Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/96 ~. ^". "- - "".." ,~. - I B A K E R 5 F 11E L 0 MEMORANDUM March 29,1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. As you have read, the Marketplace did settle under the terms you authorized. 2. I'm sony to report that Riverlakes Ranch did a 1800 turn, The progress I mentioned that was taking place turned into negatives. They now say the bankruptcy court made a mistake on the development agreement. The lawyer talk of suit has come back. The issue will actively resurface next month when some maps are due ,to expire. We've offered two settlement packages - those are what they abandoned when they did the 1800 turn. 3. I'm going to San Diego next week for the program to receive the Economic Development Award we won for the Holiday Inn. We have received one of three statewide awards. We find out next Thursday ifit is the "grand prize" winner. I'll take Friday off as vacation. John Stinson will be in charge. 4. It appears. that all we had to do was talk about building a fire station to get Kern County to spend money to beat us to the punch. They rushed through approval of a station to be located near Brimhall-Renffo. It would protect the neighborhood that appeared to express concern. Maybe we should start a rumor that we'll widen their piece of Calloway or impose universal collection in their area! 5. We have had a great revenue year at the Convention Center. Hockey brought in over $160,000! Unfortunately, the team lost money. To secure our revenues for the future we will have to make some short tenn lease concessions. We can still turn a profit under that condition as they build a marketing program and support base. In Fairbanks, the lease is $50 per game. The team gets everything else. We won't have to compromise nearly that much. 6. Both ice skating facilities are moving forward - the Price Club has their building pennit now. 7. There was letter in the newspaper yesterday written by Rick Denning, a former Bakersfield police officer, criticizing our relationship with Dr. Christensen and referring to conflict of interest on the part of some councilmembers, because of receiving campaign contributions from him. I - ---,,- - - ~c '" I Honorable Mayor and City Council March 29, 1996 Page 2 Perhaps Denning's presentation of "the facts" relates to his background as a former police officer who went on a disability pension in 1991, and then four years later decided he wanted to be reinstated. The conclusion of his medical evaluation at that time was that he cannot do heavy lifting and that restriction would keep him from returning to work as a police officer. 8. Enclosed is a copy of the response we sent to the East Bakersfield Positive Action Committee. They wanted on the Agenda to get you to reconsider the "jail" vote, but of course it doesn't work that way. 9. We met last week with some residents. of Old Stockdale regarding our annexation efforts. Enclosed is a letter which we sent to all those who attended. There are several more meetings scheduled with Old Stockdale residents for April. 10. Development Services staff has sent correspondence to the County regarding our concerns on the DRAFT EIR for the Rosedale Ranch General Plan. The letter is enclosed for your information. 11. There is a ward population chart enclosed, also prepared by Development Services. 12. Several responses to Council referrals are enclosed, as follows: . Inquiry regarding a carnival permit at Wilson and Real; . Excavation activity at Royal Coach and Fairfax. I ! AT:rs cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst /' -- ----- ~ ---- Ã I ,.c-'. ~ . - B A K E R 5 F I E L D MEMORANDUM March 29, 1996 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: S ~k cott Manier, RIS Manager Subject: Robert (Rick) Denning Rick Denning was a police officer employed by the City from August 1983 through January 1991 (approximately 7 Vz years). He alleged multiple injuries during this period of time. In July 1991, Denning had a disability evaluation performed by a physician of his choice who concluded that Denning had permanent work restrictions limiting him from light to moderate work. This precluded him from performing the duties of a police officer. As a result of the disability evaluation, Denning was granted by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board a permanent disability rating of 52 1/2% (at the time approximately $40,000 which was paid to Denning by the City). In addition, he was granted in July 1991 an industrial disability retirement by the City (50% of his ending salary tax free paid to him monthly by PERS). In October 1995, Denning requested to be reinstated as a Police Officer. He was sent to Dr. Christiansen and retèrred to Dr. Moldawer (an orthopaedic) for an evaluation. In addition he was given a functional capacity evaluation, After the October 1995 evaluations, it was concluded that Denning still has a work restriction precluding him from heavy lifting. This restriction would keep him from returning to work as a police officer. Denning's request for reinstatement was therefore denied. cc: John W. Stinson - -- - ~u --- --~ -- -- !~~ :-,._:'^'" \ \ 1 Thursday, March 28~ 1996 I Unethical dealing<¡ l ¡with' city doctor' I I I must conunent on your recent i . articles regarding extending Dr. I : Willard Christiansen's medical , services agreement with Bakersfield I . . City. ; The issue involving Harvey, the : AIDS test administered without his , knowledge and Christiansen's . "alleged" improper conduct are of , concern. However, the general public , doesn't know all the facts and therefore it would not be proper to fonnulate an opinion solely on this case. There are, however, nwnerous ! "facts" which leave me to believe the ~ city should investigate their I "numerous" other options for medical sel'Vlces. As reported in The Californian, , Christiansen "is a staW1ch financial . supporter of seated coW1cil \1 members." He contributed $2,1Xk) to the 1994 campaigns of Mark Salvaggio : and Kevin McDennott and, in recent I COW1cil disclosure fonDS, CoW1cilman I Randy Rowles received $1,1Xk) and i Mayor Bob Price received $500. i Contributions by the "city doctor" to ! "seated coW1cil members" are very i inappropriate. I Why are coW1cil members who . have received substantial donations from the "city doctor" allowed to vote i on extending his contract? Doesn't this I present the appearance of misconduct, , : conflict of interest, bribery, buying votes? Allowing any COW1cil member to vote on a matter involving a subcontractor seeking a contract with the city, when that subcontractor : contributes to their campaign, is ; irresponsible and W1ethical. . : Is there much chance for a change I when the "city doctor" is a major I . contributor to the campaigns of I coW1cil members who are responsible I I for renewing or extending his contract? City employees, my prayers are with you! I RICK DENNING I \ Bakersfield I I I -- -- '0 ¡:,. ~i~, ~ 4 . - B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy. City Manager March 27, 1996 Mishelle Wheeler East Bakersfield Positive Action Committee Post Office Box 71296 Bakersfield, CA 93387 Dear Ms. Wheeler: In response to your letter of March 18, 1996, you are welcome to address the City Council regarding your concerns with Conditional Use Permit No. P95-0017 during Public Statements, which is always on the Council agenda. We have however no legal means and no basis for placing the subject back before the City Council for formal action to reconsider. The Planning Director has reviewed the information you refer to in your letter. We do not believe it constitutes proof of a violation of the permit conditions. In addition, the permit holder has not yet obtained a building permit. It would, therefore, be difficult at this point for a violation to have occurred. However, the Planning Director will monitor the status of the project for permit compliance. Nonetheless, if the Planning Director determines in the future that a condition of approval has been violated, it is within his discretion to revoke the permit. This action may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, which would then hold a noticed public hearing on the revocation. Absent such an appeal, the Municipal Code has no provision for a public hearing on a conditional use permit which has been approved. Your concerns have been forwarded to the Planning Director for his review. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, t&nT City Manager A T:pjt cc: Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney Stanley Grady, Planning Director l\lmw City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office. 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California. 93301 In"..., .......r "'~"" -...- ,n""""""""1nr-,.. // / . .:>, -' ,. í ... .~ L EAST BAKRR~FIRJ.n POSITIVE ACTION mMVITT~ ~ DATE: MARéH'18, 1996 TO: BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL, C/O ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: EAST BAKERSFIELD POSITIVE ACTION COMMITTEE MISHELLE.WHEELER - REPRESENTATIVE RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # P95-0017 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT A Dear Mr. Alan Tandy, '1 We are sending written communication requesting to be placed on the Council Meeting agenda on the matter of the Councils decision to reverse BZA denial and approve CUP # P95-0017 issued to Gregory D. Bynum and Associates, Inc. and Alternative Programs Inc. as stated in RESOLUTION NO. 9-96, for the construction of a Community Corrections Facility and Booking Facility to be located at 650 S. Oswell St. & HWY. 58 in Southeast Bakersfield. Recent information in an addendum issued by the (CDC) California Department o~ Corrections pertaining to the inmate screening criteria, which will allow more serious criminals than were allowed when the CUP was issued. This modification would not be consistent with the cities conditions of approval, exhibit "A", section 2, paragraph 1. Information pertarnrng-.tö..tnrs issue was delivered to Mayor Bob Price on Tuesday, March 12th, which includes CDC "Modified and Added Changes", a letter from (CCPOA) California Correctional Peace Officers Association stating Security Concerns and inmate classifications inconsistent with CUP Conditions, thi~ facility will jeopardize public safety. I Response to this request should be addressed to (EB PAC) EAST I BAKERSFIELD POSITIVE ACTION COMMITTEE, C/O Mishelle Wheeler, by mail or phone at either 366-6614/328-2268 or pager # 637-7863. Sincerely, ~LJjU4a_- Mishelle Wheeler Committee Memher EB PAC cc , Mayor Bob Price ED H\C. PO BOX 71296 . BAKERSFIELD. CAe . 93387 h .' I r I I - ...",;- -- --- __m_- -- - BAKE IELD t:O - ~ :::j 7'/) ~ ~ March 25, 1996 "1RTO~ Ms. Sue Carlisle 6515 Mt. Shasta Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309 Dear Ms. Carlisle: lllank you for taking timc out of your day to meet with myself and City staff to discuss the possibility of Old Stockdale joining the City. I hope you will agree that it was a very productive meeting and that we covered several important issues. To reiterate the information provided at the meeting, the City will put in writing, to Old Stockdale's satisfaction, that it will not require sewer connections, curbs and gutters, sidewalks or additional entrances into the area. Additionally, Old Stockdale can continue with its current water company separate from City water services. As long as Stockdale Mutual Watcr Company and Stockdale Annex continue to serve the area, there would not be a requirement to have water meters. More importantly, the City feels that there are significant advantages to becoming part of the City. First and foremost, Old Stockdale would have formal involvement and participation into what happens in the surrounding area. Currently, decisions and actions are being made for the area surrounding Old Stockdale which have a direct impact on it, for which you have no formal input into the pròcess. Additionally, as civic minded citizens and community leaders, you may want to be involved in the direction of the City and have a say in the future of Bakersfield. Also, services such as street sweeping, street maintenance and police protection can be provided more quickly and more efficiently by the City. Finally, your ambulance rates would decrease, you would no longer be charged for crossing guards on your property tax bill and those already connected to sewer would see a $38 a year decrease in their sewer bill. I hope that you will consider the information and consider supporting annexation of Old Stockdale. I have attached a copy of your first neighborhood newsletter on the subject. The April edition will include answers to questions raised during our meeting. Thank you again for your time and attention. lk --- (ó City Manager OS:dm Enclosure 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE I3AKERSHELD, CA 93301 SO5/S5-UNITE FAX 805/324-1850 ---- ------------ - ---------- ---------- ~ "to - MEMORANDUM March 29, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC SUBJECT: ROSEDALE RANCH GENERAL PLAN EIR Attached is a copy of our letter to the county about the Draft EIR for Rosedale Ranch. This is a proposal to increase the size of Rosedale by 2,000 residential units (65,712 more people) and 13.5 million square feet of commercial and industrial development. The letter is critical of the EIR's analysis of agricultural land conversion, unnecessary allocation of additional land for urbanization, waste management, transit, traffic, and water supply. We will continue to monitor and comment on this unreasonable urbanization of rural county areas. JH:pjt Attachment m\mat3.29a --- - - -- .-' ~ l' Æ: ~ . - B A K E R S F I E L 0 Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Dennis c.. Fidler Stanley C. Grady Building Director March 29, 1996 Planning Director (805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266 (805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327..0646 Glenn A. Barnhill Special Projects Division Chief Kern County Planning Department 2700 "Mil Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Comments on Draft EIR for the Rosedale Ranch Amendment to the Western Rosedale Specific Plan (GPA Case No. 41, Map No. 101). Dear Mr. Barnhill: The City of Bakersfield has substantial concerns regarding the numerous unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the recently released Draft EIR for the Rosedale Ranch Specific Plan. The significant impacts resulting from project approval and implementation comprise air quality, land use, population/housing and public services and utilities. Our concerns specifically revolve around the massive size and scale of the proposed mixed use development, a proposal that has been brought forth only 18 months after adoption of the area-wide Western Rosedale Specific Plan by the County. The City conveyed to the County significant, unanswered concerns regarding the urbanization of the northwest metropolitan area prior to adoption of the Western Rosedale Plan. We believe that the Rosedale Ranch amendment proposal is totally out of scale with the existing adopted Western Rosedale Specific Plan, and the existing rural, agricultural character of the surrounding area. These concerns are intensified in view of the lack of existing domestic water and sewer services infrastructure in the vicinity, as well as the substantial projected traffic circulation impacts on a rural roadway system. Following are the comments offered by the City departments that would be affected by the manifold aspects of this large scale urban development project: Planning Department: Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR, under the subsection describing the existing Western Rosedale Specific Plan (pp. 4-79 and 4-80) contains a statement that appears to be conc1usionary in nature. The statement asserts that the Rosedale Ranch project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Western Rosedale Specific Plan, I City of Bakersfield. 1715 Chester Avenue' Bakersfield, California' 93301 ------ - -- --- .--- --- -- ----- --- --~- - - - -- ------------- -.-- - - -- --- ---- ----- ----------- : , Glenn A. Barnhill . March 29, 1996 Page 2 and that no impact is expected to result from the proposed amendment to the existing Specific Plan. The previous two pélragraphs, however, state that the proposed amendment would increase the existing residential development potential within the project boundaries from 326 units to more than 20,000 dwellings, in addition to the introduction of nearly 13.5 million square feet of unspecified commercial and industrial uses within the same project! The following portion of the Impacts Analysis section (Section 4.5) projects an ultimate buildout population of 65,712 residents within the Rosedale Ranch amendment area. This figure exceeds the total projected population for the entire surrounding Western . Rosedale Specific Plan area (45,587 per the Modified Low Density Infill Alternative) by 44 per cent! Furthermore, the following statement on p. 4-80 (Zoning Ordinance) that the Rosedale Ranch project will not impact the existing agricultural zoning of the entire 6,536 acre project site, since no zoning changes are presently proposed, is not supportable in the context of this single development proposal that will have such a drastic impact on the character of an area-wide specific plan adopted by the County only 18 months ago! We note that the Rosedale Ranch Specific Plan incorporates a proposal to amend the existing policy contained in the Western Rosedale Plan that states that proposals for converting agricultural lands presently subject to a Williamson Act contract to urban or rural residential uses are inconsistent with the Plan, unless such contract has been non- renewed and has two years or less remaining until its expiration (Section 4.4.2, p. 4-77). Our department believes that including such a wholesale policy amendment, which would only serve to encourage a proliferation of future proposals for the premature conversion of agricultural resource lands, is inappropriate within the context of the present development proposal. Future development proposals of a similar scale and character should each be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and not be encouraged based on the action taken on the present proposal. We cite two examples of impacts listed for Public ServiceslUtilities to emphasize the significant long term impacts of the Rosedale Ranch amendment, for which no feasible mitigations have either been identified or are available. First, on p. 4-199 (Solid Waste) there is a statement that the Rosedale Ranch project will contribute approximately 27 . per cent of the annual volume of waste accepted by the Bena Landfill, which has a projected service life of 50 to 60 years. It does not need mention that development of a project of the sèale of Rosedale Ranch will significantly shorten the life span of this essential regional facility. Yet the Draft EIR contains no meaningful discussion of or exploration of alternative sites or mitigation programs, other than a cursory mention of the existing Shafter- Wasco landfill and the possible ultimate use of the distant Lost Hills landfill. -~--- - -- ----------- -- --- -I Glenn A. Barnhill March 29, 1996 Page 3 The second example of an insufficient analysis of a public services impact is for public transit needs. The Draft EIR's assertion that the public transportation needs of this project as well as other future development in the vicinity will be "mitigated to a level of insignificance" (p. 4-214) is unsupportable, even in the light of the mitigation measures' proposed (on p. 4-211). The public transit measures identified state only that the "developers may be required to request annexation" into the transit district service boundaries. Mitigation is only mitigation if it is imposed. The additional proposed mitigations provide for the location and design of bus turnouts and construction of related facilities and accessways, but do not address the long term financing requirements or viable staging of transit route extensions into the project area. Finally, we offer our comments on the CEQA-mandated analysis of viable project alternatives (Section 6). Of the four alternatives discussed, the only viable on-site. development scheme addressed is Alternate 4 - Modified Density/Intensity. According to the description on p. 6-23, this alternative provides for the same land use designations as the project proposal with a 25 per cent reduction in residential units, but no reduction in the intensity of the proposed industrial and commercial uses. From both a qualitative and practical standpoint, we find this alternative deficient. First, if there is a substantive reduction in overall residential densities and therefore in the ultimate project-wide population, would it not also be appropriate to assess a proportional reduction in commercial and industrial intensities? A reduced project population would have a corresponding reduction in demand for retail goods and services, as well as the need for employment by nearby industrial concerns. Or would the equivalent amount of commercial and industrial development exert a stronger influence outside the project area, thereby exacerbating traffic circulation, public services and a myriad of other impacts upon surrounding areas? Second, this alternative does not propose any reduction in areas of the proposed urbanized land use categories, compared with the project proposal. How would a reduced residential development intensity within the affected categories be realistically maintained over the life span of project development? No mention is made of reduced density zoning classifications, or the implementation of a residential unit development cap throughout the project buildout period. And most importantly, the modified density alternative does not allow for the preservation of any agricultural land or petroleum resource areas. This omission appears to contradict the statement on p. 6-26 analyzing this alternative, which contends that this scheme would reduce the loss of prime agricultural land, and reduce the potential for impacts due to removal of petroleum production facilities. The project EIR must include an analysis of an on-site development alternative that incorporates the retention of a portion of the existing resource based land use designations, in order to -- '. '.. Glenn A. Barnhill March 29, 1996 Page 4 comply with intent of the CEQA mandate for the exploration of a range of meaningful alternatives to the project development proposal. Water Resources Department: In light of the requirements set by SB 901, this proposed development lacks a balanced water supply to support the proposed development Extensive agricultural use on the land and the use of groundwater wells to support crops has overdrafted the area's water supply. This fact is brought out in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department, through the North Kern Water Storage District, has made surface water available to the Rosedale Ranch area since 1977. These surface water supplies were available in most average and above average water years when "Miscellaneous Water" was available. Even with these surface water supplies, extensive use of groundwater for agricultural purposes overdrafted the area's groundwater supply. The Draft EIR alludes to the use of groundwater as a water supply. Our principal concern is continued groundwater overdraft of the basin in unincorporated areas of the county. The EIR should demonstrate that a balanced water supply is provided for upon urbanization. It would be detrimental to the project and the surrounding lands if "will seIVe" letters were issued for development by puIVeyors who do not bring in a surface water supply and balance out their consumptiv~ use. The draft EIR alludes that Vaughn Mutual Water Company and/or the California Water Service Company would be willing to seIVe the proposed development Since the vast majority of the proposed development falls outside the Improvement District No.4 boundaries, neither puIVeyor has been able to secure adequate long-term water supplies to balance the groundwater basins use. The California Water Service Company letter in section 3 states, "that the Kern County Water Agency approve a plan authorizing export of project water for the proposed development" It is unclear where the source of project water being alluded to will come from. We must assume that it is coming from Improvement District No.4 of the KCW A. If this is the case, the City of Bakersfield will object to the export of any water from ID #4 or any expansion of current ID #4 boundaries. Any such action would be to the detriment of the existing district The draft EIR mentions that there are currently 38 agricultural wells in the proposed development area. In all likelihood, these wells were constructed as "composite" wells, meaning the confined and unconfined aquifers were drilled with no seal separating the two zones. The draft EIR points out the fact that historical activities in the area contaminated the groundwater with pesticides 1, 2-Dibromomethance (EDB) and 1, 2- Dibromo-3 Chloropropane (DBCP). Nitrates and the presence of hydrogen sulphide are also a common groundwater contaminant known in the area. . In all likelihood, because , ,ö.- Glenn A. Barnhill March 29, 1996 Page 5 of the strong possibility of groundwater contamination in the area, an outside water source may be necessary to supply the proposed development. Page 4-177: As mentioned in this draft report, "the demand for groundwater exceeds supplies in Kern County." This holds true for all areas except within the City of Bakersfield. The City owns certain water rights on the Kern River and has instituted groundwater programs to assure adequate supplies are available for use within the City limits. Page 4-179: "Vaughn Mutual Water Company is the only domestic water purveyor with an established service area within the project site." This statement is misleading in that there is no domestic water service provided to the project site at this time. The Vaughn Mutual Water Company service boundary was set by their board of directors and was self serving to cover any future expansion and was done so without the landowner's request or knowledge. Page 4-208: "... developer shall prepare a Water Resource Availability, Utilization and Development Plan." "... provide for a balance water supply." This statement is contrary to other statements within the document that indicates the groundwater overdraft (page 4-212) will "remain unavoidable adverse impacts." Please contact this department should you have any questions on these comments. Thank you for affording the City of Bakersfield an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Rosedale Ranch project. MJM:pjt l\lgb.rr -- ----- ----- ~ --'=- --- ----- / Ð (>, ~ """"" MEMORANDUM March 29, 1996 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE SUBJECT: WARD POPULATION Councilmember McDermott requested a copy of the attached chart of ward populations. He suggested other council members would also be interested in having it for reference. JH:pjt m\mat3.29 --- - - ---- .." .':.'¡--:'~" ~ Ir) "If' 0'\ N \0 ..... "If' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0'\ N 0'\ ('f", Ir) ..-4 00 \0 r-- r-: 0 "If' ~ "If' ..... "If' "If' ..... ..... Ñ Ñ r-: ..... r-: ..... ..... ('f", 00 ('f", N ~ "If' "If' ..... N ~ 0 r--: OÓ 0 ~ 0 ..... ..-4 N \0 N r-- "If' "If' 0'\ 0'\ "If' 00 CO t"- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "If' 0 "If' r-- "If' Ir) t"- ('f", 00 0'\ N 0'\ ~ 0'\ ..... ('f", Ir) "'" 0 II'Î ~ ..... ~ oc¡ 'C1 ~ C'! C'! Q\ 00 0 \0 0 ('f", 0 N ..... r-- \C r-- r-- Ir) N ('f", ..... 11'1 \C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Ir) ~ N '\0 Q\ '\0 r-- Ir) \C 0'\ ('f", r-- '\0 '\0 0'\ ~ ..... ..... q oc¡ !'fì oc¡ 'C1 ..... N N "If' "If' Ir) 0 "If' 0 ~ ..... r-- 11'1 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 ('f", ~ Q\ 11'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Ir) '\0 '\0 0'\ = "If' 00 00 N 0 II} 0'\ "If' N 0 '\0 0'\ M Ir) "'" ..... ~ "1 to: OC¡ !'fì q N N 0 0'\ Ir) 0 ('f", 0 ~ ..... r-- ~ 0'\ ('f", Ir) "'" N 0 = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 0 00 ..... r-- r-- N t"- ..... Ir) Ir) "'" N ~ ('f", 0'\ ('f", ..... 00 '\0 ~7 ~ ..... C'! oc¡ "1 "1 to: q ~ 0'\ "If' ..... 0 ('f", 0 ~ 00 ~ ..... 0'\ ..... ('f", N N 11'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '\0 N 00 "If' ..... ('f", ~ '\0 "If' '\0 N 00 ~ 0 N ('f", 0 "'" N ~ ~ !'fì oc¡ "1 ~ q ..... \C r-- Ir) N 0 ('f", 0 N ..... r-- N 0 N N N 00 r-- ... N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... '\0 ('f", N '\0 0 = Ir) N ('f", ('f", Ir) ..... 'j. '\0 0'\ 0 Ir) N 00 ...... ('f", N ~ ~ !'fì ~ q !'fì ..... ..... CO 0 r-- 00 "'" N 0 N "If' "If' V'I Q'I - 0 ...-4 ... Ir) 0 r-- Ir) "If' Ir) \C ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 00 0'\ ('f", ('f", N "If' ... ...-4 ..... N '\0 N 00 ..... ~ "If' Q\ '\0 0 "'" Q\ ...-4 Ò Q\ 00 Q\ to: 'C1 ~ oc¡ oc¡ ~ ..... "If' ..... 0\ 0 N = ~ N ' ('f", ('f", N > .... .. CJ ~ :::: z z ~ 0 0 I Z ~ Z ~ "0 Z 0 "0 Z 0 ~ ... 0 ~ .....J Z Z ... 0 ~ :3 z ('\:$ ~ Z Z ~ ::J 0 ('\:$ ~ Z Z 0 0 " 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ :3 õ E= .....J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡::: ~ ::> 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .....J ~ ~ ~ 0 U ::J ~ ~ 0 U ~ .....J .....J .....J ::;¡ ~ .....J .....J .....J Q.. - ::J ~ ti: ~I II) O ::J ::J r, II) O ::J ::J - ~ = ~ c... c... Z 0 Q., ~ c... Q., Q., Z 0 0 U 0 0 ~ 0 0 U 0 0 ~ .- c... ~ 1- Q., ~ ('\:$ ~ ~ - ~ .. Z Q .. Z Q ffil ('\:$ Q ¡:: ~ ~ O:: .....J = Q ¡:: ~ - c:: z Z tJJ ~ c:: z z ~ ~ u - ~ aJ ~ U - ~ - :s ~ CJ æ :S ::;Ë ~ < CI) ::I: :E - ~ ... < CI) - 0 ~ æ ~ CI) ~ ~ æ ~ CI) Q.c (:I:¡ ~ ~ 0 Q.c (:I:¡ ~ ~ 0 I I MEMORANDUM March 25, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Directo BY: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Offi ,er /!þ SUBJECT: Councilmember McDermott's Referral regarding Carnival at Wilson and Real Per your request I investigated the above mentioned referral. According to the Treasury Department a permit was issued to hold the carnival from March 20, 1996 through March 24, 1996. The Bakersfield Municipal Code allows five weeks per permit; however, there is no restriction on how many permits can be issued. RF:km cc: Jack Leonard, Assistant Building Director m\carnival "-~-= . - =- ~~. RECE~VED [~~i~~ >: ~CITY MANAGE-;¡'S C;:",: ,. "--,,"--.. -. . .< - - =- --------- -- MEMORANDUM March 27, 1996 I I I TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager J ;r 1fÞ FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Direc r , Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement 0 lcer ~ ---- -----.-- ------ ---- BY: SUBJECT: Councilmember Smith's referral regarding excavation at Royal Coach and Fairfax Last WednesdayCouncilmember Smith called my attention to excavation activity at Royal Coach and Fairfax. A stop work order was issued to Birtch Trucking on March 21, 1996. The trucking company immediately called asking what they needed to do to use the area for a borrowing pit. They were told it would require a Conditional Use Permit and the process was explained. Dennis Fidler, Building Director, also noted that someone was using it the following day. He gave them a verbal warning that they would be cited if they did not stop work immediately and the work was stopped. It is my belief that if signs are not installed stating it cannot be used as a borrowing pit, other companies will try to use it. I am looking into the possibility of having signs made and placed in the city right-of-way or having the property owner install signs. RF:km cc: Jack Leonard, Assistant Building Director m\royal -- ~='O--- ~ RECF~V~D " . - \C.H b ~~ - 1 " [~~~~ I " :1 '. " I I !"ITY MA'\iA~E¡:-r" O-"!'" , \ '-'I ' , ,,'-.:I' ¡ ~ '" ì-,- \...,~ I-~--.. -,~~"y_.-- -.,." - _n ,c-- --- .".," -~ Æ . - B A K E R 5 F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Gail E. Waiters, Assistant City Manager Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney Leland J. Andersen, Community Services Manager Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director Steve Brummer, Chief of Police Michael R. Kelly, Fire Chief Jake Wager, Economic Development Director Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Directo~)/2 DATE: March 26, 1996 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES MANAGER I am pleased to announce the appointment of Jacques (Jack) LaRochelle to the position of Engineering Services Manager. Interviews for this position were conducted on Friday, March 22, 1996. Jack placed No.1 and has been selected to fill this position effective Monday, April 1, 1996. Under administrative direction, Jack will perform professional engineering and administrative work at an advanced level, and provide assistance to the Public Works Director with work of great complexity and sensitivity in the planning, organizing, directing, and coordinating the Engineering and Construction Divisions of the department. . - -,---==~---~~-~,~ . . ~~~Cl~: :'/~~:~~.." [-~._- ~.~_...- Copy: Carol Williams, City Clerk ¡ r II "h 1 I' ~. ¡'-JAR 2 1995 Public Works Division Heads & Staff L~::~"..,.,"~~..~.--_.--: . CiTY Mi\~\Jl/J~>:~; :. : - ~=~~_:'-. .