The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/22/95� B A K E R S F I E L D MENIORANDUM November 22, 1995 T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. There is a Development Services status report enclosed. This includes dates for the EIR relative to the Marketplace. 2. Information is enclosed on a possible sewer assessment district in Ward 7. 3. The County continues to stall on universal garbage collection. A letter in response to a letter we sent them is enclosed along with our new response to them. 4. The status of the park fee proposal for northwest Bakersfield is enclosed. That appears to be another County stalling action. 5. A new capital improvement plan progress report is enclosed for your information. 6. There is a notice enclosed showing the State Route 99 ramp will be closed for construction. 7. We have some good news. The actual property tax receipts exceeded budget estimates by about $300,000! 8. We are making substantial progress now in the automation negotiations with the private haulers. There is more to do, but progress is now being made. 9. We have had our bond attorney checking into a plan that would use a financing gimmick similar to what Industrial Revenue Bonds used to be to help facilitate the recreational ice and skating rink proposed for White Lane. Our bond attorney has said it can be done under the tax code with no risk to us. Documents may come forward within a month or so. Call if you have questions, please. 10. Happy Thanksgiving! AT:rg Enclosures cc: Department Heads Trudy Slater Carol Williams DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STATUS REPORT November 13, 1995 This is a quick follow-up on my last notes because several items have recently changed or arisen. l. The Return to Custody facility proposed for the south end of Oswell Street will be heard by the BZA on November 28, 1995. The recycling plant has been removed from consideration. Its design is not far enough along to evaluate. 2. Castle and Cooke has withdrawn its general plan and zoning amendments, except for the Senior Community, south of Brimhall between Calloway and Allen Roads. Castle and Cooke prefers not to face an Environmental Impact Report requirement. 3. The general plan amendment and EIR for the property involved in the land swap and sphere of influence amendment is on schedule and should be heard by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1995. 4. The Marketplace EIR is moving along on schedule. There were no surprises at the scoping meetings which went very smoothly last week. There were a lot of requests that a socio-economic impact analysis be added to the environmental impact report. Socio-economic issues do not appear to be relevant to this EIR. We have requested additional funds from Castle and Cooke to cover the expense of a traffic study and parking distribution analysis. 5. What to do with the $500,000 DESTEC donation was the subject of another meeting in the Northeast on November 2, 1995. Jennie Eng's note to me is attached. There were some ideas exchanged and it was agreed more meetings would need to be conducted. 6. Randy Davis (Castle and Cooke) and I talked about my letter rejecting his request to be exempt from park development fees in the Oaks area south of Ming Avenue between Gosford and Old River Road. He is not pleased and will schedule a meeting with the City Manager. 7. As a follow-up on the Mesa Marin Baseball Stadium meetings, I would comment that once we drop below the veneer of salesmanship there will be the same rigorous process of zoning review and permits, environmental reviews and financing that all the other sites are subject to. -2- 8. A mental health clinic has been proposed for the old Haggard mansion near the entrance of Kern Canyon. A CUP will be required. There are no neighbors within a mile. 9. The proposal to put a K-Mart Super Store at Mt. Vernon and Highway 178 has resurfaced. I have advised them again of the process (General Plan, Zoning, EIR). I have also suggested that they show how they could fit in with the other commercial development in the area. 10. The idea of painting centennial murals has also come back in more substantial form. A request to amend our sign ordinance to permit them will be sent to the City Council soon. As an example they will propose one former water company building. JH:pjt p:dssr11.17 e MEMORANDUM November 17, 1995 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT SUBJECT: STATUS OF MARKETPLACE EIR Below is a quick status report and schedule of milestones to complete task. DATE • Draft NOP submitted - done October 17, 1995 • Circulate NOP - done October 20, 1995 • Public scoping meeting - done November 3, 1995 • Agency scoping meeting - done November 10, 1995 • Review mitigation by consultant - done November 17, ] 995 • Admin. Draft EIR submitted - awaiting now November 17, 1995 • Circulate DEIR - December 1, 1995 * NOTE - 30-day review required by law (minimum) • PC meetings - ° December 21: presentation by consultant public input ° January 4: public input PC input consultant response PC votes on resolution * NOTE - law requires written response to all comments verbal/written. • FEIR complete - 1/15/96 * NOTE - Need to have FEIR for review by public 10 days in advance of Ciry Council hearing. • City Cauncil hears project late January/early February. November 3, 1995 TO: Jack Hardisty FROM: Jennie Eng � RE: Universily Park - DESTEC Donation Meeting 11/2/95 Council & Staff Attendance: Councilmember Pat Smith Frank Fabbri Marion Shaw Residents: Approximately 15 residents. Meeting, Pumose/Introduction: Lee Andersen Allen Abe Jennie Eng City sent 40 letters inviting only those property owners immediately adjacent to University Park. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 1} what type of improvements, if any, these residents would like to see in University Park; and 2) ideas of what other recreation and park improvements in NE Bakersfield* they would like to see used for with the DESTEC donation. (* NE Bakersfield refers to the boundaries which DESTEC and the City have agreed to spend the donation.) The City has the donation in trust and is now to decide where and how much to spend the money within the agreement's time period and boundary. Background: Fabbri explained unfavorable results of the maintenance district survey, where the majority of property owners did not want to pay approximately $30 per year to maintain Panorama Hills Park. Since no maintenance district then Panorama Hills Park not likely to be built yet. Staff is now looking at spending the donation in the two existing City parks (Sieman an University), and City is speaking with City School District about shared facilities on school grounds. StafPs Ideas: • For [�niversity Park: • Other ideas: ResidenYs Suggestions: • For University Park: Restrooms, rollerblade hockey rink, lighted basketball court, tables & benches, upgrade tot lot, upgrade to ADA standards. Shared facility with City Schouls, like lighted play fields, which City would install and School mainlains & keeps open to public. . Nearly all residents don't want restrooms. • Nearly all don't want improvements that would draw non-neighbors to park. • Support limited improvements, like soccer and volleyball posts. • Suppart improvement of existing park, like increased security lighting; Lix the drainage basin; upgrade landscaping with large (24" + box) size trees; more trash cans. • Other Resident Ideas: • Swimming Pool (Staff comment: High cost ($600,000 to $1 million) to build; and high maintenance cost. • Contribute to Highland High School Stadium campaign. • Improve City School's playfield for after school & weekend play. Conclusion: Staff will meet with school districts to explore share facilties. Staff to organize suggestions into a proposal for all NC Bakersfield community residents to review and comment. before take final proposal to City CounciL "I�he residents at this meeting want another meeting before the publicired community meeting to review staff proposal for University Park. Councilmember Smith said staff will meet with them as they wish. e + � • , • a , + �� '�td 11.yG 1L �� .�' ��'d''' � : � • McC�tc�e� �J�c�.ate � :�i1 iiltorm�ltic�nal i�ulletin �,il re��ent ics;�ii �i��el�>nments ��T � � 199� �an Franctsco ...._r Emiiarcaucru i.rnmr .r. i�r�na.,eu. i.:uilom�a v��l I I . �-ironune i i I � � i�� <-?uuu , :ex S�fVN1; \IACY:�G �FU ..icsumie iylil jOi->>Nb t.os nnqeles ,�� nu[n �:ran� :\crnue CITY GF BArtEFiSFIE�U p�_ANrvING DEPARTMENT COURT LIMITS CEQA REQUIREMENTS REIATID TO PUBLIC SERVICES October 2, 1995 �ill[C i-/W '�e Califomia Environmental Qualiry Act is often used to identify the impacts ., �n¢eirs. Calili�rnia nN/:1�1560 Trlrphone�2li)ckt0-�r�W of.development projects on public sezvices, and to require mitigation for those i��cvmile i213) HtWr��N impacts. A recent appellate court decision, Goleta Union School District v. 7be- Regents of the University of California, may change that practice. 5� J� `•!�rka Yo.t Tou�rc nuae ISfN) .� �:��u[h Marka Street �.an lose.lalilom�a Iilli �clrphone i��vNl )�?-WtQO Facsimde 190H) 417-4750 walnut cmJc 1i31 North l:rlifomia ktoulcvard Walnut Creek. CalJomia Y�1i96 �rirnhonr i;lnl ��tzu0�N1 �':ll'SIRII�C 1 � �()) �)-�-i j�%I ) ytenb Park "40 Sand Hill Road Irnlo Park. l::dilircma v.��?�'n_'0 .ucnnunr�rl��?ii n�� f��.�cvmile ��15� ?ii-��k{6 The Analysis of Impacts on Public Services In UCSB's EIR Ttie�EIR for the University of Califomia at Santa Barbara long range plan found that expanding the University would increase enrollment in the local school district by almost 200 students. The EIR suggested several options for addressing the increased enrollment, including larger class. sizes, year-round schools, and new classrooms, but concluded that mitigation was the school district's responsibiliry. The school district sued, claiming the EIR should have found that classroom overcrowding is a signif'icant environmental impact and that the Universiry was obligated to fund construction of new classrooms. The court disagreed, holding that inereased student enrollment is a socio-economic impact, not an environmental impact, and that mitigation could not be required under CEQA. The Relevance of Social And Economic Effects Under CEQA. CEQA only `��aS`""�`°°. °.`�. applies to activities that will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's ��,� F.renm¢ atar Hwldinµ social and economic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis, however, if they .,,,�r �,�� ,,,� Nr��,��,� .a�r��r. .� will lead to physical impacts. Social and economic effects can also be relevant u��.sh;��o�. ��:. 2�,. when used to gauge the signif'icance of an environmental change. Tclrohone I LOL b?ri-a�NMI �:1C51fIL�C 120Z) VzH-9y� � r:�� intrm�uonal ��radr Huildinq Trnth Floor ;t4 ^relunK Huad. �ccuun I Taipe�. Taiwan �:,��nu� �� .�,��:� �i�� ;rnnone � wur! i-?.i-;� u �u , .0 ,imiie � Nw,- � i 'i%-Hl?0 UTilrared u�lire, :nL'KOK 'CIIIRQ �t1aRQR:lI In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant environmental impact, the court noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowding, that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding, standing alone, is not a change in physical conditions, and cannot be treated as an impact on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmental impact under CEQA only where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom construction, will necessarily result. One of the CEQA Guidelines (Guideline § 15064(�) describes overcrowding of public facilities as a signif'icant environmental irnpact. But the court interpreted this Guideline as applying only where severe overcrowding would necessarily lead to the construction of new facilities. Limits On The Duty To Mitigate Under CEQA. Because increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the University had no dury under CEQA to commit funds to mitigate student overcrowding. The EIR described a range of options for responding to increased student enrollment. It also reviewed environmental impacts that might result from implementation of those options. Recognizing that the school district would decide which solution to-implement, the court concluded that CEQA did not require that the University fund the solution the district ultimately selected. Effect Of The Decision. The decision in Goleta has important implications for the treatment of a projecYs demand on public services and facilities and the funding of mitigation measures. ■�_� Ari increased demand for use of public services or facilities from a new project, standing alone, should not be ueated as an environmental impact. An impact analysis under CEQA should focus on any changes to the environment that might result. ■ CEQA may not require a lengthy discussion of impacts on public services in an EIR The CEQA Guidelines provide that an EIR need only contain a brief statement why an environmental impact is not signif'icant. If increased demand for use of public services or facilities creates only social or economic effects, then a brief explanation should suffice. ■ CEQA does not ordinarily require mitigation of socio-economic impacts. To require mitigation for a development project's impacts on public services or facilities, an agency approving a project may need to base the requirement on legal authority other than CEQA. ■ Selecting the method for responding to increased demands on public services or facilities is the responsibility of the public agency providing the service or facility. If new construction is required to meet the increased needs, responsibiliry for mitigating resulting physical impacts may also fall on that public agency. Goleta Union School Dutrict U. The Regents of the University of California, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (1995) Prepared in Walnut Creek by Stephen L. Kostka, Brandt Andersson and Marie Cooper. `.l��Lul�t�r�r r n�l�tte�.; l,��ut't�i�� cvtrrrn r�tir�rnnNn�n �tuur�r �v�r�trs ��; �uirc��tt 1c�,cu r�iu��,��t�nt��r: :n� t' �t�, ;�„i �"�r�rui�rc� �c�,,ctl utlricc•. . L; thr iu/��riunttc>u cr��rraiuc�c! L�c�rc� r.; itc�ce-ssru-tlr ,�c�uc�rcri. rt: �tn��liccuu,ir i�, �� ;,rri�rcrri�u� ccv w_Irtris ct�rd ;:i'C'!/17IS1C1)lC('S 171C11' 1'CUT. ti �' [lu ill�f /7'C'l�177131C'll[! /l�(!1 I'l�ll lfCl t�ll ll�l� !lUr�l'1NC111U11 It'l1�)!�I// ��ii�lfli/i7! C�iUlll�l'l. C�� . • B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager � FROM: Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director� Vj� DATE: November 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Request For Sewer Petition (Ward 7) We have received a request from and have sent a sewer petition to Mr. Ronald Shepherd, 2604 Clara Ct. for construction of sewers in the area northwest of Hughes and Fairview (See attached). This area is just south of the sewer project now under construction at Hughes Lane and Pacheco Road which is part of A.D. 94-1 (Renfro/Hughes). We have received requests from this area in the past, but to date none has been returned. This area was annexed into the City in December 1985. , `j ,.�, . � � � ZC� B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT I501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (80S) 326-3724 RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR • CITY ENGINE.ER November 16, 1995 Mr. Ronald Shepherd 2604 Clara Ct. Bakersfield, CA. 93304 Dear Mr. Shepherd: Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning sewer service to your neighborhood. Construction of a sewer system would be through the Assessment District process. Enclosed is a petition for the formation of an Assessment District to construct sewer mains and laterals within the area shown on F�chibit "A". The signatures of the owners of more than 6090 of the property within the area are required before an Assessment District can be formed. The petition must be signed by the property owner (not a tenant). If the property is owned by more than one person, such as husband and wife, only one person needs to sign the petition. The street address and date must also be included with the signature. Since several petitions are being circulated in this area, signing more than one petition will not invalidate the petition. The estimated cost of the improvements is $303.000.00. The City of Bakersfield will contribute by paving the trench area upon completion of the project. The estimated cost of constructing a sewer main in the street and a lateral to the property line is approximately $5,000 for an average size lot. This cost can be paid in a lump sum or be spread over a 15-20 year period and added to your property tax bill. All property owners within the district will be assessed their share of the main line cost. The connection from the lateral to the house will be the responsibility of the property owner. Connection to the sewer will not be mandatory. Please return the signed petition to the Public Works Department,1501 Truxtun avenue, Bakersheld, California, 93301, attention Lauren Dimberg. Ifyou have any questions, please call Lauren Dimberg at 326-3724. Very truly yours, RAUL M. ROJAS Public Works Director � � By: ac es R. LaRochelle Design Engineer Enclosure RMR:JRL:Ld � � � I �� I — I 1 i i � � � �u /r//I'iII7 (Qb 3! FSS ^ � `��( $ MANDEL /NE Li �i v � .. - 1 O • � R� i�T � A�,-CY� � _ j4' � �nl � ! � // � �I � � 63' I -- - �1: --- -�-1 i � /f � /4: � ��I . . � , \ Rib� 1 )' 6 � � � _ AI/ENUE � • � � � � R�L a v ia � �-�; ! LE(�;NI) — —o-- — Ei�ISTING SEVIER --�- PROPOSED S.��JER fr/�/U% DIS'�'RIC'P BOL7NDARY E:ffiIBIT "A" /� • W B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • City Manager November 21, 1995 Mr. Joel Heinrichs Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Heinrichs: Thank you for your November 14, 1995, letter to the City IGR members about the subject of universal garbage collection. The City IGR members may wish to agendize this matter for a future IGR meeting. The County position, as stated in your letter, is that you won't do test areas for universal collection until the City and the haulers conclude negotiations on our order to them to automate their services. The haulers are contending they can't conclude the negotiations with us until they know what the County will be doing. As you are aware, many of their routes overlap our boundaries, and they feel they cannot price the cost of automation until they know what number of pickups they will have in the County section of their routes. In short, the County position on this matter has made your own condition of us having to conclude our negotiations impossible to achieve. We believe that we have at least verbal understandings with the haulers relative to the first two years and first two haulers who will automate. That should be more than sufficient for you to plan some test areas for your universal collection efforts around those two haulers. We will call to set up staff level meetings for further discussions on this subject. Sincerely, ,�'� /�, i/�� ///. i 1 ,. � ,i i jI" ; i��,�/ •`--' - � % i; `� % , `� Alan Tandy City Manager AT: rg cc: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Raul Roias, Public Works Director City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301 (805) 326-3751 • Fax (805) 324-1850 "� JOEL A. HEINRICHS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICEK KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Councilmembers, City of Bakersfield I.^.tergovernmental Relations Committee 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Councilmembers: SCOTT JONES Assistant County Admini5trative Ufficer WILLIAM C. DOUGLAS Employee Kelations Officer November 14, 1995 Thank you for your letter of October 16, 1995 regazding universal garbage collection. As you will recall, the Waste Management Depaitment was intending to seek Board of Supervisors' approval for implementation of universal gazbage collection in test azeas upon resolution of outstanding issues between City of Bakersfeld and the City's refuse haulers regarding universal collection. It is our understanding that, to date, these issues continue to be negotiated with your haulers. Please advise me if the County can be of assistance in reso�ving these issues. cc: Supervisor Peterson Supervisor Shell Daphne Washington, Sincerely, '' J ' . einrichs � County Administrative Ofiicer Waste Management 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 561-2371, FAX (805) 325-3979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORAND � November 20, 1995 ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT � NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DIS CT FEES The good news is that your second inquiry arrived on my desk the same day you wrote it. However, the first one is yet to be seen. Since my last update on this item at the end of October I have again discussed progress on the fee proposal with Colon Bywater, NBR&PD. He explained that the new fee structure was not heard by the county in October because County staff required the district to complete formal adoption of the lower park standard in its master plan and then revise its capital improvement plan per the new master plan. He said that these major steps (plus some other issues with the county) delayed the process by about 1-1/2 - 2 months. The Board of NBR&PD should approve the revised CIP tonight for public distribution and comment. It will come back to the board for adoption in January. He has met with the Building Industry Association. The BIA seems to accept the park land acquisition formula but solidly opposed the park development fee. Once NBR&PD submits a final complete (per Ted James) request to the county for adoption, Ted plans to convene developers and staff to talk about it. You know, kind of like mandatory trash colle.ction and transportation impact fees. Colon appreciates our support and help but he feels the county staff has a negative attitude on this. JH:pjt m\mat11.20 ,`,�� 11� � o �99� � B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ,,t;•�� c �_/ DATE: November 17, 1995 SUBJECT: California Avenue Widening Project S.R. 99 Ramp Closure Granite Construction, as the contractor for the S.R.99 project, will be closing the west bound to north bound on-ramp on January l, 1996. This ramp will be closed for about 3 months. During this period they will be working on the Bakerstield Yard Overhead bridge widening. During the first tw� to three weeks of the ramp closure, Granite Construction (as the City's contractor for the California Avenue widening project) will be reconstructing this on-ramp. During this same twc� to three week period, the City's contractor will close the east bound to north bound loop ramp tc� do the remaining wc�rk c�n it. This ramp will open in mid- to late-January, when the wc�rk on this side is complete. AD95:�,93 31nNRAMPST.MEM RMlt:jrl:mps xc: Reading Filc Prc�ject Filc Jacyues R. LaRc�chellc Marian P. St�aw 0 ,,,��,��', �',� ;-;. �r.,�� =_ \,�`. .�,� ✓ :: _'a r �Nn�wu4 : _ � '\\ � ��_, _ �Y J,�,```p =Y`��; `� �� ip� °-J�� i �/'��pP MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 20, 1995 T0: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER � FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO, FINANCE DIRECTOR / SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAXES 1995-96 Today the City received the 1995-96 property tax estimates from Kern County. I'm pleased to advise you that the taxes should finalize about $300,000 higher than estimated in the budget(assuming the historical collection rate, approximately 97$, remains constant). Attached is a schedule of property taxes for the two prior and the current fiscal year. The net assessed $8,019,183,690 to secured property $16,458,268. krc MGJK.51 cc: Gil Rojas Gail Waiters values for 1995-96 increased 5.2� from $8,438,356,070 and the County estimate for taxes increased 7.8� from $15,270,127 to � . CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ` PROPERTY TAX 1993/94 — 1995/96 1993 — 94 Secured: State Assessed County Assessed Total Secured Unsecured Delinquencies Total Property Taxes 1994-95 Secured: State Assessed County Assessed Total Secured Unsecured Delinquencies Total Property Taxes 1995 — 96 Secured: State Assessed County Assessed Total Secured Unsecured Delinquencies Total Property Taxes (Memo) County Estimate * Budget Actual $687,143 14,078,627 14,765,770 821,140 n/a 692,115 14,578,012 15,270,127 856,132 n/a 682,176 15,776,092 16,458,268 846,683 n/a $720,000 $686,909 11,680,000 13,681,709 12,400,000 ** 14,368,618 870,000 1,008,649 590,000 419,088 13,860,000 15,796,355 680,000 14,670,000 15,350,000 1,030,000 470,000 16,850,000 700,000 14,860,000 15,560,000 1,020,000 430,000 $17,010,000 691,691 14,223,558 14,915,249 896,263 427,573 16,239,085 Revised Estimate 682,000 15,348,000 16,030,000 850,000 430,000 $17,310,000 * The County estimate assumes 100% collection. ** The 1993-94 budget assumed the state would redirect approximately $2 million property tax revenue to schools to balance the state budget. Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) ($33,091) 2,001,709 1,968,618 138,649 (170,912) 1.936,355 11,691 (446,442) (434,751) (133,737) (42,427) (610,915j (18,000) 488,000 470,000 (170,000} 0 $300,000 ; : Edward E. Johncton Assistant Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Division Chiefs Ann K. Barnett Hugh R. Denton Nancy J. Jackson CITY OF BAKERSFIELD JAMES A. RHOADES Auditor-Controller-County Clerk 11/16/95 Subject: 1995/96 Property Tax Revenue Estimates Gentlemen: Administrative Center 1115 Trurtun Avenue BakersCeld, CA 93301-3639 (805) 861-2331 FAX (805) 861-2826 Based upon the calculations prescribed under Revenue & Taxation Code Sections 95 et seq., including the property tax shift to schools where applicable, we have estimated the 1995/96 property tax revenues (within Kern County only) for your agency as follows: State Assessed Secured Locally Assessed Secured Total Secured Taxes Current Unsecured Taxes Homeowners Subvention Total Taxes $ 682,176 15,776,092 16,458,268 846,683 336,273 $ 17,641,225 The above amounts relate to your share of the 1.00o Countywide tax rate and do not include any amounts related to any levies for voter approved indebtedness or special assessments that you may have. The above amounts for secured and unsecured taxes represent a 100% collection amount and have not been reduced for any delinquency allowance. (The annual Countywide delinquency of property taxes generally runs 3 to 5%). If you have any questions, please call Richard Holdcraft at 861-2331 extension 3541. JR/rh Sincer ly � � �s :,� ;�s�t� � � . ; �� ,��-�''�.-.�� i � � %f JAMSS A. RHOADES �; AUDITOR-CONTROLLER CC�� ' • �s\ Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 November 15, 1995 RE: The Marketplace Shopping Center Honorable Mayor Price: REGE,J�� 1 1 �qqS Nv � oFF`�F , �nay°� I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the above referenced project. After attending the first in a series of neighborhood meetings held by Castle & Cooke, I was appalled at the mis-representation going on by the Southwest Community Action Committee. I agree they have the right to voice their opinion, but they do not have the right to spread false information about the center. I urge you to support the development of The Marketplace Shopping Center. I feel it will be a real asset to the community. � Sincerely, i�--�" �L'�G��— � ��G�Ci,✓�C�— Rhonda Moore 5313 O'Neill Court Bakersfield, California 93307 .'�� '�:' 2 0 ��`' . ; �- November 16, 1995 Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 aE��' �p 5 ,y ` � �99 N�' S GFF�GE �v1 A� �'� I am writing this letter with ooncern of the blockage of the Market Place development, by the Southwest Community Action Committee (SCAC). As a resident of the southwest Bakersfield i feel that the Market Place would be an added auraction, and benefit to the area. The Market Place will provide services to the slurounding area, as well as create much needed job opportunities. I was approached last weekend, while shopping at the Town and Country Shopping Center, by a member of the SCAC asking me to sign a petition opposing the Market Place. Their main concerns of the impact of the Market Place are the reduction in property values, increase in traffic congestion, and increase in crime in the area. They say it will reduce their property values as much as S 100,000. If this is true then why is a major selling point of any newly developed tract "Close to Shopping". They say it will increase the traffc burden on the surrounding streets. This statement is true, because unless you walk, ride your bike, or fly a person will have to drive to get to the Maricet Place. Ming Avenue is a major arterial, which means it is designed to handle a lot of traffic, and the residents that live near it knew this prior to buying their houses. Finally, they are concerned with the impact of crime that accompanies a strip mall. This made me wonder why a person who was so worried about the crime at or near a strip mall, was standing outside stores at the Town and Country shopping center handing out flyers to a perfed stranger. The fact is, the SCAC is not opposed to the Market Place itself, they are opposed to it being built "in their back yard". The current location for the market place is zoned, and has been zoned for commercial development since 19'70. This is a perfect locadon for the Market Place, and I am in full support of it. Sincerely, �� . � _ �•��-�� Blaine Neptune Southwest Bakersfield Resident RECEIVE� �p� 1 7 1995 �,/�AYO�'S GFF��E November 16, 1995 Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Tnixtun Avenue Bakersfield, California . RE: The Marketplace Honorable Mayor Price: This letter is written to express our support of the well planned development of the commercial project known as "The Marketplace". It is distressing to see that a few, although well organized, elite members of the community hav�e brought to a halt the much needed project which is consistent with the 2010 General Plan and city wning ordinance. This commercial project will not only provide an upsrale retail center needed in this area, but will draw from an ideal employment source - Cal State Bakersfield. We hope that the city leaders will continue to preserve the development rights of private property owners in addressing the "no growth" agenda of the Southwest Community Acdon Committee. Respectfully, C�c�o a�d �� Chris & Sandy Bergam November 16, 1995 Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Califomia RE: The Marketplace R�G�`v�o 5 �� 194 �GE �oa�� A Honorable Mayor Price: I am a resident of the Laurelglen neighborhood and live near the intersection of Gosford and Ming Avenue. I am in favor of The Marketplace Shopping Plaza and feel that it will be an asset to my community. The Southwest Comm�nity Action Committee does not speak for me and probably does not speak for most other residents in the Southwest who feel the same. Unfortunately the vocal minority is trying to stop what is consistent with the 2010 General Plan and is in conformance with the zoning ordinances. The majority of people will be appreciative of the services and jobs the development will bring to the community but are too busy with their real ►ives to become active in favor of The Marketplace. Please consider this letter as a statement against what seems to be the no growth policy of the S.C.A.C. from myself and my family. Ron ohnson Eastdumfries Cou�t Bakersfield, CA 93309 e November 16, 1995 MSiy �Ill13IriS 3504 Sonoita Dr. Bakersfield, CA 93309 EG�`J�� R 1`� 1 � 149 - tG�.. � OFF. , MP,� oR Mr. Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Tru�un Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Price: I am a Southwest area reside�nt and would like to voice my support for the new Marketplace shopping center being built by Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc. The biggest plus I can see to a shopping center of this magnitude is that our unemployment rate will improve, bringing in at least 900 new jobs to the community. I have seen the drawings of the Marketplace and I am very impressed with such an upscale development. I have been a long time shopper of similar developments in the Orange County area and can now look forward to supporting one in my own community. Hopefully this will open the doors for further growth of this level in the Bakersfield area. Sincerely, . v � �� l>�1��``��`"� P�Iary `�'illi�ms LAURA TASSEY 4800 POLO WOOD ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 November 16, 1995 Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Tru�rtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Price: EG�`v�� 5 C� .� �q9 N�y � oFF��" , t��''y�� This letter is in support of Castle & Cooke's beautifully designed Marketplace Shopping C�ter. I have read and seen numerous articles, both in favor o� and against the shopping center. As a member of the working force in southwest Bakersfield, I can tell you that I am looking forward to having the center close at hand. I understand there will be restaurants, a bank, a gas station, a grocery store, and several other shops that will be convenient to so many people. I know that during the lunch hour and after work, I will be stopping in and shopping here. It will be so convenient, when the children have either soccer or baseball games, to grab them a quick drink or burger. If I were a resident of Haggin Oaks or The Oaks, or Seven Oaks, I would be thrilled to have the convenience of this center at my disposal. I can't imagine that the people who don't want this center won't shop here, eat here, go to the movies here, or be glad their teenage son or daughter might have a part time job so close to home. I really think that the design of this center is such that it will enhance property values in the area. Castle & Cooke has gone all out on the elegant brick design, and I hope to see this center built. Sincerely, ;�� '✓`„�"� ;� � Laura Tassey � RAYBURN S. DEZEMBER 5401 California Avenue, #310 Bakersfield, California 93309 November 16, 1995 Mr. Bob Price, Mayor CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Bob: ��G�\J�O � �t � � 19� NQ � o��1v� `� Q'� �R I am writing this letter in support of The Marketplace shopping center development. Castle & Cooke has been the major developer in southwest Bakersfield and has created a number of our most admired projects, both in residential and commercial developments. They have supported our community planning efforts and have followed the established permit and planning process which should allow them to proceed with construction. I believe The Marketplace would be a fine addition to the commercial development � of southwest Bakersfield and request your support of this project. Respectfully, Ray urn S. Dezember RSD:kIj s November 16, 1995 Mayor Bob Price City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mayor Price, RE��v�� 14� 1 � 149� E RS �FF�G , ��1� �`Y � I am writing you to give my support to The Marketplace that happens to be very close to my home as well as my place of employment. I think it would be a great addition to my neighborhood and to the e�onomy of our City. It's funny how this group of people objecting to The Marketplace, thinks that they repr.esent everyone in the neighborhood. And of course, these same people will probably be the people who will be using the services of The Marketplace the most. You would think that when purchasing their home they read and signed the documentation advising them of the building of a shopping center. They do not have my vote. I am in full support of The Marketplace. Another comment I would like to make is that Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc. has supported my daughters softball team and has just done tremendous things for the community of Bakersfield. Why is it that these positive contributions always get over looked. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely /�' �� v� Lily ran 3704 Seligmen Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 0 Jay & Kathy Lockridge 5613 Anise Cou�t Bakersfield, CA 93309 (805) 837-0907 Mayor Bob Price 1501 Tru�un Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 November 13, 1995 Dear Mayor Price: E��v�� 5 � .� 1 6 `�� GE � 5 �FF .; 04 M�` I am writing you about the proposed shopping center in the Southwest known as the Marketplace. As a homeowner in Southwest Bakersfield, I have heard various stories both for and against the shopping center so I decided to learn more about the project on my own. As the facts were presented to me, I was astonished at the misinformation that has been. able to come out against the shopping center. I've seen the layouts, sketches and various other rendentions of the Marketplace and I have to say it will certainly be a beautiful addition to the City of Bakersfield. My concerns lie in the fact that a small group can have such an impact ori this project and try to intimidate our city. If environmental impact reports are required for every commercial project in our city, as their lawsuit will accomplish if they are�victorious, we cannot expect manufacturers and developers to bring their business to Bakersfield. Faced with the prospect of additional costs to build, I believe many companies will overlook this city for ones that do not have these impractical deman�is. If we want Bakersfield to grow we have to make ourselves as attractive as possible and remove the stigma we have been labeled with. The Marketplace will be a wonderful addition to our city and I urge you to be supportive of this project. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. , �' � Si cerely, � � � Jay H. Lockridge