HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2006 Z4 GL •
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2006
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager
SUBJECT: General Information 7
1. Congratulations to incumbent Councilmembers Carson, Couch, and Scrivner, and
congratulations and welcome to Councilmember-Elect Weir! Beginning with this mailing,
we will be including Councilmember-Elect Weir with all information going to
Councilmembers, including agenda packets.
2. Several of the ballot measures that were passed this week will have impact on local
government. A report is enclosed summarizing each of the ballot measures and the
potential effect on the City. We will go after discretionary and grant monies wherever
possible!
3. Attached is a memo regarding the City's PERS rates for next fiscal year. Two of the
employee groups had decreases and one group an increase. There is an increase in
the unfunded liability, but it is significantly less than what we experienced last year. The
rates are consistent with what we expected, given PERS policy changes which spread
the repayment of the unfunded liability over a multi-year period.
4. Enclosed is a memo regarding the status of our proposal to locate the federal
courthouse in Central Park. I received a phone call from the GSA this week regarding
the October 31St letter we sent to them outlining our proposal. The GSA is reviewing the
information, and we are exchanging dates on an appointment for further discussion.
5. The Graffiti Unit statistics report for October is enclosed from the Police Department.
6. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Benham
• Citizen correspondence regarding improvements to property on 21St Street, near the
Mill Creek project;
Councilmember Couch
• Report on the particulars and restrictions on the use of Neighborhood Electric
Vehicles and Low Speed Vehicles.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
•
1
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
November 9, 2006
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinson, As istant City Manager
SUBJECT: November 2006 Election Ballot Measures
The November 2006 election had several ballot measures that will have impacts on the City
of Bakersfield. The following is a brief overview of the ballot measures which passed and
their potential impacts to the City.
Measure: Proposition 1A - Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative
Constitutional Amendment. (Prop. 42 Reform)
This measure is not a bond, but a constitutional amendment designed to "fix" Proposition 42
- the 2002 ballot measures that funded transportation - by permanently dedicating the sales
tax on gasoline to transportation purposes (with narrow exceptions).
Like the League-sponsored Prop. 1A of 2004, which protected local tax revenues from
further state takeaways, this measure will restrict the Legislature's ability to borrow the Prop.
42 funds to the following:
• The Governor must declare that the state faces a severe fiscal hardship, and the
Legislature must enact a statute authorizing the borrowing by two-thirds vote. At the
same time, the Legislature must pass a bill specifying that they will repay the loan
with interest within three years.
• The state can borrow the funds no more than twice in 10 years, and must repay a
prior loan before borrowing.
• Any Prop. 42 transportation funds that were borrowed by the state but not repaid as
of July 1, 2007, must be repaid within a 10-year period (no later than June 30, 2016)
at payment of no less than one-tenth per year of the total amount owed.
The measure also authorizes the Legislature to provide for the issuance of bonds by state or
local agencies in accordance with the established Prop. 42 allocation methodology.
Impact: This measure does not provide any additional funding but protects Prop 42
transportation funding as indicated above and makes it less likely the state will capture
these revenues in the future.
SAJOHMHTPROJ\Nov 2006 Ballot Measures.doc
Measure: Proposition 1B - Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and
Port Security Bond Act of 2006.
The transportation bond, Proposition 1B, contains more than 19 billion on in funding o
improve highways, ports, commuter rail 9
systems, and other projects. This
man programs P 1 s bond includes
ams which will Y P 9 II hel local
p communities across the state.
• The bond contains $2 billion to improve local streets and roads. $1 billion of these
funds will be allocated
direct) to cities es through aper-capita formula that uara
ntees
critical the smallest city a minimum of$400,000 to address their most cri ' 9
t transportation
needs. P
• The state-local partnership program will help cities leverage our local transportation
funds with$1 billion in state funds.
• The bond can help cities reduce traffic congestion on major local access roads that
connect to state highways through the $4.5 billion corridor mobility improvement
account.
• The $1 billion to improve Highway 99.
• $4 billion is dedicated to improving public transit.
• There is also funding for seismic repairs to local bridges, improving safety at railroad
grade crossings, and other programs.
Impact: The greatest impact to our city is likely to be the per capita allocation for local
streets and roads. Our portion of the $1 billion allocated to cities is estimated by the League
of Cities to be about $9.9 million. The funding for Highway 99 improvements would primarily
be targeted for upgrading the highway to CALTRANS standards however four projects in
Kern County have been submitted for CTC consideration for funding. Other funding would
be allocated by the State using formulas and special grants that we can compete for with
other areas throughout the state.
Measure: Proposition 1C - Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of
2006.
Prop. 1C contains $2.85 billion in funding to address a range of housing needs, including
$1.35 billion that helps cities address housing-related infrastructure issues:
• Infill Housing Construction - $850 million in grants for development of public
infrastructure projects that facilitate or support infill housing construction. Projects
could include water, sewer and transportation improvements, traffic mitigation,
brownfield dean up and up to an additional $200 million for parks
• Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks - $200 million
• Transit-Oriented Development - $300 million to develop and construct housing and
infrastructure projects within close proximity to transit stations
Cities also benefit from other funding contained in Prop. 1C:
• Affordable Home Ownership Programs - $725 million to help over 23,600 families
become or remain homeowners
SIJOHN ATPRMNov 2006 Ballot Measures.doc
• Affordable Housing Construction Programs - $345 million for affordable rental
housing for more than 4,000 families
• Homeless Permanent Housing Construction - $245 million to build permanent
housing for the homeless, those transitioning out of homelessness and foster care
youth
• Homeless Shelter Housing Construction - $50 million to construct and expand
homeless shelters of last resort and transitional housing for the homeless
Impact: This measure provides for a variety of housing related programs. Most if not all of
the funding will be allocated through competitive grants administered by the State. The
City's Mill Creek project and other affordable housing efforts may be able to compete for
funding provided by several of these programs.
Measure: Proposition 1E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act
of 2006.
This bond would provide a total of $4.09 billion to prevent flooding by repairing levees and
other flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and elsewhere.
The funds will be allocated as follows:
• $3 billion to evaluate, repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct or replace levees, weirs,
bypasses and facilities contained in the state flood control plan; improve or add
facilities to increase levels of flood prevention; and reduce the risk of levee failure.
• $500 million to cover the past and future obligations under the flood control
subvention payments to local governments for qualifying projects.
• $290 million for the protection, creation, and enhancement of flood protection
corridors and bypasses, including fund for floodplain mapping.
• $300 million for grants (with local match) to manage storm water runoff to reduce
flood damage and provide benefits such as ground water recharge, water quality
improvement and ecosystem.
Impact: This measure is primarily focused on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
area. However, there is a potential to compete for grant funds to manage storm water runoff
levee repairs and ground water recharge projects.
Measure: Proposition 84 - Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control.
Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative
Statute.
Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion initiative provides funding for all of the major natural resource
protection and water programs at the state level. The total amount of funding for water
programs is $2.714 billion and includes:
• $240 million for Safe Drinking Water
• $1.26 billion for Integrated Water Management and Water Quality
• $800 million for Flood Control
• $65 million for Statewide Water Planninq and Design
S:IJOHMATPROANov 2006 Ballot Measures.doc
• $928 million for Protection of Rivers Lakes and Streams
• $72 million for River Parkways and $18 million for Urban Streams
• $45 million for Restoration/Conservation projects (California Conservation Corps)
• $580 million for Sustainable Communities
• $90 million for Urban Greening and Joint Use Projects
• $400 million for Local and Regional Parks
• $90 million for Planning and Incentives for Resource Conservation
Impact: This measure provides a variety of competitive grants, there is a potential to
compete for grant funds for a variety of projects along the Kern River Parkway, levee and
storm water management projects. The Mill Creek project may also be a possible activity
under some of these programs. We will have a better idea when the Department of Water
Resources releases the specific grant requirements.
SAJOHNATPROANov 2006 Ballot Measures.doc
•
ZZ-Z. a
S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
November 9, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinson&;Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 2007-08 PERS Rates
The City recently received its 2007-08 Annual Valuation Report and rates from
PERS. The report shows a reduction in the City's Miscellaneous and Fire PERS
rates and an increase for Police PERS rates for 2007-08. The rates are as follows:
Rates 2006-07 2007-08
Miscellaneous 14.247% 13.823%
Fire 21.870% 21.237%
Police 28.288% 28.707%
However, the report also shows an increase in the City's unfunded liability as of
June 30, 2005. The report shows an increase from $91,739,823 to $93,508,457.
This reflects the new Policy adopted by the PERS Board. The increase of about
$1.7 million is significantly less than the increase in the unfunded liability of about
$24 .4 million we experienced last year.
The new Employer Rate Stabilization Policy and method selected by PERS does the
following:
• In the calculation of the actuarial value of assets, spreads market value asset
gains and losses over 15 years as opposed to the previous 3 year method.
• Changes the corridor limits for the actuarial value of assets from 90%-110%
of market value to 80%-120% of market value.
• Calculates the annual contribution amount with regards to gains and losses
as a rolling 30 year amortization of all remaining unamortized gains or losses
as opposed to the current 10% of such gains and losses.
• Adopts a new policy imposing a minimum employer contribution rate equal to
the employer normal cost minus a 30 year amortization of surplus, if any.
S:WOWBudget12007-08 PERS Rates memo.doc
The effect of this new policy is more stable rates for the City. However, the funding
of the City's unfunded liability will be spread over a much longer period of time.
It is estimated that with the rate changes projected for 2007-08 the City's
contributions to PIERS (which total about $16 million) will be about $170,000 more
(for _
( o all funds) than for 2006 07 based on current payroll. The actual amounts will be
determined when the 2007-08 budget is prepared.
S:WOHMBudgett2007-08 PERS Rates memo.doc
•
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
November 8, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager �Y"t.
SUBJECT: Status of the Proposal to Locate the Federal Courthouse in Central Park
At the regular Council meeting of October 25, 2006, staff made a presentation to the City
Council on the status of the Federal Courthouse project. A letter submitted by the City and
Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency to the General Services Administration (GSA) dated
September 13, 2006 had been rejected by the GSA in a letter dated October 17, 2006. GSA
insists on a 2.5 acre donation of land and imposed a November 17, 2006 deadline for the City to
respond.
A general discussion took place about the possibility of donating a portion of Central Park, with
certain conditions.
While there was no Council vote, the general discussion leaned towards exploring the idea with
the GSA to determine their interest and their willingness to cooperate on issues such as
counting the Kern Island Canal as part of their required buffer, as well as their willingness to
design the project in a compatible way with the Mill Creek plan. Staff drafted a letter to GSA
articulating the potential offer of donation, if GSA was willing to cooperate. The letter was
coordinated with Councilmember Benham and was sent to GSA on October 31, 2006.
1 received a phone call from James Kane if the GSA on Monday, November 6, 2006, when he
indicated that the October 31" letter is enough to comply with their deadline of November 17`n
They are reviewing the issues we raised and will get back to us to schedule a future
appointment.
F BAKE pp
O ",MRA.
BAKERSFIELD POLICE
'� MEMORANDUM
uvA ,to® 0
C, r OR��P
,,,rr,
Date: November 3, 2006 REG
E
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager r NOV — 3 2001
From: W. R. Rector, Chief of Policeti CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Subject: GHOST "Graffiti" Statistics for October
I have attached the Graffiti Unit statistics for the month of October.
Please call if you have any questions.
M M O LO co Iq 0 M Oo CT (.0 r O T N r CY)F r T
V
d
7
O
Z
M p p r r LO
r M
M N T r T r
Q
O
Lf) T O M r
CN O M OD r
N
N
O
O N O O
O M N
co M N N p N
as
N
U 7' T N 00 00 N r N O O r
M
O '
0
co r M r M M M N p
LO
C%j LO 14T N
r !TO N N N aD O O N r T
C
O
Q co M N LO O U O
D7 M Z
a
a
V Q1 O Q N r Ln It M O N N
to Z
Q N O CO Ln LO LO r
co CO Z
N
LL
C Z T d' N r N N co
C r T r M
cis H a N O 0 c d
c }°c 6 .?—' C r c c
d d C 0 to LO 0
` = d d � � Y
Q Hm E wd «_ E �a � d
_ y , z c F t E N d 4) w 00 10- 04 a Q � Q a � OU vi C7 Uwa cn0
RECEIVED
• NOV - 7 2006
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
B A K E R S F I E L D
Economic and Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
November 3, 2006
TO: Alan Tandy, City Managet� �M J°�U'"'�
FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Mill Creek Citizen Inquiry
Council Referral No. Ref001645
Councilmember Benham requested staff respond to correspondence from Diane Delcid
regarding improvements to property at 700 and 708 21St Street near the Mill Creek Project.
The attached letter has been forwarded to Ms. Delcid reqarding her request for information
regarding potential improvements near the Mill Creek Project and her property located at
700 and 708 21St Street.
SADEBBIE'S\Council Referrals\Mill Creek inquiry.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
November 3, 2006
Ms. Diane Delcid
21425 Highline Road
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Dear Ms. Delcid,
As one of the fastest growing cities in California, Bakersfield is experiencing
unprecedented growth. As a result, the Street Maintenance Division of the Public
Works Department is challenged with the primary responsibility of providing
maintenance and repair of the City street system located within the public right-of-way;
ensure safe and dependable performance of storm drains, sewer lines and lift pump
stations; and continue the City's commitment to an effective preventative street
maintenance program. With these priorities, and the back log of existing City streets
requiring maintenance, the Street Maintenance Division attempts to review alleys for
maintenance during the months of February and March each year. The alley you
mentioned in your correspondence will be reviewed in 2007 and placed on the list for
maintenance if it is warranted.
The City continues to work on enhancements to the Mill Creek project which will create
a "walk about community setting" in an urban environment with landscaping along the
existing canal from Golden State Highway to California Avenue. The intent is to create
a "friendly downtown neighborhood" sense of place, provide affordable housing
alternatives and give a positive identity to the area.
If would like additional information regarding the Mill Creek project, please contact
Maribel Reyna or Roy Hall in my office at 326-3765.
Sincerely,
06VI C-�1 �
Donna L. Kunz
Economic Development Director
City of Bakersfield • Economic and Community Development Department
900 Truxtun Avenue • Suite 201 • Bakersfield, California • 93301
(661) 326-3765 • Fax(661) 328-1548 • TDD (661) 324-3631
RECEIVED
NOV - 8 2006
B A K E R S F 1 E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: October 26, 2006
SUBJECT: NEV AND LSV TRANSPORTATION
Referral No. 1651
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE A RESPONSE AS TO
THE USE OF NEV'S AND LSV'S IN BAKERSFIELD.
1) USE ONLY ON STREETS OTHER THAN ARTERIALS?
2) OTHER IDEAS?
3 WHAT DOES AB 2353 ALLOW AND REQUIRE?
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) are made by the DaimlerChrysler Company
Global Electric Motorcar Division and other manufactures. The vehicles are also
generically called Low Speed Vehicles (LSV) and are not golf carts.
The vehicles are designed for a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. California
Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 385.5 defines a low speed vehicle as being a vehicle with
an unladen weight of less than 1,800 pounds, with 4 wheels, capable of propelling itself
at a minimum speed of 20 miles per hour and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour.
Per the CVC Section 21251.1, such low speed vehicles, and the driver, are subject to all
the applicable provision of the Vehicle Code in California. Per CVC Section 21260, the
vehicle is prohibited from use on any road with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, or
greater. The intent is for the vehicle to be used on neighborhood streets in residential
areas where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The CVC also allows local jurisdictions
to restrict or prohibit the use of low speed vehicles such as these on streets that the
CVC would otherwise allow the use. Section 21209 of the CVC prohibits any motorized
vehicle, including low speed electrical vehicles, from using a bicycle lane.
NEV/LSV vehicles or other similar low speed neighborhood electrical vehicles are
prohibited by the CVC from use on the City's arterial streets and bike lanes and would
be restricted to use only on residential neighborhood streets.
The City operates a few of these vehicles for use by maintenance crews, such as in the
Parks Department. The vehicles are priced from about $7000 to $9000.
GAGROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\10-31 -Couch\Ref#1651 NEV-LSV Transportation.doc
AB 2352 was signed into law on September 10, 2004. A bill by Assemblyman Tim
Leslie to allow the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin to adopt NEV plans in order to
encourage the use of these types of vehicles. The measure allows NEVs to travel in
golf cart lanes at speed up to 20 mph or on roads with speed limits in excess of 35 mph
where there is a designated Class II NEV lane. The Legislation only applies to Rocklin
and Lincoln and is a five-year pilot program for NEV travel.
Attached is a copy of AB 2353.
G:\GROUPDA-RReferrals\2006\10-31 -Couch\Ref#1651 NEV-LSV Transportation.doc
Transportation
City of Lincoln Enacts Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Transportation Plan
Editor's note:In the last issue of
Connections, we announced the Pilot program for NEV
release o a new travel. or 2353 also
f publication, "A allows for the issuance
Healthy Community Perspective of a restricted driver's
on Aging Well, "(available at license which
wwwcivicpartnerships.org). In Permits a
this issue, we continue a series motorist to be licensed
to drive only a NEV.
on innovative and promising
Practices that expand upon
six domains featured in the "The intent was to
publication: YariedHousin enable any resident
8 to travel from their 0
Options, Transportation, home to Downtown Example of an electric vehicle.
Community Involvement, Lincoln,"says Tom Cosgrove,
Employment, Lifelong Learning, former Mayor and current City C 2006 Global Elahi°Mao ema,
and Supportive Services. Lrc,a naum«cb yaie p. Y
Councilmember. "The NEV project
Adults age 55 and older will result in air quality improvements, signing and striping NEV and golf
energy savings,reduced travel cart lanes. Funding, estimated at
comprise over 21%of the City costs,and increased mobility and
of Lincoln's population, many of independence for Lincoln's a $1 million,will be provided by
in
Whom live in Sun City Lincoln aging Congestion Mitigation and Air
Hills. With such significant and impaired drivers."
Quality(CMAQ)Improvement
representation, these older adults Efforts began to extend NEV Program funds.
have successfully influenced the roadway infrastructure throughout
City's transportation planning the City. Designated lanes and For more information,contact John
efforts, including supporting dedicated parking spaces were Pedn,P.E.,Director of Public Works/
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle established at two nearby grocery City Engineer,at(916)645-8576 or
(NEV) legislation that is the first stores. The City's Public Works JPedn @cr'lmcoln.ca.us.
Of its kind in the nation. Department has also been requiring q 8 To view the draft plans,resolution
In
NEV Parking and electric charging and other documents,go to the City
Hillis s formed stations at all shopping centers,and
med a Low Speed residents of Lincoln most recently at Home Depot and of Lincoln's website at
Vehicle(LSV)group to"educate, Lowes. www.ci.lincoln.ca.us and select
inform and socialize in our "Agendas and Minutes"on the left
common interest of operating and On August 8, 2006, the City side; "Agendas,"and type in 8/8/06
maintaining a low speed vehicle s Find agendas by date
Council approved the adoption Documents are on pages 521-626.
..... within the Sun City Lincoln of two plans—one for NEVs
Hills community and neighboring (citywide)and one for golf carts
areas." With over 100 LSV (in a master planned community) Do you have a
owners as members, the group —greatly expanding residents'access e. service or Pr grarn,that
became a powerful advocate for g'' Po cy Program,that
to stores,medical facilities and public is improving mobility? If so,please
NEV-friendly policies and civic buildings without an automobile. send information on it to us at
improvements. Both tans identify appropriate mutes, chcc civi
P fy @ cpartnerships.org or to
Provide design drawings based on lane our mailing address at;
The group worked with standards, identify
city officials and their local Parking areas and
Provisions for charging stations, and Center for Civic Partnerships
Assemblyman to enact AB 2353, interface with public transportation 1851 Heritage Lane, Suite 250
Chaptered September 9, 2004, nodes where feasible.
authorizing Lincoln and the City Sacramento,CA 95815
of Rocklin to establish a five-year The next phase of the project includes E
Fall 2006 1 Connections ; Page 33e
Assembly Bill No.2353
CHAPTER 422
411 art to add and repeal Chapter 7(commencing with Section 1963)
.d [);vision 2.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend
Section% 385.5. 21250,21251, and 21260 of the Vehicle Code,relating
Io neighborhood electric vehicles.
[Approved by Govemor September%2(X)4.Filed
with Secretary of State September 9,2004.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
%H 2353, Leslie. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles.
Existing law defines "low-speed vehicle"for purposes of the Vehicle
t ode:u a motor vehicle,other than a motortruck, with 4 wheels on the
Lround that is capable of a minimum speed of 20 miles per hour and a
maximum speed of 25 miles per hour on a paved level surface and that
ha, an unladen weight of 1800 pounds or less. Existing law imposes
ertam restrictions on the use of low-speed vehicles on public streets and
highways. and generally requires an operator of a low-speed vehicle to
have it driver's license. A violation of the Vehicle Code is an infraction,
unle%s otherwise specified.
Existing law authorizes a city or county to establish a golf can
transportation plan subject to the review of the appropriate
transportation planning agency and traffic law enforcement agency.
Existing law provides that operating a golf cart other than on an
authorized roadway is an infraction punishable by a tine not exceeding
SItXI
rhis hill would authorize, until January 1, 2009, the City of Lincoln
rod the City of Rocklin in the County of Placer to establish a
neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)transportation plan subject to the
.:one review process established for a golf can transportation plan.The
hill would define "neighborhood electric
vehicle" for these purposes ses to h:v e the same meaning
as the above definition of"low-speed vehicle."
fhe hill.among other things,would provide for the plan to authorize the
(1,e of state highways by NEVs under certain conditions.The bill would
require it report to the Legislature by January 1, 2008. The bill would
enact other related provisions. Because the bill would revise the
definition of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
.I-Iencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
92
F
t It 422 —Z_
>ttuutory provisions establish procedures for making that
rci mhursement.
This hill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
Lot a specified reason.
h, people of the.State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 7(commencing with Section 1963)is added
„ Division 2.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
( II W1 ER 7. NFIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
1463 It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter, to
.uuhorize the City of Lincoln and the City of Rocklin in the County of
Placer to establish a neighborhood electric vehicle(NEV)transportation
plan for a plan area in the city. It is the further intent of the Legislature
that this transportation plan be designed and developed to best serve the
functional travel needs of the plan area,to have the physical safety of the
NF.V driver's person and property as a major planning component,and
to have the capacity to accommodate NEV drivers of every legal age and
I ange of skills. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter,
t,, encourage discussions between the Legislature, the Department of
Motor Vehicles, and the California Highway Patrol regarding the
.tdophon of a new classification for licensing motorists who use
neighborhood electric vehicles.
1961.1 The following definitions apply to this chapter:
a I "Plan area" means that territory under the jurisdiction of the City
a I ntcoln or the City of Rocklin designated by the city for a NEV
Iransponation plan,including the privately owned land of any owner that
unsents to its inclusion in the plan.
ht "Neighborhood electric vehicle" or `NEV" means a low-speed
,chicle as defined by Section 385.5 of the Vehicle Code.
icl "NEV lanes" means all publicly owned facilities that provide for
NIA travel includin g roadways road y designated by signs or permanent
markings which are shared with d g P her
pedestrians. bicyclists, and other
motorists in the plan area.
d I "-Speed-modified golf cart" means a golf cart that is modified to
meet the safety requirements of Section 571.500 of Title 49 of the Code
d Federal Regulations.
1961.2. (a) The City of Lincoln and the City of Rocklin may, by
�rdmance or resolution, adopt a NEV transportation plan.
m_
I
-3— Ch. 422
,h) The transportation plan shall have received a prior review and the
ronunents of the appropriate transportation planning agency designated
under subdivision(a)or(b)of Section 29532 of the Government Code
and any agency having traffic law enforcement responsibilities in the
Pity of Lincoln or the City of Rocklin.
c) The transportation plan may include the use of a state highway,or
,mp crossing of the highway, subject to the approval of the Department
d"transportation.
1963.3. The transportation plan shall include, but is not limited to.
ill tit the following elements:
,:u Route selection, which includes a finding that the route will
.tccummudate NEVs without an adverse impact upon traffic safety,and
wdl consider, among other things, the travel needs of commuters and
•Oer users.
ht Transportation interfacing, which shall include,but not be limited
lo. coordination with other modes of transportation so that a NEV driver
M ity employ multiple modes of transportation in reaching a destination
in the plan area.
t Citizens and community involvement in planning.
dt Flexibility and coordination with long-range transportation
planning.
e) Provision for NEV related facilities including,but not limited to,
+pecial access points and NEV crossings.
ti Provisions for parking facilities, including, but not limited to,
,ontmunity commercial centers, golf courses, public areas, parks, and
�rthei destination locations.
gi Provisions for special paving,road markings,signage and striping
for NFV travel lanes, road crossings, parking,and circulation.
ht Provisions for NEV electrical charging stations.
it NEV lanes for the purposes of the transportation plan shall be
.lassified as follows:
I i Class I NEV routes provide for a completely separate
right-of-way for the use of NEW
Class 11 NEV routes provide for a separate striped lane adjacent
tt+ roadways with speed limits of 55 miles per hour or less.
it ('lass Ill NEV routes provide for shared use by NEVs with
.omentional vehicle traffic on streets with a posted speed limit of 35
Mules per hour or less.
1963.4. If the City of Lincoln or the City of Rocklin adopts a NEV
transportation plan, it shall do both of the following:
,j) Establish minimum general design criteria for the development.
planning. and construction of separated NEV lanes, including, but not
92
I
( 'h 421 —4—
horned to,the design speed of the facility,the space requirements of the
NEV. and roadway design criteria.
hi In cooperation with the department, establish uniform
,perifications and symbols for signs, markers,and traffic control devices
it- control NEV traffic: to wam of dangerous conditions, obstacles, or
h,vards: to designate the right-of-way as between NEVs.other vehicles,
and bicycles: to state the nature and destination of the NEV lane;and to
t+urn pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of the presence of NEV
rd ttic
1961 5. If the City of Lincoln or the City of Rocklin adopts a NEV
otntsp(mation plan,each city may do the following:
d) Acquire,by dedication,purchase,or condemnation, real property,
ut.luding easements or rights-of-way,to establish NEV lanes.
h I Establish a NEV transportation plan as authorized by this chapter.
1 963.6. If the City of Lincoln or the City of Rocklin adopts a NEV
transportation plan.each city shall also adopt all of the following as part
t the plan:
,dl NEVs eligible to use NEV lanes shall meet the safety
requirements for low-speed vehicles as set forth in Section 571.500 of
Tit le 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
h( A permit process for golf carts that requires speed-modified golf
r;u'ts to meet minimum design criteria adopted pursuant to subdivision
d: The permit process may include, but not be limited to, permit
posting. permit renewal, operator education, and other related matters.
,,i Minimum safety criteria for NEV operators, including, but not
hnuted to, requirements relating to NEV maintenance and NEV safety.
()perators shall be required to possess a valid California driver's license
.md to comply with the financial responsibility requirements established
out to Chapter I (commencing with Section 16000)of Division 7.
d i ( I) Restrictions limiting the operation of NEVs to separated
N1 lanes on those roadways identified in the transportation plan,and
Blowing only those NEVs and speed-modified golf carts that meet the
,ateiv equipment requirements specified in the plan to be operated on
,eparated NEV lanes of approved roadways in the plan area.
2) Any person operating a NEV in the plan area in violation of this
,uhdivision is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding
One hundred dollars ($100).
1903 7, (a) If the City of Lincoln or the City of Rocklin adopts a
Nh.V transportation plan pursuant to this chapter, the cities shall jointly
,uhmit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2008, in
onsultation with the Department of Transportation,the Department of
the California Highway Patrol, and local law enforcement agencies.
hi 'The report shall include all of the following:
92
I
-5— Ch. 422
1 1 A description of all NEV transportation plans and their elements
than have been authorized up to that time.
't An evaluation of the effectiveness of the NEV transportation
plans including their impact on traffic Flows and safety.
A recommendation as to whether this chapter should be
terminated, continued in existence applicable solely to the City of
I incoln and the City of Rocklin in the County of Placer, or expanded
smtewide.
1963.8. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January I,
'f R)9. and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,that
enacted before January I, 2009, deletes or extends that date.
SEC 2. Section 385.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
185.5 A "low-speed vehicle" is a motor vehicle,other than a motor
truck. having four wheels on the ground and an unladen weight of 1,800
pounds or less, that is capable of propelling itself at a minimum speed
d '0 miles per hour and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour, on a
paved level surface. For the purposes of this section, a "low-speed
,chicle" is not a golf cart, except when operated pursuant to Section
'I1 P; or 21115.1 A "low-speed vehicle" is also known as a
neighborhood electric vehicle."
SFC 3. Section 21250 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
'1250 For the purposes of this article,a low-speed vehicle means
It tchicle as defined in Section 385.5. A "low-speed vehicle" is also
known as a neighborhood electric vehicle."
SEC. 4. Section 21251 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
-'125 1. Except as provided in Sections 1963 to 1963.8,inclusive,of
the Streets and Highways Code,and Sections 4023,21115,and 21115.1,
Inw-speed vehicle is subject to all the provisions applicable to a motor
,ehtcle, and the driver of a low-speed vehicle is subject to all the
pmcrsions applicable to the driver of a motor vehicle or other vehicle,
when applicable, by this code or any other code, with the exception of
!hose provisions which, by their very nature,can have no application.
SEC 5. Section 21260 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
11260 (a) Except as provided in paragraph(I)of subdivision(b),
it m an area where a neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan
has been adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
19();)of Division 2.5 of the Streets and Highways Code,the operator of
11,1A speed vehicle shall not operate the vehicle on any roadway with speed limit in excess of 35 miles per hour.
h t t I I The operator of a low-speed vehicle may cross a roadway with
I speed limit in excess of 35 miles per hour if the crossing begins and
reds on a roadway with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less and
wcnrs at an intersection of approximately 90 degrees.
92
I
t It 421
't Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the operator of a low-speed
vehicle shall not traverse an uncontrolled intersection with any state
highway unless that intersection has been approved and authorized by
the agency having primary traffic enforcement responsibilities for that
�1411,ing by a low-speed vehicle.
SH,. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
section 6 of Article X111 B of the California Constitution because the
ml% costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will
he Incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,eliminates
.1 c nme or infraction. or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
anhin the meaning of Section 17556
of the Government Code, or
rh,mges the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
\n It.ie X111 B of the California Constitution.
O
92
F