Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2000 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Thursday, March 23, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 2, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REQUEST FROM MARTHA KNIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES 6. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING USE OF ELECTRIC BIKES ON CITY STREET BIKE LANES 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT S:\TTS\Leg-Lit-Com~AGN000323.wpd BAKERSFIELD Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Special Meeting Thursday, March 2, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:20 p.m. Members present: Councilmember David Couch, Chair Councilmember Patricia DeMond - (leaving at 2:40 p.m.) Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan - (arriving at 2:20 p.m.) 2. ADOPT JANUARY 31, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Debbie Taylor spoke regarding the draft "Guide to the Annexation Process" and that on the whole she thought the City Clerk's office did a good job. She made suggestions on clarifying language, improving the sample written protest form, and others. Barbara Fields stated that the City should pass an ordinance on annexation, not a resolution. She wanted the way protests are counted to be defined and the same process used for all annexations and made several suggestions on the types of information that should be shared with people before an area is annexed. She further urged that the time be taken to do things the correct way so that everyone understands what's going on. ADOE't']~ AS. SOBMITT]~ Otl I~Clt 23, 2000 F!~ r ~ ~,,,.~--~f Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee March 2, 2000. Page 2 Ginger Mello spoke regarding the draft "Guide to the Annexation Process" suggesting changes and pointing out what she felt were needed corrections. Liz Keogh spoke about past annexation efforts, indicating she felt the City needs to pass an ordinance, not a resolution, on annexation and develop uniform procedures. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE ANNEXATION PROCESS WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE Councilmembers Couch and DeMond responded to questions and statements made by the speakers. Annexation areas must be contiguous to the City; one area can be combined with another area (not necessarily contiguous to each other) in the annexation process. A current council cannot bind a future council's action either in an ordinance or a resolution. Annexation protests can be filed both as a landowner and as a registered voter but will only be counted one way (as required by state law). The governing body (the City) elects the manner of determination and' it views what the votes are from the standpoint of equity. This decision needs to be made by Council on a case by case basis. In the Palm-Olive annexation, landowner basis was used as it required a lower threshold for residents to meet; residents were unable to meet the threshold to stop the process. Considerable discussion ensued on the difference between a resolution and an ordinance. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained that an ordinance is a law that generally applies to the actions of citizens whereas a resolution is a policy decision of the Council and generally directs staff to follow certain procedures. He used the example of passing the budget by resolution. Both a resolution and an ordinance are binding and take Council action to reverse. Councilmember Couch directed City Attorney Thiltgen to send a letter to attendees who have provided their names and addresses explaining his thoughts on a resolution vs. an ordinance. He further directed staff to send Mrs. Barbara Fowler a copy of the tapes of the committee meeting and the agenda summary report. Suggestions made by presenters will be incorporated into the research to be completed by staff in refining the draft annexation guide. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee March 2, 2000 Page 3 Other topics discussed included: setting a minimum standard (higher than that required by Cortese-Knox) while allowing Councilmember individuality in raising that standard; larger size than required legal notices; required wording in announcements; extended legal noticing times; individually noticing each owner in a proposed annexation area; what types of annexation should be included in a resolution ( inhabited vs. uninhabited, size, resident requested, etc.); providing a Council- approved "guide" on the City's website and at the City Clerk's Office; and the possibility 0f running annexation related public hearing notices on KGOV. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty indicated he would provide to the Committee a chart which showed the flow of the time line being discussed relating to the annexation process. Councilmember Couch directed minutes of this meeting be sent to meeting attendees who signed in. He also asked Mrs. Fields if the City Council adopted a resolution . that had everything they wanted in it and staff followed it to a "T," would that be enough? The answer was "no"; they wanted it in an ordinance. City Attorney Thiltgen explained Cortese-Knox (state law) guides the legal annexation process used in California, and the City of Bakersfield is legally preempted from · modifying such process in any manner. The City can establish procedures to be followed in pre-legal processes used by the City; thus, a resolution would be applicable in a pre-legal process as the legal process is covered by state law. He explained staff was continuing to work on a proposed guide to the annexation process for which a proposed resolution would direct staff to review for updating annually. This item was deferred to the meeting in April, tentatively scheduled for April 27 as there are conflicts with the meeting scheduled for April 20. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes; City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Attorney Carl Hernandez; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty;. Other Attendees: James Burger, Reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Ginger Mello; Liz Keogh; Barbara J. Fields; Ray Allen; and Debbie Taylor. (L&L~O00302MIN.wpd) CITY ATTO R..NF_.y · '° - ~ ?_7 ..... -....~. Bart J. ThJlt~ew . . ~....r' '-.~. -....~ I.,,'. / ..~:~.'~t Ro~rt M. Sherf. y Walter H. Poor. Jr. ~ic~, o. ,~o.~ CITY OF BAKERS~LD Carl Hernam~ez V'~gia~a Geanam OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOL'~EY l~0t TRUX'~'N ^VF. NL~ Andrew C. Thomson BAKI~RSFTELD, CA ADM:LNISTR'~.'I'IVX ASSISTA~T TELEPHONE: 661-326-3721 November 16, 1999 Mrs. Martha Knight 2420 C Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: 1601 13t" Street Dear Mrs. Knight: This letter is in response to your correspondence of October 16, 1999 addressed to Councilwoman Patricia DeMond. Ms. DeMond referred your correspondence to stafffor comment and reply. In preparing this response, I have revie'wed all prior correspondence and memos between yourself and the City, have spoken with City employees involved in this transaction and have reviewed applicable California law. Your citation to "Section 1102 of the Real Estate Disclosure Law of 1989" is, unfortunately, of no assistance in resolving this matter as it pertains to residential property only (Civil Code section 1102 - "Disclosure upon transfer of Residential Property"). Even if an argument for application of this disclosure law to this transaction was accepted, Civil Code section 1102.2 specifically exempts transfers by eminent domain (1102.2(b)) and transfer or exchanges to or from a governmental entity (1102.2(j)). Additionally, liability for failure to disclose arises only as to known conditions (section 1102.4). During the City's ownership of the property in question, it was vacant (undeveloped) and the City was not aware that the property was not serviced by water and/or sewer utilities. My review of Agreement No. 99-13 dated January 13, 1999, shows that you agreed that all claims, causes of action and entitlements arising from the transaction were resolved. Further, it is our understanding that prior to your entering into this transaction, you were afforded ample opportunity to inspect the property being exchanged, as well as MRS. MARTHA KNIGHT November 16, 1999 Page 2 the ability to seek legal representation. The funds and property which the City transferred to you in this mutually agreed exchange provided legally adequate consideration for your property. Access to sewer and water utilities at the vacant property was one element which was presumed to have been considered in your evaluation of the exchange. For the City to pay additional public money now that this transaction is complete would subject it to both criticism and potential liability for improper use of public funds. While it is certainly regrettable that your assumption of utility service to the City parcel was not found to be true, the City cannot assume any responsibility for this unknoWn condition. For all of the above reasons, I must unfortunately come to the conclusion that. recommends against your request for additional payment. Very truly yours, -. MICHAEL G. ALLFORD' Deputy City Attorney MGA:lsc:alj:cj cc: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers S:\MGA\Letters\MKnicjl~t 1112.wpd C Street Bakersfield, California 93301 . October 16, 1999 Patricia DeMond Bakersfield City Council 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mrs. DeMond: As you prepare to discuss my request for reimbursement for water and sewer installation expenses on the lot at 1601 13th Street, which the City traded me to acquire my lot on 16th Street, I would like to direct your attention to Section 1102 of the Real Estate Disclosure Law of 1989. Under this law, any party selling real property must disclose if the property lacks water and sewer utilities. I have been advised that this law applies to property exchanges as well as sales. Including the words "as is" in the contract does not absolve the City of its responsibility under the law to disclose the absence of water and sewer on the property. I accepted the lot on 13ta Street "in good faith" expecting it to have utilities and it did not. I believe.it is only fair for the City to reimburse me for the expense of adding these utilities to the property. Thank you for considering my case. Respectfully Yours, Martha Knight Bakersfield Ballet Theatre October 6, 1999 Martha Knight Bakersfield Ballet Theatre 2420 C Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Ms. Knight: Thank you for your letter of October 5. 1999, concerning the unforseen expenses you experienced on the relocation of your storage building. I understand the point you are making in your letter· While I have some level of sympathy with your situation, two major points need to be added to provide the other side of the story. as follows: 1) You and the City willingly entered into a contract. The City felt that you were offered far in excess of the value of the property, but a settlement is a settlement, and a contract should be binding, on both parties. .2) Your investment in the original building was $25,000. You now have an asset worth $75,000 to $105,000, after only owning the $25,000 asset for a few years. You, not the City, hold control, and you can eventually sell that asset. Even with a cost Io you of $12,000, that is a dramatic gain. We appreciate the difficulty that was placed on you by having to move. but we bargained in good faith. A staff report is enclosed. Under the circumstances, I cannot recommend further COmpensation by the City. Yours truly. Mayor BP:rs Enclosure bc: City Councilmembers Gregory Klimko, Finance Director Alan Tandy, City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue · October 5, 1999 Mr. Bob Price, Mayor of the City of Bakersfield, .C6!VED 1501 Truxtun Avenue, 0b~ 1N99 Bakersfield, California, 93301 MAYOR'S OFFICE Dear Mr. Price, I am writing ta you concerning th~City acquiring my property on 16th Street, the site of the proposed new Amtrak Station. Last December I traded to the City of Bakersfield my property and warehouse for a City owned lot at 13th and Eye Street~, and a check for $75,660.00 to build a metal storage building. I vacated my property in February and have since been building the new warehouse. My friends at the Fox Theater have been graciously allowing me to store my scenery temporarily in their annex building. Starting with the $75,660.00, which was barely enough to build a basic 2,000 square.foot building to replace my condemned building of the same size, I chose to make the building 400 square feet bigger, to increase the size of the roll-up doors, and to put down an asphalt drive area rather than a slurry coat. These, and some other small changes, were strictly optional and I paid for them out of my own personal funds. I have no regrets that I had to personally pay extra for these as they were choices which made the 'building more useful. The building is finished and has passed all the inspections. I am ready to move in. It is a fine building and will serve my needs well. I thank you for your part of it. The lot which it stands on is another story. The City traded this lot to me as a replacement for my lot on 16th Street. It is a fine lot of adequate size in a good location. I was very satisfied with the trade. When it came time to hook up to the sewer, however, we discovered that the lot had no sewer access. We learned that, some years ago, my lot and the property to the South were all one parcel which was later diVided into two. The property to the South runs along the alley where the utilities are located. The lot I was given has no utility access. Because there had been a structure on the lot before, we all assumed that utilities would be there. We tried to persuade the other property owner to allow us to run a sewer line under the back of his property, but he refused to give us an easement. We ended up having to dig up the sidewalk down Eye Street, hook to the sewer, and then pour a new sidewalk The cost was $5,600.00. We thought at that time that we could put a one inch water pipe in that same ditch and be done with it, but the California Water Service would not allow it. The code requires that a water line be ten or more feet away from a sewer line. That meant that any water coming to my property would have to come from the alley up the center of Eye Street. The street would have to be dug up and replaced. I was further advised by the Water Company that it had been decided by the Public Utilities Commission that I had to put a six inch water main up Eye Street. All I need is a one inch pipe! The Water Company "estimated" that the cost to me would be $8,887.00 if they did the work. I was free to find an independent pipeline contractor who might charge me less. I have accepted a bid from ConCastCo for $4,981.00 to do the job. The Water Company will make me pay them 12% of that - $597.00 (don't know why). They also require a $1,000.00 hook-up fee. The cost to bring water service to my lot has become $6,578.00. Combined with the sewer cost, you would have to say the lot I received as a trade has cost me $12,178.00. I have a problem with having to pay this amount out of my pocket. The sewer and water were not added expenses I "chose" to have. They are forced upon me because the lot the City gave me was basically an unimproved lot. In order to make it into a buildable lot it has cost me.over $12,000.00. This is an issue of fairness. The lot I gave the City had water and sewer; the lot I received in trade should also have had water and sewer. I was happy in my old facility on 16th Street. I didn't choose to move, I was forced to...I wish I were still there without the negotiating ordeal, the loss of valuable time, and now a huge financial outlay. I feel it is not right for us to be taken out of out existing storage situation and then be forced to pay $12,000.00 to make it happen. Recently, when I was down at the new warehouse painting, (to save money), Don Anderson, the City Relocation Officer, came by to ask me, "Are you happy?" Certainly the building makes me happy. It's nice. But I shared with him the financial problems relating to the sewer and water issues. He expressed sympathy for my situation and offered to go back to his boss and see if there could be any relocation assistance given to me. The next day, he came to tell me that his boss, the Finance Director of the City told him "no". Mr. Klimko stated to him that the settlement agreement was final. It was nice of Mr. Anderson to try. Now, I appeal this issue to you. I feel that the fair thing to do would be for the City to reimburse me the $12,178.00 required to make the Eye Street lot buildable. In this way, the lot on 16th Street, taken by the City, would be replaced with a comparable buildable lot with water and sewer services. If it would be helpful to you, I would be happy to appear before you to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely Yours, - . ~ Martha Knight / I .[1-80~-345-7334 ~ . ' ~ . ~ . ~ ..'_,J 's~,,,m,neop,umc, .I .. . ~/ e-53 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.~ Sc,OOL' O.S~ /-/ e-53 ', I,  I I, I I' '~ , ~ ~ I ~-- ' "-'~ "' ~ ~ I ; ' I - I , ~ ~. , , , , ~, ~,~ -I I' I (~ i._ ~ F- i I '"'"" ,,b,...~.,,,.. ,,. MAY 0 G ~ ASSESSORS MAP NO..6.T..5.3 ............. ~nlI~TV nr MEMORANDUM March 17, 2000 TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE DAVID COUCH - CHAIRPERSON PAT DEMOND JACQUIE SULLIVAN FROM: GINNY GENNARO, DEPUTY CITY ATTOR ~v~v~ SUBJECT: USE OF E-BIKE ON CITY STREETS This memorandum is written to respond to the issue concerning the use of E-bikes or other motorized bicycles on city streets. In general, motor vehicles are not permitted to use bicycle lanes on a street (as opposed to bike trails or paths). There are exceptions however, and they are delineated in Section 21209 of the Vehicle Code which states as follows: (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows: (1) To park where parking is permitted. (2) To enter or leave the roadway. (3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of two hundred feet from the intersection. (b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists. [Emphasis added.] Therefore, a motorized bicycle (which includes the E-bike) may use the bicycle lanes on our streets. GG:alj cc: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney Alan Tandy, City Manager S:\PARKS\MEMOS\E-BikeMmo. Leg-LitCommittee.wpd Please note* *The Legislative and Litigation Committee Agenda Summary Report for the meeting held on March 2, 2000, was not complete at the time of packet distribution.