visalia is such that the deferment of the fee required by'"this.Article will stimulate the economy and enhance the provi'sion of jobs; and 2. That the deferment' of the fee required by this article will . not materially effect the ability of the City to deliver it's five year capital improvement program. C. In adopting the resolution identified in paragraph "At above, the City Council shall: 1. Identify the point in time at which the fee shall be paid, provided that in n~ event shall the deferral be extended Iii. beyond the time of the final inspection or issuance of the ii' certificate of occupancy,: whichever occurs first; and 'i! 2. Identify.to which major land use category (i.e., residential, commercial, office and/or industrial) the resolution applies; and ?~ 3. Identify.whether or not a contract shall be. entered into by. .t~ and.between.the property owner, or lessee if the lessee's ~ interest appears of record, and the City prior to the ~ issuance of the building permit If a contract is required ,~ to be executed, it shall be processed and recorded in ~ accordance with Government Code Section 66007(c). In lieu Ii.~ of entering into a contract if one is required the fee ~) payer may provide such other form of surety instrument !~ guaranteeing payment of 'the fee as may be acceptable to the ii, City Engineer or his/her designee and the City Attorney; and ~I' 4. Impose a penalty, equal to 100% of'the amount of the fees !~il deferred, on any partywho fails to pay the deferred fee by ' the point in time specified in said resolution; and !Ii 5, ?rovide.that a party who fails to pay said deferred fees by ~ the point in time specified in said resolution shall further forfeit the future right to defer such fees on parcels in which said party has a financial interest. SEC. 9510. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED, A.There is hereby established a separate Transportation Impact Fee Fund. 8. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 9515 of this Ordinance. SEC. 9515. USE OF FUNDS. A. Funds collected from transportation impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to and expansion of transportation facilities associated with the Major Arterial, Arterial, and Collector street :network as designated by the City of Visalia and any other transportation projects related to growth that may be determined from time to time by the City Council, B. No funds shall be used for periodic or routine maintenance. C. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. D. in the event that bonds or similar debt.instruments are. issued for advance provision of capital facilities for which transportation impact fees may be expended, impact fees may Artic)e It City of Bi sfield EXHIBIT "A" i ;~ ~'~ ~ MASTER FEE ~,CHEDULE for City Service Centers Rev. Date: 16-AUG-96 I I INCREASI NOTES/COMMENTS SERVICE CENTER REQUIRED 7/01/96 10/01/96 I/ IDECREASE)I WHICH NO OTHER FEE IS LISTED IN THE CODE $6.50 $6.50 $0.00 S-6 REQUESTED BUILDING INSPECTION 100.0 % - NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 FLAT FEE - OTHER THAN NORMAL HOURS $45.00 $45.00 $0.00 2 HR MIN. So61 REINSPECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS 100.0 % - DANGEROUS BUILDING INVESTIGATIONS - INITIAL CONTACT AND INSPECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS REQUIRED (EACH OCCURANCE) $335.00 $335.00 $0.00 - LEGAL ACTION REQUIRED ' ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0.00 - COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT - INITIAL CONTACT AND INSPECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS REQUIRED (EACH OCCURANCE) $145.00 $145.00 $0.00 - LEGAL ACTION REQUIRED ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0.00 S-7 SIGN REVIEW 100.0 % - SIGN REVIEW & PERMIT (FEE IS BASED ON CONSTRUCTION VALUATION.) (FEE VARIES FROM $10 TO $433 FOR SlGNAGE VALUE OVER $500 BUT LESS THAN $100,000.) - MINIMUM FEE (FOR SIGNAGE VALUED AT UNDER $500) $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 - MAXIMUM FEE (FOR SlGNAGE VALUED AT $100,000.) $433.00 $433.00 $0.00 - SIGN REVIEW ISSUANCE FEE $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW - RETAIL, COMMERCIAL & PCD ZONES $880.00 $880.00 $0.00 - COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES $640.00 $640.00 $0.00 - REVISED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW - RETAIL, COMMERCIAL & PCD ZONES $440.00 ' 5440.00 $0.00 - COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES $320.00 ~320.00 $0.00 S-8 .CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT 100.0 % N/A N/A $0.00 FEES SET BY LEGISLATION S-9 THIS SERVICE CENTER DELETED S-10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 100.0 % ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST · --~: - .. :>.~.. ~%, ~ ~:. ~;, : · , ,~:-,~,.~::~$>~,-:-.~- ~%:<~:~:~:°:°:~°:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~+::::~:~::::~:~::~`::::~::::~:~:~::;~:~:~`~ '.:~-'....+:.:-:.~';::~::::.>:.:~o:.:,~<...:~........," - REQUESTED LAND USE & ZONING REVIEW $55.00 $55.00 $0.00 COMPLETNESS REVIEW (RESUBMITAL) 5% OF ORIG. FEE 5% OF ORIG. FEE $0.00 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS - ADVERTISED $330.00 $330.00 $0.00 - POSTED . $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 ~,~i~;~,,',~,~~' ":~¥ "i'~'"'""~'~"""~ ............ :~,,~ ................. .~ii''~i':=''''~: ..........., '" '~''':'~i ................ .~<~".~-~.,'.~,~,~'~'~!~:~:~'"'~'~'~ "~'<~'~'"'~'~"' "~' ~i~'~=~[ii.~;~~~ ° '* < ~ I (3 [13 PAGE 9 OF 36 City of Ba' '_.field EXHIBIT "A" , MASTER FEE ,-..,HEDULE for City Service Centers Rev. Date: 16-AUG-96 I RECOVERY FEES I FEE'"CREASI .OTES COMME.TS SERVICE CENTER I REQUIRED 7/01/96 10/01/96 I/(DECREASE}J - ADVERTISED $1,3~.~ $1,3~.~ ~.~ S-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1~.0 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL - OIL WELL REVIEW $1,623.~ $1,623.~ $0.~ REG. USE PERMIT * $~0 FOR FIRE - GENERAL REVIEW - ALL ZONES $1,323.00 $1,323.~ ~.~ CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL (ANY ZONE) $1,323.~ $1,323.~ ~.~ S-14 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW 1~.0 % $2,~.00 $2,000.~ $0.00 ADD $50 PER 1/4 SEC. OR PORTION AFTER 1ST 160 ACRES S-15 PUD OR PCD ZONE CHANGE 1~.0 % $2,5~.~ $2,5~.~ $0.00 S-16 SITE PLAN REVIEW ($100 MIN, $1500 MAX) 1~.0 S-17 HOME OCCUPATION REVIEW 1~.0 % - HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT $25.~ $25.~ $0.~ - ~RGE FAMILY DAY CARE $25.00 $25.~ ~.~ S-18 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW 100.0 % - TEXT AMENDMENT OR MAP AMENDMENT $3,0~.~ $3,0~.~ ~.~ - TEXT & MAP AMENDMENT $3,5~.~ $3,5~.~ ~.~ - MAP AMENDMENT - ~ND USE & ZONING $4,~.~ ~,~.~ - TEXT & MAP AMENDMENT - ~ND USE & ZONING ~,5~.~ ~,5~.~ ~.~ - SPECIFIC PLAN PREPARATION $4,~.~ ~,5~.~ ~,~ - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT $2,~.~ $2,~.~ ~.~ S-18.1 HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW 1~.0 % $2,~.~ $2,5~.~ . ~.~ S-18.2 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 1~.0 % $250.~ $2~.~ ~.~ S-18.3 HOUSING PROGRAMS REHABILITATION INSPECTIONS 1~.0 % - INITIAL INSPECTION / DOCUMENTATION $150.~ $1~.~ ~.~ - ADDITIONAL INSPECTION COSTS / FEES - DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING COSTS $120.~ $1~.~ ~.~ - ROOF REP~CEMENT $175.~ $175.~ ~.~ - ELECTRICAL $2~.~ $2~.~ ~.~ - PLUMBING $2~.~ $2~.~ ~.~ - MECHANICAL $2~.~ $2~.~ ~.~ - FRAME / FLOOR $175.~ $175.~ ~.~ PAGE 10 OF 36 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, September 18, 1996 TRANSCRIPTION: DEFERRED BUSINESS ITEM 5B, FIRE STATION LOCATION McDermott Fire Station Location, Chief Kelly Kelly Yes, we have conducted a few more tests out in the south-westerly portion of the City, as far as distances and response times. The proposed County Fire Station location at Brimhall and Renfro, we have identified that actually its response capabilities down to the area where recently two fires have occurred, one in January and one just a couple of weeks ago. To the westerly end of the tract would be approximately a minute and 57 seconds, to the easterly end of the tract would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of two minutes 15 maybe two minutes and 20 seconds. As far as the overall coverage back to the west, we have identified a response time of approximately three and one-half minutes to Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road, which is approximately the midpoint of the large parcel of undeveloped land there between Calloway and Allen. The discussions as far as the proposed project a little bit west of Calloway, we have also done some response time checks on that. A current City station can arrive in two minutes and 48 seconds. A current County station can arrive in three minutes and 5 seconds. So we do, in fact, have two existing stations that can arrive at that particular project well within the established response criteria, which is three minutes 45 seconds, 90 percent of the time. McDermott You're saying you can go from here to here in two minutes and 48 Kelly The other side of the bridge where it appears as though you would actually turn in to the project McDermOtt Then go through the project, through the gates, all the way back into this house over here Kelly The project itself, Phase One will require some type of secondary access before it can be built when Phase Two is built which is the more westerly phase. There will have to be additional secondary access. Most likely provided by a structural-type bridge over the canal. And, at that particular time with access capabilities, ah, the proposed County Station it should improve their time if, in fact, the access over that canal ever exists. But, it will not be allowed to develop any further until that's in place. That has been an agreement with the developers since day one. McDermott That's an average speed of 50 miles an hour. Kelly No, probably closer to 58, something of that nature, almost 60. McDermott You mean you think we can average 60 miles an hour going Kelly Along Stockdale Highway when we conducted these test runs, we physically took one of our pumpers and we did not go red light and siren, but we went as much as we could with slower traffic and simulating as closely as we possibly could a response. Those are the times we came up with. McDermott So based on this, then what you are saying, is that our standard of coverage is not, ah, what were those two-mile diamonds that were used? Kelly Right. McDermott Your saying that it's actually larger than that. So then you are going to basically change then the standard elsewhere and shut down fire stations · ..not audible., in the rest of the community. Kelly No, No, I'm not saying that. Ah, this particular response criteria and projected response times is not a great deal different than responses that exist in other portions of Metropolitan area of Bakersfield that have existing stations. You anticipate you're going to have an outer edge of the envelope as far as acceptable responses. That's what the three minutes 45 seconds is intended to do. But, 90 percent of the time you are going to do that. This would not be the only area where you would have response times that fit in that general criteria. McDermott You have the maps on all the triangles? Kelly Ah, I do not. But if it would be any help, I do have a map. As far as responses, and that's another thing in regards to the triangles. Responses ...not audible..are extraneously regulated, and there are basically ..not audible., the infrastructure with the streets ..not audible.. You can see the area for this station is rather large. A response area for a station with a more industrialized commercial-type area, is much smaller. That accounts for the fact that you have more of a fire potential. Also, there is more likelihood that it is going to be more difficult for you to move around and respond. In this particular area, you should have an excellent response down Stockdale Highway, as well as north on Calloway now that the bridge is in. McDermott Let's look at, basically, their location is right here. Kelly I think it's over ..not audible.. And, as you see, the current City response is up to right there. McDermott I'm looking at this distance, and this distance, and we have these all nearer. So, if you're saying that that's adequate response then obviously we are overprotecting the other areas, if you are going to underprotect the people who live out in this portion of the City. Kelly Well, there's a possibility that perhaps we should evaluate this particular station as far as relocating it a little more to the southwest. And, that has been researched and is still in the progress of being identified. Waiters Is that Station 9? Kelly Station 9. That way if you had something here, here, and here, you are all going to have a coverage right in here that's going to be right around three minutes or a little over. McDermott I really, if you had it there, that's fine. It's not up there. That's where I'm ...not audible.. When I look at it here, I don't have a problem, but that additional mile down the road is Kelly Actually from here, to here, to here, should be about two and a half minutes. McDermott I would challenge anyone that narrow road, you cannot get there in two and a half minutes dodging the almond orchard. That's, I struggle because it seems we are still applying a different standard, saying that people who live in Rosedale don't deserve that same level of protection that we have in the rest of the community, and I just very violently and strongly keep fighting that, and I don't see why that you can say that this one is different and you are going to provide higher levels in the rest of the community. Now if you want to say that this is our new standard and we are going to take out several of the other stations so that everyone gets the same protection then we'll talk about that issue. Kelly We do have some existing stations that the response areas do not appear quite as large. But, because of traffic congestion and things of that nature, we cannot actually get there as quickly as it looks at a quick glance at the map. McDermott If you want to drive down Brimhall and you want to find traffic congestion, you'll find it now on that street, ah, I mean, and it's going to get worse. The additional projects being put in out there. I think it is unrealistic to say, "I've driven it, and there are no other cars and no traffic out there and I can make it at something above the speed limit." Ah, and realize that the other areas you say, because we've already built the house and, therefore, it's congested, we can't get there as fast. The same thing is going to happen out here. It is absolutely going to be the same situation on those. So I don't understand why we have a different standard. If you take the diamond theory that everyone seems to go along with, this shows that that's the wrong location. Kelly Well, using the diamond theory, once again the response areas themselves are not perfect diamonds, circles, triangles, anything of that nature. But with the diamond theory, theoretically, ah, all things being equal, you should make it to the outer edge of the response boundary in two minutes or a little over, maybe two minutes 15 seconds. This particularly, I don't perceive as a change in the level of service. We have evaluated the area and the sample runs indicate that we can, in fact, be within that area within the established response criteria. Smith Chief Kelly, is this going to be part of the discussion that ...not audible... Kelly It is my understanding it is to be discussed this afternoon by the ad hoc committee. Smith Will they come back with a recommendation, or how will that fit into this process? Kelly It is my understanding that the ad hoc committee recommendations that they make will be forwarded to the full membership of the two elective bodies for approval. Smith And that will be this particular subject ...not audible.. Kelly Yes, ...not audible... McDermott So, staff for the City is recommending that we provide lower level of protection for these residents or future residents out here than the rest of the ...not audible... Kelly ...not audible .... I'm not recommending that we provide any less level of service ...not audible.. McDermott Okay then, how come you have to assume that you are going to travel in an excess of 60 miles an hour to meet these needs. Kelly Sixty miles an hour will be adequate speed with those particular distances .... not audible., are fairly close to a mile and those times are projected are fairly close to a mile. McDermott And how fast do you assume that the fire engine is going to go when it heads east on Stockdale? You assume it is going to go 60 miles an hour there? Kelly When it heads east on Stockdale? McDermott You said when it goes ...not audible., it can go 60 miles an hour Kelly Coming out of the station near the Country Club with the flow of traffic and red light and siren, probably not 60, but it should be able to move along at a fairly significant pace. McDermott So why are we assuming that it can go faster just because it is going in this direction, when it can't going in the other direction? Kelly Ah, it shouldn't make a significant difference. Once usually you clear the intersection, ah, at Gosford, usually the opportunity presents itself, if it's not the particular time of day when a lot of students are going to the college or something of that nature. Traffic flow headed in the westerly direction along Stockdale Highway in that area is usually fairly unimpeded. McDermott Now? It was the same way when Truxtun Extension was first built. There wasn't a lot of things along there and you could get along that fairly well. But, we knew that that would not always be the case. I think we also know that that's not always going to be the case in the other direction. Why are we making this assumption? Waiters Mike, wouldn't our preemption devices Kelly The preemption devices will also come to play in that regard. McDermott That would be fine if you want to argue that then you say you are going to take fire stations out of the rest of the community so that everyone get the same level because you are going to put these preemption ones in. Is that what you are going to suggest that you are going to cut other fire stations? Kelly No, No. McDermott Then I cannot accept giving a lower level of fire protection to the people just because they live out in the western portion of the City than if they live any place else. Kelly We don't anticipate that they will receive a lower level of service. McDermott I guess the real question is then, Pat, is what it is that we ask them to carry as possibly a message from this Committee to the ad hoc. Do we, basically, you know, say they carry staffs' message, or do we carry, you know, the different message or do we try to at least explain to that ad hoc committee why we are concerned about this. I am very frustrated because, I, things that were fine earlier all of a sudden, you know, it seems like drop out. You know, we as a City were proposing a location of Stockdale and Allen until the County said they were going to build and then we say okay then you have to go farther out. We were supportive of the diamond concept until it basically said, no, that's not where you should put, move the station. I am just really struggling because it is very clear to me that we have applied a different standard than any place else. No place else do we assume that they are going to go with absolutely no traffice, no future build-up and travel 60 miles an hour on all the streets to get there, but, we are going to make that assumption here. No place else would you have that wide of a difference between stations. Ah, it's clearly a lower level of service. Waiters Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a suggestion that the Committee can ask staff to present to our representatives on the ad hoc committee what it is you want them to pursue at the committee level. What staff has laid out for you this afternoon is what the Chief believes is appropriate, but if that is different than the message that you would like the representatives on the committee to pursue, you can give us that direction, and we will move that forward at the two o'lock meeting. McDermott I see two things that I would like communicated. One is that this level of service should not be less just because it is out here in the western portion of the City and that means that they should not be located any farther apart than the standards that we have elsewhere. The second one is that there ought to be a temporary facility built as soon as possible. I thought both issues were very well communicated at our Council meeting. I read the letter that staff sent to Mr. Heinrichs and neither of those issues were even rais(~d in the letter. So, I am very upset with the letter that was sent ...not audible... I think that it should have at least communicated those concerns, and I would think that we ought to carry a message, and I think a motion from this Committee that you carry that we don't believe that that station provides the same level of service, and I think we ought to have the same level of service that we have in the rest of the community. Do you have any comments on that, Pat? Pat? Smith McDermott I think that I really want you to emphasize also the temporary station. I think that needs to ...not audible.. Waiters I'll do that. McDermott Next item ............. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Director of Public Works DATE: September 18, 1996 SUBJECT: STATUS OF FREEWAY AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA Attached tbr your information is the September report prepared by this department regarding the status of the various freeway and State highway projects in the metropolitan area. The previous reports also provide additional background on the various projects. September 18, 1996 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 Citv Council on the progress of various fi-eewav and State Highway projects in the metropolitan area since the April 9, 1996 status report. Kern River Corridor (Kern River Freeway) CalTrans staffis continuing to work on the environmental document Ibr the route adoption study. Kern COG has imtiated a consultant's contract to help CalTrans by doing the technical studies lbr the environmental document. The consultant, Woodward Clyde, is currently doing their scoping study. A kick offmeeting was held last Friday to begin the work. A revised schedule tbr completion of the document and studies is expected in about two weeks. State Route 178 (Crosstown Freeway} There has been no change in the status of the Crosstown Freeway from that last reported. State Route 99 Work on the widening prqiect is progressing according to schedule. The bridge over the Kern River will be done in two concrete pours. The th-st hail'will be poured in about six weeks; the remaining half will be poured before the end of the year. The rest of the prqlect is essentially complete except for striping, which should be done in about six weeks. However, all new lanes will not be open in the vicinitx, of the Kern River until the completion of the bridge. South Beltwav The three way agreement between Kern Coun _ty, Kern COG and the Ci~ for the fiinding of the en,,sronmental studv is still being negotiated. It has been signed bv the COG Board: after the City Attorney and the planning Department have completed their review it will be sent to Council for their approval. The money for the study will not be available until October I. 1996. After the funds are available, an RFQ/RFP witl be processed for a consultant. West Beltwav There has been no change in the status of the West Behwav since the last report. Coffee Road Grade Separation The grade separation is under construction. The embankment is going up and the railroad bridge should be under construction tn January. Completion of this project is expected in May, 1997.