The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/13/1997 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Dolores Teubner AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 13, 1997 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 JULY 9, 1997 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES - Hardisty B. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES - Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A. APARTMENT COMPLEX SAFETY - Brummer/Skousen 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp FiLE BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair ~ Itaff..~D~ idoYr;s~ ~la l)a~rf// . pR: ~ridcYi aR OM.W I;n~ it h / AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT / / URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE / Wednesday, July 9, 1997 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:15 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and Patricia Smith 2. APPROVAL OF MAY 7, 1997 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE Staff gave a brief overview of the status of freeway and state highway projects in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Freeway route adoption for the Kern River Freeway is in process and will undergo a public hearing at the California Transportation Commission in November or December of 1997. Caltrans is currently doing the Project Study Report which is necessary for putting the $200 million project on the STIP. Draft route URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Page -2- adoption will take place in March 1998, ROW acquisition to begin in 1999 with construction anticipated to begin in 2003. Caltrans would like the City and County to participate in constructing the river bridge and grade separation bridge for the freeway. The City may need to annex the Rosedale 5 area to make sure that the projects can be completed. For the Crosstown Freeway, Caltrans is considering putting money towards developing a route adoption. Staff is also working on getting ISTEA demonstration funds; A consultant has been hired to do an EIR for the South Beltway. The EIR should be completed in December which will lead to adoption of a specific plan line and ROW acquisition. B. SPHERE OFINFLUENCE Staff gave an update on the progress for amending the City's Sphere of Influence. LAFCO convened a workshop on this issue in June at which the City addressed comments from agricultural interests, Enron and other interested parties. In order to address all concerns, the City chose to continue this action to December.at which time staff will recirculate a new environmental document which will include resolution to issues raised by Enron and agricultural interests. Staff is also pursuing the inclusion of Rosedale Ranch as part of the Sphere of Influence amendment. LAFCO is being cooperative and staff is confident that the amendment will be successful, although it may not include the entire original survey area. C. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff gave a rePort on the progress in instituting park fees in the City area covered by the NOR Parks and Recreation District. The City Attorney will have a draft ordinance available at the next meeting which will apply the same park fee in NOR as is applied in the City. Funds collected in NOR district would be held in a City account and funds will be provided to NOR when they construct a park. The longer-term concern is to have a County park fee in order to balance the amenities in the City and metropolitan County area. The County is reviewing various mechanisms for funding park development and must resolve a few hurdles but could have a decision by the end of the year. The Committee requested that a breakdown of where the NOR fees would be collected from and how they would be allocated be provided at the next meeting along with the draft ordinance. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff summarized the basis for calculating the proposed increase in the City's Park Development Fee and addressed questions raised by the BIA on this subject. The fee URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Page -3- has not been increased in four years. The current calculation is based on a six-acre park with restrooms, parking and an optional extended maintenance period. The Committee was concerned that the basis for the fee was for a community park rather than for the less expensive neighborhood parks without restrooms, parking and other amenities, therefore elevating the fee higher than necessary. The City Manager cautioned that the Park Development Fund is not being over funded and in fact~ collection of sufficient funds to build a park often come much later than both residents and the City Council would like. This was evidenced in the process of developing Tevis Park. Staff provided an accounting of Park Fee collections, expenditures and available uncommitted balance. Staff pointed out that in many cases there may be sufficient acquisition funds but insufficient development funds to build the park or visa versa. In addition, funds are often used to improve or enhance existing parks in areas that are fully built out. Each year the City is required to report on the collection of fees and what the City plans to do with the fees. If at the end of five years the fees remain uncommitted to a new park or to improving an existing park, the fees must be refunded. The Committee had several concerns about the cost elements that the fee calculation is being based on. Staff was directed to develop parameters for what should be included in a community park and what are the real costs for developing these types of parks. Funds should be collected to allow the flexibility to build the size and type of park that are appropriate to the area in which it's built. Concern was also expressed about the different fees being charged to different types of units such as multi-family, single-family, mobile homes, etc. Councilmember McDermott felt this was inequitable. Staff was directed to review the original findings which allowed the differentiation in fees for single-family versus multi-family. This information will be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting. B. SCOPE OF GENERAL PLAN Staff provided information on the need for Bakersfield to conduct a periodic review of the General Plan. The City has been making adjustments to the land use plan and needs to determine whether these changes are consistent with the base document and whether the assumptions in the General Plan still address today's circumstances and environment. Staff is not suggesting a comprehensive update like the one undertaken in 1990, but rather a review to determine if any minor adjustments or revisions need to take place to keep the General Plan current and applicable to take us to 2010. The Committee asked if the planning horizon for the document could move forward as a result of this tune-up. Staff responded that this would require a comprehensive review URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July '9, 1997 Page -4- which would include looking at all of the policy statements and implementation programs. A schedule, cost estimate and summary of content of the update will be broUght back to the Committee at a later date. In addition, the Committee suggested that the reference to 2010 might be removed from the title. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 2:00 p.m. DBT:jp ...... ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.82.070 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT IN THE NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the provisions of CEQA have been followed; and WHEREAS, for the above-described ordinance, an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, Policy 3 of the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan requires new residential development to provide dedication of land, pay in- lieu fees or a combination of both, and develop public parks to serve those new residential developments; and WHEREAS, this ordinance requires all new residential dwelling units, including those within the North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District, to pay a fee for developing parks; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is in the public interest, necessary for public convenience, health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield has named the following findings in accordance with the requirements of Section 66000 of the Government Code: 1. The fee established by the ordinance is for the purpose of developing, improving and/or enhancing public parks and recreation facilities serving the residential development. Parks and recreation facilities are identified in the capital improvement plan, the Parks Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan, or comprehensive park plan approved by the City Council. 2. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed because the fee is calculated in relationship to the number of people residing in the development and the current estimated cost of constructing a park. 3. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for parks and recreational facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed because new residential dwelling unit development creates or contributes an additional demand for parks and recreational facilities. It is necessary to provide for developed parks to satisfy the additional demand for parks and recreational facilities at the level of service required by the General Plan. 4. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of parks and recreational facilities or portion thereof attributable to the residential development on which the fee is imposed. -- Page I of 3 Pages - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15.82.065 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.82.070 Exemptions. The provisions of this article shall not apply to the following: A. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodel or replacement of a dwelling unit structure, provided the replacement structure is the same type of unit, does not create additional dwelling units and is substantially the same size as the structure it replaces. B. Subdivisions or development for which park development, improvement and/or enhancement requirements have previously been satisfied and evidence of such satisfaction, acceptable to the city is submitted. However, subsequent division of such parcels may result in additional fees set forth in this chapter. C. Condominium conversion projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building when no new dwelling units are added. D. Commercial retail and office, and industrial subdivisions with no residential development or uses. However, fees shall be required where a residential dwelling unit is constructed in conjunction with commercial or industrial subdivisions. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ..... ooOOoo ..... -- Page 2 of 3 Pages -- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: " CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By:, LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney S:~COUNCIL~RD~PARK-DEV. FEE -- Page 3 of 3 Pages -- CITY OF BAKERSFIELD URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 1997 PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT FEE EXISTING PROPOSED OPTION #1 OPTION #2 PARK COST $530,746 $563,608 $563,608 $563,608 6 ACRE PARK FEES SINGLE FAMILY $670 $710' $685 $685 DUPLEX $545 $580 $685 $685 MULTI-FAMILY $505 $535 $685 $685 MOBILE HOME $475 $500 $685 $685 EXISTING PROPOSED OPTION #1 OPTION #2 PARK COST $846,420 $846,420 $846,420 10 ACRE PARK FEES SINGLE FAMILY N/A $640 $615 $615 DUPLEX N/A $520 $615 $615 MULTI-FAMILY N/A $480 $615~ $615 MOBILE HOME N/A $450 $615 $615 Option # 1 A weighted average flat fee calculation which utilizes the existing fees and formula along with the last four years of building permit data to develop a ratio of the type of building permits issued since the fee was last revised in 1993. For every 100 permits issued since 1993, 85 permits were for single family and 15 (dwelling units) for apartments. An average fee per unit was calculated for apartments, duplexes, complexes with three or more units, and mobile homes. We then calculated the amount of revenue generated at the ratio of 85 single family permits and 15 multiple family permits. Finally, we divided the revenue generated by the 100 units to calculate one fee for all types of units. Option # 2 Same assumptions as option #1, however, staff calculated the fee using a weighted average persons per dwelling unit figure, multiplied by the cost per person, to determine the fee. .,- ;'A TYPICAL BASIC 6 AND 10 ACRE PARK DEVELOPMENT BY CITY ((~ CITY COST) JULY 1997 COST BASIS o8/13/97 Cost per Acre 6-Acre Cost 10-Acre Cost 1 *Earthwork/Grading (Flat, Hilly Playfield, Etc.) $5,125.00 $30,750.00 $51,250.00 'subject ~o specific site conditions 2 **Utility (Electrical/Water/Sewer) $3,727.00 $22,362.00 · $37,270.00 · *subtect to specific design requirements 3 Irrigation System A. Heads 102 (~ 185 ea. (25hds/ac.) $3,145.00 $18,870.00 $31,450.00 B. *Valve - (15 valves) 15(3") @ 3 rcv/ac $352.00 $2,112.00 $3,520.00 · using plastic valves as opposed to brass C. Booster Pump (1 per park) $3,510.00 $21,060.00 $21,060.00 D. Main Line (1,000 fl. at 4.00/sqfl.) $666.00 $3,996.00 $6,660.00 E. Laterals $800.00 $4,800.00 $8,000.00 F. Misc. Wires, Fitting (glue, tape, etc.) $316.00 $1,896.00 $3,160.00 G. Quick Coupler Valve $130.00 $780.00 $1,300.00 H. Irrigation Control ClocK 24 Sta/6; 365 Sta/10 $125.00 $750.00 $1,250.00 I. Maxicom System (New) $2,000.00 $12;000.00 $12,000.00 SUBTOTAL $11,044.00 $66,264.00 $88,400.00 4 Security Light System $5,244.00 $31,464.00 $52,440.00 (6 poles/6; 10 poles/10) 5 Utility Building (Storage Only) (18'x18') $6,166.00 $36,996.00 $36,996.00 6 Restroom Facilities $8,699.00 $52,194.00 $52,194.00 (Plumbing, Electrical, Fixtures) 7 Parking Lot (36-40 Cars)(w/landscaping) $6,150.00 $36,900.00 $61,500.00 8 Concrete Work Interior/Driveway & Mowstrip $3,232.00 $19,392.00 $32,320.00 (minimum hardscape) 9 Picnic Area (Conc. Slab) $886.00 $5,316.00 $8,860.00 A. Single Nooks 12x30=2.56/sqfl(3)(1BBQ, 1 Table) B. Double Nooks 20x20=2.96/sqfl(2)(1BBQ, 1 Table) SUBTOTAL $886.00 $5,316.00 $8,860.00 10 Barbeques A. BBQ Picnic Grill $535.00 $3,210.00 $5,350.00 B. Tables-(643/ea.x6) $643.00 $3,858.00 $6,430.00 SUBTOTAL $1,178.00 $7,068.00 $11,780.00 11 Landscape Plant Material A. Tree (24"Box)$200ea. (40 trees/ac.)* $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $50,000.00 B. Shrub (5 gal) $14.85/ea (120) $297.00 $1,782.00 $2,970.00 C. Lawn (Seeds) 261.360 S.F. @10 PDS/1000sqft $904.00 $5,424.00 $9,040.00 D. Ground Cover (Flats)(50xS0)(2,500)S.F. $266.00 $1,596.00 $2,660.00 SUBTOTAL $6,467.00 $38,802.00 $64,670.00 Cost per Acre 6-Acre Cost 10-Acre Cost 12 Drinking Fountains (3) $362.00 $2,172.00 $3,620.00 . A. 1 - Handicap B. 2 - Standard SUBTOTAL $362.00 $2,172.00 $3,620.00 13 Mulitgame Slab $3,321.00 $19,926.00 $33,210.00 With Wire Reinforcement/Footing (60x60) Basketball 14 180 Day Maintenance $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $50,000.00 15 Playground Equipment A. Slides, Swings, Sand, Trashcans, etc.) $9,636.00 $57,813.00 $96,360.00 B. Shade Structure $2,050.00 $12,300.00 $20,500.00 C. Concrete Varies (45'xS0'x$2.70 S.F.) $1,012.00 $6,072.00 $10,120.00 D. Benches (5) @ 478/ea. $398.00 $2,388.00 $3,980.00 E. A.D.A. Requirements (cost is included in items as required) SUBTOTAL $21,417.00 $128,499.00 $214,170.00 16 Sign/Monument Wall (5'x12') $170.00 $1,020.00 $1,020.00 17 Design/Development/Personnel $3,075.00 $18,450.00 $20,000.00 18 ¼ Street Improvements on 2 Sides of Park Site A. 1,100 LF SW @ $16.14/LF $2,959.00 $17,754.00 $29,590.00 B. 1,100 LF C&F @ 10.25/LF $1,879.00 $11,274.00 $18,790.00 C. 1,100 LF Pavmnt (~ 24'x1100'=26,400x2.05 $6,155.00 $36,931.00 $61,550.00 SUBTOTAL $14,238.00 $85,429.00 $130,950.00 GRAND TOTAL $93,935.00 $563,608.00 $846,420.00 *The above cost projections do not include land acquisition cost. *Items 6&7 may not occur at each park. (Larger park = more people, more facilities) G \QUA3-rRo\OON\PAR KDEV2 August 12, 1997 ALTERNATIVE #1 FORMULA FOR "FLAT FEE" PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE (Weighted Average Fee) 1. .Assume the existing tees and formula (see attached). 2. Based on the last 4 ,','ears of building permit data, the ratio of type of building permits is (use last 4 years because 1993 was the last ;'ear the fee was revised): · For every 100 permits there are 85 permits for single family and 15 (dwelling units) permits for apartments*. * (Apamncnts includes condos, duplexes, complexes with 3 or more units, and mobile homes with multiple family unit t.~pes because the person per unit for mobile homes is closer to multiple family person per unit rates.) 3. Using the existing formula to determine the fee per unit, calculate the average fee of duplex, 3 or more apartment unit and mobile home. For example: S580 + $535 -,- $500 = $1.615 $1,615 + 3 = S538.33 (round to $540 per unit) 4. Using the following fees: Single family residential: $710 per unit Multiple family (#2 above): ~ per unit Calculate the amount of fees generated at the ratio of 85 single family permits and 15 multiple family permits: 85 x $710 = $60,350 15 x $540 = $8,100 Total = $68,450 5. Calculate one fee for all types of units to generate $68,450. S68,450 + 100 units = $684.50 per unit (round to $685 per unit). August 12, 1997 ALTERNAIIVE//2 FORMULA FOR "FLAT FEE" PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE (Weighted average persons per dwelling unit) I. Assume the existing fees and formula (see attached). 2, Based on last 4 years of building permit data, the ratio of type of building permits is (use last 4 years because 1993 was the last year the fee was revised): · For every. 100 permits there are 85 permits for single family and 15 (dwelling units) permits for apartments*. (Apartments includes condos, duplexes, complexes with 3 or more units, and mobile homes. Include mobile homes with multiple family unit types because the person per unit for mobile homes is closer to multiple family person per unit rates.) 3. Calculate a weighted average persons per dwelling unit. 85 SFR X 3.02 persons per unit = 256.7 15MFRX 2.,~7" ** persons per unit = 35.*,*,~ 1 NIH X 2.13 persons per unit = 2.13 (56.7 + 35.55 + 2.13 = 294.38) + 101 = 2.91 weighted average persons per unit. ** (Average persons per unit for duplex and multi-family: (2.46 + 2.28 = 4.74) + 2 = 2.37 4. Calculate the fee using the weighted average persons per unit. ".91 pp/du X $234.84*** = $683.38 per unit (round to $685 per unit) (*** Cost per person to develop park) August 12, 1997 ALTERNATIVE #1 FOR.MULA FOR "FLAT FEE" PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE (Weighted Average Fee) 1. Assume the existing fees and formula (see attached) 2. Based on the last 4 ,,'ears of building permit data. the ratio of type of building permits is (use last 4 years because 1993 was the last year the fee was revised): · For every 100 permits there are 85 permits for single family and 15 (dwelling units) permits for apartments*. * (Apaninents includes condos, duplexes, complexes xvith 3 or more units, and mobile homes xvith multiple family unit types because the person per unit for mobile homes is closer to multiple family person per unit rates.) 3. Using the existing formula to determine the fee per unit, calculate the average fee of duplex, 3 or more apartment unit and mobile home. For example: $520 + $480 - S450 = $1,450 $1,450 + 3 = $483.33 (round to'$485 per unit) 4. Using the following fees: Single family residential: $640 per unit Multiple family (#2 above): $485 per unit Calculate the amount of fees generated at the ratio of 85 single family permits and 15 multiple family permits: 85 x $640 = $54.400 15 x $485 = $7,275 Total = $61,675 5. Calculate one fee for all types of units to generate $61,675. $61,675 + 100 units = 5616.75 per unit (round to $615 per unit). August 12, 1997 ALTERNATIVE #2 FORMULA FOR "FLAT FEE" PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE (Weighted average persons per dwelling unit) 1. Assume the existing fees and formula (see attached). 2. Based on last 4 years of building permit data, the ratio of type of building permits is (use last 4 years because 1993 was the last year the fee was revised): · For every' 100 permits there are 85 permits for single family and 15 (dwelling units) permits for apartments*. * (Apartments includes condos, duplexes, complexes with 3 or more units, and mobile homes. Include mobile homes with multiple family unit t.~l~es because the person per unit for mobile. homes is closer to multiple family person per unit rates.) 3. Calculate a weighted average persons per dwelling unit. 85 SFR X 3.02 persons per unit = 256.7 15 MFR X 2.37** persons per unit = 35.55 I Mt-t X 2.13 persons per unit = 2.13 (56.7 + 35.55 + 2.13 = 294.38) + 101 = 2.91 weighted average persons per unit. ** (Average persons per unit for duplex and multi-family: (2.46 + 2.28 = 4.74) + 2 = 2.37 4. Calculate the fee using the weighted average persons per unit. 2.91 pp/du X $211.61'** = $615.79 per unit (round to $615 per unit) (*** Cost per person to develop park)