HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/96
,4-~
-, ~ .
--
B A K E R 5 F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
May 3, 1996
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNC7
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER #
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. There is a report and map enclosed ftom the Fire Department showing the results of several test
runs that were made recently to determine the response times and distances using existing and
proposed fire station locations. The biggest issues are that the new seniors' project is adequately
covered from two existing stations. The school that expressed concerns to you is adequately
covered by a County station proposed at Brimhall and Renfro.
2. A general update on the issue of Universal Collection is enclosed, as taken from the minutes of
the Metro Solid Waste Committee meeting, which was held on March 29th.
3. The Water Resources Manager reports that the Valley Communities, Inc. 1-5 disposal site is now
in compliance, based on the inspection results trom April 26th.
4. Letters are attached from the County and the Department of Toxic Substances Control relating
to our request for the Panorama Bum Dump Site Expedited Remedial Action Plan, The "order"
from County LEA has been rescinded. Weare being recommended for inclusion in that
program.
5. Also enclosed is a copy of the revised agreement between the City and County regarding closure
of the landfill. County staff has approved the revisions and has submitted to the Board of
Supervisors. It makes us the lead, rather than the County, and will go to Council after approval
by the Board.
6. Our understanding is that Castle & Cooke will do a "spec" building to promote economic
development in the Stockdale Industrial Park. We encouraged the incentive area, but no luck
there as yet.
7. If you have not picked up the information elsewhere, there is a general belief that Kern COG
undercut both the City and the County and made it easy for the State to take the $45 million
ITom the fteeway at this week's hearing. We are exploring, at Staff level, the potential to move
monies within our District from a project in the Mojave area to keep that project on schedule.
----- -----,
"'-"
~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 3, 1996
Page 2
8. Regarding the booking issue, we have asked the County if they would give a three or four year
fixed contract with rates adjustable only based on the Consumer Price Index, That would get
us out of the annual 18% increases. Enclosed is an alternative study on the costs of doing our
own booking facility. Chief Brummer will be adding the operational cost element. That could
be an economical alternative, particularly if the County says "no" to the multi-year deal.
9. We met with another "big box" prospect for the southeast this week and are making as strong
an offer as we think feasible.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Carol Williams, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
~-
"'::,
r ~ .
. --
B A K E R S F I E L D
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, city Manager
FROM: Miohael R. Kelly, Fire Chief ~
SUBJECT: Fire station Looations
We conducted several "test runs" in order to determine response times
and distances using existing and'proposed fire station location.
The results of our tests indicate:
1. Station 11 located at 7000 Stockdale Hwy. and Station 65
located on Rosedale Hwy. east of calloway Drive can respond to
the proposed Fairways project which is south of Brimhall Road
and west of Calloway Drive in approximately three (3) minutes.
Station 11 has the quickest response time of any existing or
proposed fire station.
The response time to this project for a new station at Allen
Road and San Juan Avenue would also be approximately three (3)
minutes. The response time for a new station at Brimhall Road
and Renfro Road would be approximately five (5) minutes.
2. The two proposed sites for a County fire station at Stockdale
Hwy. & San Juan Avenue and Brimhall Road & Renfro Road can
both respond to Del Rio School in under two (2) minutes. The
actual response time difference is two (2) seconds.
3. The only development planned within the next five to ten
years, on the west side of Buena vista Road from Stockdale
Hwy. to south of White Lane, is a gOO-acre parcel. This
parcel is not projected for development for at least four to
five years.
Attached are the results of the "test runs" as well as a map of the area
evaluated.
MRK/kec
Attachment
MEHO\XELLY\TEST.RUNS
IY~ de W~ ~~ vØ6~ ~ .A W~ "
--
--
> ~-.
" --:~~~~;s.,.
/0 "'.""'" "~'
, 7'" . ., "'~\
'~'~¿ MEMORANDUM
~ (~( ~"~, . ~ "WE c.-t R E"
\~.~
.. """ .,'
~y
TO: ~I.R. Kelly, Fire Chief
éJç
FRO~I: L. Graham, Battalion Chief
DA TE: 18 April 96
SUBJECT: Distance and Time ~Ieasurements
************************************************************************
A: The foHowing statistics were gained by measurement to the Fairways
development located North of Kern River Canal, West of Calloway Drive:
FROM TIME DISTANCE
* Station #11 2:48 2.2 miles
Station #65 3:05 1.8
* Allen Rd. & San Juan 2:57 2.25
* Station #9 4:38 3.0
Renfro & Brimhall
via Brimhall 4:52 3.6
* Renfro & Brimhall
via Stockdale Hwy. 4:53 4.1
Note: * 20 seconds and .2 miJes were added for uncompleted bridge aUowance.
-
..,.- -.
I .~
I þ~' page .2
,
8. To Hidalgo Drive & Culiacan Avenue:
FRO'I Time Iknc
Allen Rd. & San Juan 1:55 1.45
Renfro Rd. & Brimhall 1:57 1.3
c. To Buena Vista & White Lane:
From Time IäI1œ
Station #9 4:27 3.1
Park View Drive
3600 Block 2:27 1.6
D. Point to point statistics:
FRO "I TO TIiVlE DISTANCE
Allen-San Juan Allen-Stockdle :15 .15
Allen-San Juan BN-Stockdale 1:27 1.3
Brimhall- Renfro BN -S tockdale 3:24 2.8
BN-Stockdale BN - White Ln. 1:36 1.6
\
~----~-~---~- -~--
Æ .
-
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Alan Tandy, City Manager h April 25, 1996
TO:
}"ROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director :' I ita
~
RE: UPDA TE ON UNIVERSAL COLLECTION
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the March 29th Metro Solid Waste
Committee meeting minutes:
Roland Burkert of Kern County Waste Management reported that the County Metropolitan
Area Program will mirror the City's program with one greenwaste pick up and one refuse
pick up per week. He is currently drafting a report for the Board of Supervisors to be
presented on May 10th and is also working on the rate and contract terms with Mr. Bob
Bovee of Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc. Kevin Barnes asked Mr. Burkert whether the
greenwaste material from the County curbside collection program would go to the Mt.
Vernon Recycling Facility, and Mr. Burkert replied that it was under consideration. Pat
DeMond asked Roland Burkert about the universal collection plans for the east side of
Bakersfield and Mr. Burkert showed how the overall plan would work on a wall map. Mr.
Burkert indicated that the plan is to implement universal collection throughout the entire
metropolitan area all at once and then phase in automation on a practical basis, considering
the various hauling company operations. Mr. Burkert indicated that the billing for universal
collection would be recommended to be placed on the property tax bill and that the County
Supervisors have been briefed on the issue and he anticipates approval of the concept in
May with implementation in July of 1997. Mr. Bob Bovee of Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc.
indicated that greenwaste curbside collection routes in the City and County operated by the
private haulers would result in greenwaste from both jurisdictions being placed aboard the
same truck. He indicated that the City and County would need to apportion the amount
of greenwaste for each jurisdiction's recycling efforts according to the amount of greenwaste
making up the load as reported by the driver.
.- - ---'
$ cc: KB: smp REr'~~\lED
KBCORMEMIUPUNCLMEM ~ -~ '~~1 I
'~9.!
-,~
',::"\'5 OFFIC'~
,""'"-~"
- --
v City í of Båkersfield Date,...4,,:,:çCZ,-::.2f2,.......,..,..........,...-
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
T~.,.",. ."~u..lJ",,1ÀtJ.P,y'_..,=,(1T:<....,M~~Þ.Þ,f£...,,..................- ¡
From."....,6..,~.....\Ð.MU................................."................,---.-....-
I
I For Your:- 'J<' n forma tion
0 Signature 0 Action 0 File
Please:-
0 Return 0 See Me 0 Follow Up 0 Prepare Answer
Copy to: '.............................'................,......,....,..............,..,.....-...-..-..--......-
Memo : ...,J.Y-$I..,..ß~.C&.,\v.,f;.D....:lli.\.,~.....l.blf.Q......_._--
...........B:(." ".Eß2<-.._lõ.D.~~......=..,. .."......-....................,.-.-....-.-.-........
, """'" hm'~'.m~t~.....~!.C!.J!."",tÞ.,."~.,l.~,,.....,...._.._.."-"""'"
.........(~,MÐJA, pœ..~...,. ,...w..~,.,..ÞlIL\........~§n..,TQ...._............-
.-... ....V.~.1 .F.Y.".. y.! ,ç,." h.. ...w, Q~ l1PJ~J~C? ..., R §, P.9ß..1 ~.....__._._,
I "'" '.. .f çf . ..O..Ç,1...~2 $". ....1ß.~, ~ .~, ",.t ~.~L~..~~".~ \!..§....... ..... .--..
I ........12~..(QMf,~..,~" ,fp~~~QÞ.v),..JO..........._,.........._.
.._.,$)ThTh. ... \Y~M. G.\iI'q IY ~ßÞ,- .Wl\&J~Y_.. I
..,.......YQv:..íÞ.g~...........~"..""..............",.."......................""""."""
, . ¡ .
;
.
-,
Valley Communities. Inc.
FAX MEMORANDUM
April 29, 1996
TO: Gene Bogart
FROM: Jim Trigueiro FAX: (80S) 326-3098
RE: Acknowledeement of Inspection & Compliance
The attached report was received via fax from Kevin Long~ I have forwarded a copy a copy
via fax to your office to expedite receipt. I note on the cover letter from Mr. Long that the
original mail copies will include one tor your files.
With the receipt of this information, I would appreciate your assistance in coordinating
with the City agencies to expedite the release of funds which were held pending verification
of compliance.
Should you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact my office immediately.
I appreciate your cooperation.
..
Attachments:
4/29/96-Report & Compliance
, ,~RECEIVED I
'-. 'i \
. . APR :r:.8.: I. '
"W:. I
'.
~ CITY ~/¡':\NAGER'S OFFIC::
-
~~W~~O - ~~NIKHL VHlLt ItL No.lU9-445-5910 Apr 26.96 17:47 No.OO6 P,Ol
. . .
¡
sr,ue OFtAlIFORNIA. Env/(onrnen~~~kIn Agency ~ , -- . . _,h_,., "- _._,.,!'E!~-~'!-~: Govomo!
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION .~~~þ~
3614 EaSI AshIM MG. . ..to<, .
~~~ \ ~
PHONE: (209) 445-5118. 'fj
I"-^X: (209) ...,S-5V10 ~
.~.
.
29 AI)cil 1996
Mr. Jim Trigueh'(.', President
VatJey Communities, Inc.
S31 California A Ven\'e ,
Bakersfield, CA 93304 .
V ATJI.EY COMMUNITIES, INC., INSPECTION nF.I'OrtT TRANSMITTAL
Thank you for taking me on a tour of the Vëtllcy Communities. tne" recJamafÎOI1 site on 25 April
1996. The findings of the inspection me included in the ílt,t;lChed report If you have any questions
regarding the inspccfjon, please contact me at (209) 445.(,187.
h--vv:- y¿; ¿" ð--
KBVIN D. LONG
WRC Engincr.r
Attachment
çc: Mr. Gene Bogart, Manager, Bakersfield Department or Water Res()urce~
Mr., Joe Turner, Was(ewatcr Supeduteudent, City of ßaJ,ersfield
i
,
,
>.. ..
I þp,;;., "
i ~,
I
I
I
,
I
!
LKWWL~ - ~tNI~HL VHLLE TEL No.209-445-5910 Apr 26.96 17:47 No.OO6 P.O2
~~F~~ ~O' 5~ FACILITIES IN~PECTION REPORT
, IWRC" DOt IREV,Utl
,
.INSP~CTO~1.- PCA System Task No. 12,nt
- ...-..-.- I ,-.._u - --
I
~nt¡;~1MQð1 VALl ,"Y_COMJIIIIINITI~~ INC. I --- l:5£Ef1..UFNT nl~p()~AI fil'l"F..
vms NUMBER HAM!: ~ AGENCY on rAArr RES/'Otf5IlE, fOR )1~ÇHÞAt¡f ' fWÆ Of' FACILITY
.&3.1.c.aliJ.arnla.AIúaDJ&e-_. ¡ -.'-...-...-, 1,5 &,1J\FT ~Wy
NF'DfS N\JM8£R AGENCY STREET' fACIliTY STAfET
91 01 IU .Balutl'ßrmlri ,CA i JJJDj---,- R:"u~r..fl.."" CA
(vy) IMM) CTYrE) AGI!NCV em Nlf) 81ATE; fAClll'rY (;111 ANti STATe:
I
~C~ICOUU:O INSPECTION DATA JIM TRIGUFJRO..P..maid.enf I ---.. _u,~ LOUIETORRF~. ~lfP1 FnrP1mAn
AGENCYCOUrACT P£R!Y:)N Ol4SITE FACILITY CONTACT rEASON
~r. n. ~!Õ YVt.lMtI[J) l805).63'-ßgG7 .. ~ÐOS) :\!l2.~g2S
l<~TUAlINSPECT ON DATE AGFNCY rHONE NO, fACILITY rHOliE NO,
8 Inspection egency (State II!! S, Stale I EPA Joint = J)
, If Ihis Inspeclion 15 . Compliance In&peclion of an NPOES rllcility, send II c"rv 01 Ihl! repcrt 10 SWRCB's Division or Waler Quality,
PICI{ r;tf'n Support Unit,
lÑ8PËCiíõN TYPE (Cheël('õnø) ---
¿~--- ,--,.. ,...-, ..
A 1 - "A" type Compll~n~ - Comprehensive In,pection In whIch umple8 aro lakeR. (EPA Type 5)
B2 - "8" type compliance - A routine nonSllmpllng Inspedlon, (EÞA type C)
02 _X- Noncomptlance follow. up .. Inspeclion mtlCle to verify Cofrl~c"on or a previously Id!!nllried violation.
03 - Enrorcement fonOW.Up - ,"splctlon made to veriry !hat condition, of ¡m IIlIluro..;elllf:111 actIon are being met.
04 ~ Cl)mplalnt - Inspection made In response to :II colnplaint.
as -,- Prt-requlremenl- Inspection made 10 gather Info. relalwe 10 preparing, modifying, or (ue:lndillg requirements.
06 ~ MiscellaneouS - AnylMpection type nol rnclllionelf above.
If this is fin EPA II'I$J)ecllon not mønlio"ed above. please nole type,
--- (e.g. - biomónilorlng. performanet audit, diagnoslic. etc.)
(Typo)
,,""- --.,..-.-..--=- - ~-
~ Were VIOLATIONS noled durln9lhJ~ Inspeclion? (YeslNo/P,nljing $il1I11110 ne!uIIs)
N Was U111 a Quality Assurance'B.seClII'1~reGllon? (Y/N)
-
N Were blotlUlty ,.mplss taken? (N c No) If 'rES. I~en S ' Static or F c Flowthrough.
-
JNSPE~CT'oÑ'sTfMijÅRYIR~~Ql~_~.Qu1 ÕO charaëi¡; limit)
I
I
VIOL.,'. ATIONS OF ~RRS OR NUISANCJ(CONIJITIONS ',VER~ NOT, .QETE~. TED
DURING THE INS) ECTION. ': POOR 0 Ri GrNN-.
,( "
, , -', - .
INSP~CTOR'S DATA:
~ " i/J /
INITlAlS_..KDL SIGNATURE_..,. /~l'-'lr._~.::.-.-"Æ:'t.~". DATE 4/26/9&
: r
i ?
: - -~,- -!-...--- "_n, - --.... ~
, Fpllr~\"IrI\l1 U'\I: n.\lvÏ\M$tI tIy. (1) , ------------;. (2),____-,-,----- (3)___~
Reg, WDS CoordÍl1111tor
Wos Oat8 Entty Date:_____R~gronøl Board File Number:_~
I
LKWWLtl - L~NTRRL VALLE TEL No.209-445-S~10 Apr 26,96 17:47 No.OO6 P.O3
. -, " ~ e t=ACIL~TIES INSPECTION
'I '. ~ . REPORT
"WIICS 'OllftrV, 1"'1
, OJ, I 11'10-'1 ..
-_.,.........,....:-,-:::-:~:.. I ~ ............,-_.._, -
VIOLA TIÇ>N (IF APPLICABLE)
-~- . ---~ --n. - ~
i
VIOLATION TYPE? (A.G) - (S.. plga. IKOS.O Itlld IK111.1 of Iha Micro Wnsle Di,ellluger Sr,tom USO,. M3nut\l,
DATE OFVIO\.AlIOff (Y\'MMDD): ----.~-- pATE O~ VIOLATION DE1ERMINA110N (VYMMDD):
DESCRIPTION (200 CHARACTER LIMIT):
, '-"""""""'" I """-- ,--,..-. ..._--------,--,_._-
i
..--¡. .,- '..----........ --, -'-"""'--
I
... -"'... ".." .....,.. i .-~---,_._- --..
!
--. "-"-----' ""'-"", --_..... -.---..,..,-----..------,. ~
----- ..--..-.,-"-.-----..----- .
.._--~-- -""-"--1'-'--"-"'-""""'" --.
I
EPA SUGGESTED INSPECTION CHECKLIST
.. , I
.., ---- (8" S.t~~~8;1;:~- MarRlnal. U= UnSl1llsfilctory. N= Nol Eva'ual.d)
I
~ Pennlt Ji-. rh7¥V MeasurDlne"t . 1i- Protrø:,\tment -L Operation. & Maintenance
..8.- Rec.ordlReports .N- Lllboratorl81 ~ Compliance Schedules -H- Sludge DispOS81
,
-5-.:.. Facility SIte Review ~ Eff.IRec;tlvlng Wat.,. : _L- Snir-Mollltorlng - OChor
. '....-,..-....,....-' .... ...,-,-_u...... --"'-...-, .~._-
i
Å-Overell Façi/ity Operation Evaluation (5" Vary rollable, 3- SaU.f.ctcny. 1- Unreliable) ,
I
..,.-'----.,------,- , 0 ,-- -- ,
..----.--...,-.....---,--. i """'---""'"
.
IISTORICAL INFORMATION: ¡
, .
I I
,lOST RECENT ORDERS: MOST RECENT INSPECTIONS: MOST RECENT VIOl-ATIONS:
' i
}tWEa~. DATEADOeIED nu WJ¡ ¡ IHSl.l1r..E ïIOLATIONS? WH..:rœ.E DAIE
94.366 94 12 09 REC 98 02 28 I 81 Y I! 9& 02 28
I
88-17~ 88 09 23 REO 94 12 21 ¡ 91 N. " A
85-139 850531 REC ,; fl 'POOR OR~GrNAL ;,~
.. I
ADDITIONAL COMM~:~TS1 SPECIAÇ INSTf~Úë~;;~~,~~~~MS FOR FOLLOWUP ~N
FUTURE INSPECTIONS, NOTES, ETC. (Attach additIonal pages, If necessary)
I
. ,~- i '-.....---..------.- .-
On Thur!iday. ;~._~;~,~; 1996, at 10:00 ¡1.m.,!J visited Ihc"~,~~~~;-¡~'~:nul1itje:5. Inc., (VCI) 1-5 wastewater
reclrtmation site AS follow-up to an iJ1~pecthrn in Februrtr)' 1996 which found that VCI ,,'¡olated its
Wastewater Reclamation Requirements, Ortier No. 88-172 (WH Rs), for allowing treated emuent to
discharge into uncultivated areas of'the nun~. I was accompanied by Jim Triguciro, President ofVCJ.
and Louie 'forres, VCl's site fbrman and field manager. The weilther was sunny and about 75 degrees F.
I observed that vcrs on-site en1uen( storagþ reservoir was drawn down to about half full, and effluent
from the City of ßakersfield Wastewater Trþalmcl1t Plant No.3 was be-jng beneficially reused for
irrigation. All of the fields being úsed for efnl1cllt redamatiC'JJ had working taHwatcr recovery systems.
Nuisance conditions were not detected. I al~o looked at each oflhe on-site groundwater monitoring wells
to verify that well bead. protection controls (four steel pipr,s palntcd bright orange) were present. Based
, on my observations durin~ the inspection, ~CJ is nll1'ently opcrAting hi c,omplianœ with its WRRs.
I' i
.\'" , '
-
"
\-.. ,-.I:>,
,.,.~.,\. ',.,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
:¡
STEVE McCALLEY, R.E.H.S., Director DA VlD PRICE In, RMA DIRECTOR
27Ð0"M"'STREET. SUITE300 EnginHrina . Survey S8rYIc88 D..,.nment
BAKERSFIELD. CA 83301 environmental H88WI Serv1c88 Dep8ltment
Phone: (805) 862-8700 Pl8MIng OefIanment
FAX: (805) 862-8701 R08d8 Department
-.- ',- _.. u- ,
,...J '
',< --,
;" 1.:' " iaa~
l\, ",' ,.., ""OJ
April 24, 1996 "'.. " ..
, ,:: ;'.. .. ~: -: '..
Megan Cambridge, Chief
Expedited Remedial Action Program
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
P. O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
SUBJECT: Panorama Burn Dump Site, Bakersfield, California
Notice and Order, No. 102-96-01
Dear Ms. Cambridge:
Our Depanment has reviewed the request from the Depanment of Toxic Substances
Control to hold in abeyance the Notice and Order, No. 102-96-01, issued to the City of
Bakersfield on March 1, 1996, requiring submittal of a remediation plan for the Panorama
Burn site. The Notice and Order required specific actions by the City of Bakersfield
including submittal of a remediation plan. We have no objection to holding in abeyance
that portion of the Notice and Order requiring submittal of a remediation plan, specifically
requirement (A.):
"By May 6, 1996 submit a revised plan to remediate the health risks for the
residents, of homes aiong the southern landfill boundary J associated with
short term and long term exposure to heavy metals (nickel, cadmium, lead)
and dioxin/furans . .. ".
This decision is not applicable to the remaining requirements and compliance dates of the
Notice and Order. U the Depanment of Toxic Substances Control does not select this site
for the Expedited Remediation Action Program, then the Notice and Order will be reissued
with a modified compliance date.
-..
~ - --
~
"....,~ A' r
~
Megan Cambridge, Chief
Expedited Remedial Action Program
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
Page Two
April 24, 1996
We look forward to resolving the health risks and environmental concerns at this site. If
you have any questions, please contact me.
SMc:DW:jg
cc: RWQCB, Central Valley, Dane Johnson
CIWMB, Closure Branch, Charlene Herbst
-ei". 6faIJIlfmtmë1, -RãulKo1'filt.'
File
Resource Management Agency, David Price III
, -
'.,- ,..-.
".- '"
I ~ ....l,
I ..iTATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . "PETE WILSON. GoIl'ltmOf'
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ,- '. ~ "', ¡gol" @
'" '. ,..;, "0
" , "
REGION 1
10151 CROYDON WAY, SUITE 3 ~: '-, '. '-,; ~'::),;\::,:'":'-
SACRAMENTO. CA 9.5827-2106 - ~ , .
(916) 255-3545
,/ :¡, ;J"
, , f ",'-'Iy
L / '. ( ,
April 24, 1996(-- ~ !'~~~5
~I
-...J
Mr. Steve McCalley, Director
Kern County Environmental
Health Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
PANORAMA BURN DUMP SITE - BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. McCalley:
On March 26, 1996, the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) received an application from the City of
Bakersfield to remediate contamination at the Panorama Burn Dump
Site (Site) in Bakersfield, California, under the Expedited
Remedial Action Program (ERAP), created by Chapter 6.85 of the
Health and Safety Code. In accordance with the requirements of
the ERAP, DTSC is preparing a recommendation package to be
evaluated by the Site Designation Committee to determine if the
site is appropriate for the ERAP. As part of preparing the
recommendation package, DTSC has researched past historical
activities at this Site. DTSC has learned that Kern County
issued a "Notice and Order, No. 102-96-01" to the City of
Bakersfield on March 1, 1996, directing the City to develop a
remedial action plan for the Site. DTSC requests Kern County
hold the "Notice and Order" in abeyance upon the Site being
selected for the ERAP. A letter supporting this request is
greatly appreciated and will assist with processing of the
recommendation package.
ft
~~
,..- ,-' ~
..
Mr. Steve McCalley
April 24, 1996
Page 2
If you should have any questions regarding this matter,
please contact Mr. Adam Palmer at (916) 255-3669.
Sincerely,
~~~~
-'
Megan Cambridge, Chief
Expedited Remedial Action Program
cc: Mr. Mike Gnekow
Kern County Environmental Health Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
AP .Iaw
a:\n8oI1r,Jmc
I '
-:' -,~ i--T:~c: ..:~ ~ - ~ ~~ =KEß" COU"lY WAnE MA"A6EME"T DEPARTME"T
I .;,~
I " .__.~-- "', - I -/----//-
,9 ( I Daphne N. Wa~hington, Director
! ¡ ? IC'C'~ I 2700 "M" Street, Suite 500
¡ ¡ J "I Bakersfield, CA 9330 I
'j '==-"=_d. ,,~,.,--J ,; (805) 862-8900
;C1TY MAÎIJ?,'.3:':;i'S OFFIC::: ¡ (800) 552-KERN (option 6)
'-d - h~~' Fax: (805) 862-890 I
May 7, 1996
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Administrative Center
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
RE: City/County Agreement # 534-91 Revision (All S.D.'S)
FUNDING: No Change; Mandated
City ofBakersfie1d staffhas revised the existing agreement between the City of Bakersfield (owner)
and County of Kern (operator) concerning the Baker~field City Landfill. The major revision is to
establish the City of Bakersfield as the lead agency in all matters relative to the closure of the landfill
County staff (Waste Management Department and County Counsel) have reviewed the revisions and
concur with the changes.
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that your Bo~rd approve the revisions to the
Agreement, authorize the Chainnan to sign and direct the Waste Management Department to forward
the signed agreements to the City Council for signature.
Sincerely, -..
,-- " ~- f '1/?' -'+
~ r..ÞVtW
Daphne H. Washington
Director
DHW::abr
G:\ WORKGRPS\CLERICAL \BO ARD\B286-DHW. ABR
Enclosures: Agreements (6)
CC: City Manager, Alan Tandy
Assistant City Attorney, Alan D, Daniel
Public Works Director, Raul Rojas
Solid Waste Director, Kevin Barnes
~_ß =-~:;:";- ~ \ q - 0
' ~'t:'-'=""--
, \ r~~¡ j ~- 1
. \ L'Y" 2 . \
kIT\{ MANAGER'S OffiCE
I: ..
,
---- ------
,
"
I ¡>,.' AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF KERN - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD tofP¥
DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR
CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE
BAKERSFIELD WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
City Contract #
County Contract #
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on , by and
between the COUNTY OF KERN, a political subdivision of the State of
California, (the "County") and the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal
corporation, (the "City").
RJ;C~~ALS
WHEREAS, the Bakersfield solid waste disposal site (the "Site")
consists of approximately 132 acres within portions of Section 10, 11,
14 and 15, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, Mount Diablo Basin &
Meridian; and,
WHEREAS, the Site was originally the location of a burning dump
operated by the City from 1943 to 1956; and,
WHEREAS, the City ceased burning dump operations in 1956 and
commenced using the Site for sanitary landfill operations (disposing
solid waste of City residents) which continued until January 1, 1975,
at which time the County replaced the City as operator (accepting and
disposing solid waste from residents of the City and the unincorporated
area); and,
-
WHEREAS, the County operated a sanitary landfill on the Site from
January 1, 1975 through September 15, 1983; and,
WHEREAS, sanitary landfill operations on the Site have remained
inactive since September 15, 1983; and,
WHEREAS., on June 28,1991, the Kern County Environmental Health
Department, the designated Local Enforcement Agency, acting on behalf
of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, issued a Notice
and Order, citing several violations of State standards for solid waste
handling and disposal and ordering the City and the County to take
corrective actions; and,
,----- -
I
\
WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to delineate these new
responsibilities in a new contract and terminate the existing ~¡
understanding between them concerning the landfill closure.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing-recitals herein, it is
mutually agreed, byth~ County and the City as follows:
: 1. PRIOR AGREEMENT TERMINATED. Agreements 91-201 (City) and
,-534-91 (County) are hereby terminated. This agreement shall now govern
-the. relationship between the City and County concerning the Site.
2. PURPOSE. The City and County are jointly responsible for
closure and postclqsure maintenance associated with the Site, except
for burn dump and landfill gas control, for which the City is solely
responsible. This contract sets forth the respective responsibilities
of the City and County for closure and postclosure maintenance
activities at the Site. This Agreement is intended to be comp~ehensive .
_0 :rg,g~rding th~ =d\ltiesand -functionEt~ each party- is ~to ,under~take with -:-1
respect to the closure and postclosure activities; however, City and
County shall cooperate and execute whatever documents and take whatever
actions are necessary to carry out the purposes and responsibilities
set forth herein. The City shall assume the role of lead agency for
closure of the Site and for postclosure maintenance activities and
shall have all the power, authority and control of lead agency. County
shall assist in the closure and bear its fair share of costs incurred.
The specific responsibilities designed to carry out these general
purposes are set forth below.
3. - JOINT CITY AND COURTY RESPONSIBILITIBS. With the exception
of the activities described in provision 4 below, the City and the
County shall be jointly and equally responsible for "funding and
accomplishing those activities associate9 with the following:
a. Conducting periodic site review (Title 14 California
Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 17607).
b. Solid Waste Assessment Testing, monitoring and reporting
(Water Code Section 13273).
c. . Closure design and construction and postclosure
'U-.. ,--' . - . --~ -~. _,~IJla).nt~J).g,nç::~t!.=,-----~ =- '--- --~-~-- --'"==='='- ---~~- ~--~-
- ---~ ~_. ._~~'- comPl~ance with apPl~Cable environmen~al l~WS inClU~ing, I
but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq. ) .
e. Sharing closure costs as set forth in this Agreement.
f. Review and concur with proposed scopes of work for
consultant and contractor services.
COUNTY Of KERN ~ CITY Of BAKERSfIELD AGREEMENT
AGR1(ADD)\waste.agr
--April 26, 1996
- Page 2 of 9 Pages -
-----
J
.
4. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. The City shall be solely
~. responsible for accomplishing the following activities:
a. The control of off-site gas migration, including
satisfying all closure and postclosure maintenance
requirements regarding'gas monitoring.
b. Burn dump remediation and closure measures, including,
but not limited to, those actions required by regulatory
agencies. Remediation activities may be addressed
within the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) work,
closure investigation, planning, design, and
construction, environmental investigations and
assessments and/or postclosure maintenance.
c. City shall be lead agency for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et. seq.), for closure and for postclosure
. maintenance activities at the site. All lead agency
activities which were being performed by County under a
previous contract shall now be performed by City unless
otherwise agreed herein. All contracts with outside
consultants currently administered by County shall be
assigned by County to City and City shall take County's
place in the administration of said contracts and
control of said consultants. Said contracts with
consultants shall be considered assigned to City with
the execution of this contract; however, County shall
cause a written assignment of each contract to be made
to City with appropriate notice to all parties, and all
other legal formalities adhered to, which
I ---
.
<
b. Cit~ and Cou~ty shall devote the st~ff time necessary to
reVlew work ln progress, attend brlefing meetings and ì;J
to otherwise assure project work proceeds to a timely
and proper conclusion. '
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
a. City -shall review and recommend payment requests
--. submitted ,by consultants and contractors and be
.., responsible for adIDinistering all
contracts and
agreements for those items and activities for which it
is solely responsible.
b. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by City and County's
respective Project Coordinators, City shall provide
contract administration, for contract or professional
services relating to Solid Waste Assessment Test
-'- _act_iY.:ï..:!;J~s, _E:m_vi.J;Q.~I'IJ~D~al_rev.j,ew açt~vi tj.el?h -and other -~
-' - clòsu:í:è' and postclosüre maintenance activities. All
contracts and consultants now under contract with County
concerning these activities shall now report to City and
the contract shall be assigned by County to City as set
forth in this Agreement.
c. Contract administration with respect to independent
contractors hired to provide services relating to
closure andpostclosure maintenance of the Site includes
" the following:
" .. ',.
( 1) ,Drafting, printing and distributing Request for
Proposals to qualified geotechnical and
environmental consultants (particularly with
respect to SWAT, CEQA, closure design and
construction and postclosure maintenance
activities).
(2) Condùcting pre-proposal meetings for consultants
interested in submitting proposals.
(3) Responding to inquiries from interested I
consul tants regarding the work to be performed
i---. =' ~,.. --'-'-=- ~-=:= C--;~--. ~=='pr.tör=t"o~Othe -sÜJ5mïtt:a.'l-of~p:tópO-Š'ã.~rsT. -~---_.~ = - c~- ' c -I
I
(4) Reviewing the proposals submitted and recommending I
applicants to the City and the County for !
interview and selection.
(5) Inspecting, reviewing and evaluating work in
progress and invoices and billings and otherwise
ensuring contract compliance.
COUNTY OF KERN - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGREEMENT
AGR1(ADD)\waste.agr
--April 26, 1996 ;
- Page 4 of 9 Pages -
--
j
.
d. The party providing contract administration for any item
I ;;:\' of work shall keep the other party informed of its
progress; promptly advising the other party of any
changes or developments impacting on the scheduling of
and/or the completion of the item of work.
e. The party providing contract administration services for
any particular item of,work shall maintain, and cause
project consultants' to maintain, full communication
with the other party's designated representative at all
times.
f. City and County shall maintain accurate records
pertaining to work undertaken and costs incurred
(including administering contracts with conpultants)
by their respective staffs.
8. COST SHARIRG FOR JOINT CITY AND COUNTY RESPO~SIBILITIES.
a. Except for items 4.a. and 4.b. described above that are
the sole responsibility of City (see particularly
provision 4 for a description of those items that are
the sole responsibility of City), the cost of all other
project work shall be shared equally between City and
County.
b. The "In-House" costs (staff time, laboratory testing,
administering, monitoring, inspecting and reviewing the
work of consultants, equipment, overhead, etc.) incurred
by City and County associated with those items of work
that are the shared responsibility of City and County
are a part of the cost of the Project and shall be
shared equally. This equal sharing of "In-House" costs
may require a larger financial contribution by one party
should the other party be contributing more staff time
or other "In-House" costs than the other party.
c. To facilitate the cost sharing for those items of work
that are the shared responsibility of City and County,
expense and revenue codes shall be agreed upon and
established in order to make payments and receive
revenue for activities performed and work undertaken
pursuant to this Agreement. Both parties shall make
similar arrangements with respect to its payment and
accounting system.
(1) County shall bill City and City shall reimburse
County for costs and expenses (including the "In-
House" costs described above) incurred by County
in performing work that is the shared
responsibility of the parties pursuant to this
Agreement (Provision 2).
COUNTY OF KERN -' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGREEMENT
AGR1 (ADD) \waste.agr
--April 26, 1996
I
t
~
(2) City shall bill County and County shall reimburse ¡..
City for costs and expenses (including the "In-
House" costs described above) incurred by City in
performing work that is the shared responsibility
of the parties pursuant to this Agreement
, . ",( Provision- 3) .
'( 3.) Bills shall be submitted, to, the other party no
more frequently than quarterly and shall be paid
or reconciled within thirty (30) days of receipt.
(4) To facilitate their respective budgeting process,
the parties shall submit to each other by March
31st of each year an estimate of the total amount
to be billed the other party pursuant to this
, Agreement during the succeeding fiscal year
(July 1 through June 30). :,:
--,-- -._ð' ,- . - ""'~."-=--'_. ""'::.~-. _J,-- - -~, -~-, ,,'.':. , ;;-, ' - ' ",
9. CLOSURE CORSTRUCTIOH. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by
City's and County's Project Coordinators, City will act as project
administrator for closure construction, overseeing the following items'
of work:
a. Preparation of plans and specifications.
b. Providing construction inspection and field survey~ng.
- --', - - c. The costs '-incurred by City in' performing. th_~ above items
'., . - shall be, shared equally by City and County.,: i-ncluding
.'~ .,
" . . - procurement costs' and permitting costs." .
..-
10. ACCESS TO THE SITE. City shall be responsible for providing
access to the Site.
11. IHDEMIIIFICATIOH.
a. Neither party 'shall be liable to the other party for any
loss, damage, liability, claim, or cause of action for
damage- to or destruction of property or for injury to or
death of persons arising solely from any act of omission
- . =i=' '-----='V~~=-"-'-<O+~'=-- -~~q! -:th~.. 2~11~-:r;$.Pß:r:_ty~' ~~~9.-ifJ9~~rfÜ _empJ_9y'e~s_-o~~.gep.t~,.!=o-~ "---
- - - . ~ ,- -- -, - , " -
b. City and County àgree to indemnify and hold each other
harmless from any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses or ,causes of action which arise by virtue of the
acts or omissions of their respective officers,
employees and agents.
COUNTY OF KERN - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGREEMENT "
AGRI (ADD) \waste.agr
--April 26, 1996
- Page 6 of 9 Pages -
I '"
'.
I .~ 12. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall remain in force
.- until closure and postclosure maintenance activities to be undertaken
at the Site are complete to the satisfaction of City, County, and
applicable regulating agencies.
13. HOTICES AHD CORRESPOHDEHCE. All correspondence with respect
to this Agreement shall be deemed delivered upon personal service or
sent via the u.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid and addressed as
follows:
TO THE CITY: TO THE COUNTY:
City of Bakersfield County of Kern
Public Works Department Waste Management Department
4101 Truxtun Avenue 2700 "M" Street, Suite 500
Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93301
I
v
.
20. BIHDIHG EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement.
shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the'
I contract and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal
representatives, successors and assigns.
I "21. MERGERAHD MODIFICATIOH. All prior agreements" between the
parties are incorporated in this Agreement whiéh constitutes the entire
contract. Its terms are intended by the parties as a final expression
of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included herein
and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or
contemporaneous oral agreement. The parties further intend this
Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of its terms
and no'extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial
or arbitration proceeding involving this Agreement. This Agreement may
be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and Board of
Supervisors. '
.' , . - - -
22. ACCOURTIRG^RKCORDS. Cìty afiatounty shall maintain accurate
accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all
costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and'
documentation ,shall be kept at City or County's principal office during
the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three years from the
date of the final payment hereunder, and said records shall be made
available to City or County representatives upon request at any time
during regular business hours.
23. EXHIBITS. In the event of conflict between the terms,
conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in
exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specificatións set
forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference
is made in this Agreemént are deemed incorporated in this Agreement
whether or not actually attached.
24. CORPORATE "AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this
Agreement represents and warrants they are duly authorized to execute
and deliver this Agreement on beha¡f of the corporation or
organization, if any, named herein and this Agreement is binding upon
said corporation or organization in accordance with its terms.
25. EXECUTI08. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It
'. j,s th~""RJ:'o£i1d,c~~_ot..~negQj:,ia~ionand~therefore. shall.. ,-not.--be ~construed. = .
-_.~ ãgairÚ3t any party. "
26. 80 IRTERBST. No officer or employee of the City shall hold
any interest in this contract. (California Government Co~e 1090).
COUNTY OF KERN - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGREEMENT
AGR1 (ADD) \waste.agr
--April 26, 1996 .
- Page 8 of 9 Pages - I
I
------
I
\¡, (
. I .
!
'j' 27. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. The acceptance of work or payment for
% work by City or County shall not constitute a waiver of any provisions
. ~
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed this day of , 1996.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ("City") COUNTY OF KERN ("County")
By: By:
BOB PRICE BARBARA PATRICK, Chairperson
Mayor Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By: By:
RAUL ROJAS
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,JUDY K. SKOUSEN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
City Attorney
By: By:
ALAN D. DANIEL BERNARD C. BARMANN
Assistant City Attorney County Counsel
COUNTERSIGNED:
By:
GREGORY J. -- KLIMKO
Finance Director
ADD: laa
COUNTY OF KERN - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGREEMENT
AGRI (ADD) \waste.agr
--April 26, 1996
- Page 9 of 9 Pages -
'"
I :',
BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
TEMPORARY HOLDING FACILITY STUDY
1 MAY 1996
- -
- -
- -
----- -
- --- -- -
- - --
- - -
- - -
- - - -
- - --
- --- -- -
----
- - - -- -
-
I '"
I N D EX
1. Purpose of the Study
2. Executive Summary
3. Space Requirements and Floor Plans
4. Location and Site Plans
5. Statement of Probable Costs
6. Appendix
~
I
1
1. Purpose of the Study
The Bakersfield Police Department is investigating the feasibility of
developing a Temporary Holding Facility in close proximity to the downtown
Police Station for use in transferring and staging arrestees prior to
transportation to the Kern County Sheriff's lerdo facility.
The purpose of this study is as follows:
. Develop the facility's space requirements based on the booking
records provided by the Police Department.
. Develop a schematic floor plan of the facility based on the space
requirements.
. Recommend a location for the facility and develop a site plan.
. Prepare a Statement of Probable Construction and Project Costs.
---
-
<
"
2
2. Executive Summary
The result of this study is the recommendation to construct a single story
Temporary Holding Facility for 38 arrestees at the southwest corner of the
intersection of 16th and Eye Streets.
The direct construction cost (at today's market cost) for this facility is
estimated to be about $600,000 for conventional construction and
$633,000 for modular construction. (See Article 5 for total project costs.)
Resources for this Study included Booking Records provided by the
Bakersfield Police Department and a Letter of Intent by the Bakersfield Police
Department to the Board of Corrections.
Members of the Study Team included Sergeant Quentin Smith, (Bakersfield
Police Department), Greg A. Barker, AlA, (Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.,
Justice Facilities Consultant), and Frank A. Ghezzi, AlA (BFGC Architects
Planners Inc.)
,
~
3
3. Space Requirements and Floor Plan
CapacitY Reauirements
The planning for this study is based upon the following objectives articulated
by the Bakersfield Police Department.
8 Minimize patrol resources from being tied up transporting
prisoners to the lerdo jail facility by staging prisoners for
transport in groups.
8 Provide a safe, secure facility that is efficient to supervise and
enables prisoners to be appropriately isolated from other police
functions and one another as necessary.
8 Have the flexibility to later serve as an intake area for larger
Type I holding facility (enabling prisoners to be held for up to 96
hours exclusive of weekends and holidays.)
A temporary holding facility would enable the police department to hold
prisoners for up to 24 hours pending release or transfer. In order to
accomplish the objectives itemized above, the holding facility must have
adequate capacity for the following:
8 To hold prisoners in sufficient quantities to accumulate a van
load of prisoners for transport (approximately 15 prisoners).
8 Provide adequate separation between men and women and
isolation of violent prisoners.
8 Hold inebriates per Board of Corrections standards pending
transfer to the jailor until they can be safely released.
Jail capacity is typically assessed based upon the anticipated average daily
population (ADP) of inmates. The prisoners move through a temporary
holding facility far too quickly for capacity to be driven by the daily
population. Instead, two sets of county booking records for arrestees from
the City of Bakersfield were examined. Daily booking summaries for
September, 1990, to June, 1995 provided information on arrests and detox
cases by gender. More detailed booking records for the month of February,
1996, provided the specific booking times for arrests on new offenses and
warrants by gender.
;
;
4
The data allowed the planning team to determine the days of the week and
times of day (in four hour blocks) that tend to have the highest number of
bookings. The busiest days of the week tended to be Friday and Sunday,
although the day with the greatest number of bookings was a specific
Wednesday. The greatest number of bookings occur between midnight and
4 a.m., followed by 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., as shown in the
table below.
TOTAL BOOKINGS BY TIME BLOCKS FOR
THE ENTIRE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1996
Males Females Total
Midnight to 4 a.m. 110 22 132
Four a.m. to Eight a.m. 99 18 117
Eight a.m. to Noon 46 5 51
Noon to Four p.m. 61 15 76
Four p.m. to Eight p.m. 71 30 101
Eiqht p.m. to Midniqht 79 19 98
The greatest number of bookings for anyone 4-hour period were 30 and 21.
Jail needs assessments typically examine peaking (the differences between
average and maximum) to assure that adequate capacity exists for most
times that the population is above the average (approximately 95% of the
time). We assumed a minimum capacity of 30 would be needed (the
maximum arrests observed for a 4-hour period) but we are recommending
space for up to 38 arrestees in order to provide flexibility for different
classifications of. prisoners. As arrests increase over time, this will usually
provide adequate capacity. Proper transportation resources and policies
should make this adequate for a long time.
Classification Breakdown
About 17% of the bookings were women. 23% of male and 18% of female
arrestees required detoxification. These ratios were applied to total
detention capacity to break down cells by gender and for detox.
The facility should provide for the isolation of violent prisoners or those
needing protective custody. One isolation cell for females and two for males
provides this level of isolation. With good design, the female isolation cell
can be used for males when circumstances allowed (and vice versa). These
cells can also be used for up to four prisoners when not needed by
individuals.
.
5
Space Proaram
The space program provides a temporary holding facility for 38 prisoners
with the flexibility to serve as an intake area for a possible future Type I
facility. In order to accomplish the stated goals, the space program includes
the following elements:
Holding Cells: Three types of cells are provided for men and women
respectively: group holding for most prisoners; isolation cells for
violent prisoners, protective custody cases, or to separate
codefendants; and detox for prisoners requiring additional safety while
under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Although larger cells are
allowable under Board of Corrections standards, group holding cells
with a maximum of 8 prisoners will enable the Police Department to
isolate groups of prisoners more easily.
Vestibule: Provides interlocking doors to prevent escapes as prisoners
or materials are being moved in and out of the facility.
Intoxilizer: A space to test arrestees for blood alcohol levels before
entering the secure perimeter of the facility.
Staging Area: Space to assemble groups of prisoners and apply
restraints for transport out of the facility. This space may also serve
as general circulation space within the facility.
Booking Counter: Initially provides a station for one or two officers to
supervise the holding area, and would later serve as two booking
stations for a Type I facility.
Identification: An area with equipment for taking fingerprints and
photos. Initially, this area would enable the Police Department to
collect this information without relying upon the Sheriff's Department.
Later, prisoner identification would be an essential function of a Type I
facility.
Attorney Conference/Interview Room: primary use would be to enable
investigators to interview prisoners within the holding area, with the
secondary role of enabling attorney access to prisoners.
Booking Supplies: Storage of essential forms, restraints, etc. I
Inmate Property Storage: Provides for the secure storage of prisoners' I
valuables pending release or transfer to another facility.
,
6
The following list itemizes the spaces described above by size and quantity.
Efficiency factors translate the total net space into the" gross area" (the total
needed for a new, freestanding building~)
SPACE LIST
Unit No. Subtotal
Functional Area Area (s.f.) Units Area (s.f.) Comments
Processing Areas
Vestibule 60 1 60
Intoxilizer 80 1 80
Staging Area 200 1 200
I Booking Counter 130 1 130 Two booking stations
I (one for future)
Identification 50 1 50 Fingerprint & photo
station
Attorney Confl
Interview Room 80 1 80
Booking Supplies 80 1 80
Inmate Property
Storage 80 1 80
Men's Holding
Isolation Cell 40 2 80 1 to 4 occupants
Detox Cell 160 1 160 8 Occupants
Standard Holding Cell 80 2 160 8 Occupants
Women's Holding
Isolation Cell 40 1 40 1 to 4 Occupants
Detox Cell 60 1 60 3 Occupants
Standard Holding Cell 80 1 80 8 Occupants (min.
req. 4 occ. @ 40 s.f.)
Janitor 35 1 35
Staff T oHet 50 1 50
Shower 80 1 80
Subtotal Net: 1,505 s.f.n.
Walls, Circulation 753 s.t.
TOTAL GROSS AREA: 2,258 s.t.g.
External Space (Required)
Vehicular Sallyport 500 1 500 Van size
,
7
Spatial Relationships
Visibility and circulation are the critical elements in the configuration of this
holding facility. Custody staff should have the ability to see the entire area
without blind spots or hiding places. Major entrances to the facility should be
visible to staff without relying upon aids such as closed circuit television
cameras. Major elements should be arranged so that the movement of prisoners
into and out of the facility follows an orderly path with minimal back tracking.
The same must hold true if the facility becomes an intake area for a larger
facility. Also, future elements related to booking must be easily added and
support efficient internal circulation.
The following diagram illustrates the relationships required between the
elements included in the space list.
Intake Area Relationships
Arresting
Offcers
Work Space
Intoxilizer
StaN Post
(future booking
Stations)
Booking Staging
Storage
ttorney
Corrtererce/lnterview
~end
Pedestrian Circulation
,~"""'w \f¡&ws
----
~ 17'-6"
i f .,
II II jl II
II II ~~~~~-::!.J
II ,.-... II II
"T'
II '-" II II
II II ----11
I II I ----II
I II I "-"'(/) II
"T' :J:
I II I '-"::u II
II II .. 1====...11
II II II
"-"'(")
"T' r II
'-"0
(XI CXI» ~ II
f O-i
~ ~ z II
ø
(JI- ~- CXI(/)
m~ N~ O:J:
::u
I"'l
3:
I"'l
C- ::u
» ø
~o z
ml"'l ø
o...¡
0 I"'l
X Z
;:E
r>
(JI CXI:J: CXI(/)-
a 00 o;a~ I"'l
f r
q 0 ø»
'¡:;j :::j
f
CXI(/)([ CI,!
CXlI °;ao
00 ØO 3:
r .2:;
0 Z
Ø
CXI-
o~
0
~
C
N
I"'l
::u
"-"'»()
Z::uo
OI"'lZ
~»rii (/)
ZIIZ »
() -i .. r
rNo r
CNZ -<
o-....J» \J
ZNr 0
G)ø(") ::u
(/)(/)0 -i
»:-'1z
r (/)
r ...¡
-< ::u
\J C
(")
0 :::::j
::u
0 0 40'-0" 7'-0"
Z
'¡
"'0 tt i ," ~
r-
Þ I GIn!;
Z I ~....I
.
-
0
8
4. Location and Site Plans
1. In the Basement of Existina Police Buildina
The consulting team examined locating the temporary holding facility in the
basement of the existing Police Building as well as other locations on the
site. The basement structure could accept the required configuration of the
facility described above. However, locating the holding facility in the
existing basement poses the following disadvantages:
8 It would have to displace either the locker rooms or the
assembly rooms.
8 Either potential location would present relatively substantial
costs for renovation. The locker rooms are an essential police
function, and would have to be replaced at a relatively high
cost. Unless the department has existing space available to
relocate the locker rooms, it would be less expensive to build a
freestanding holding facility than to renovate the basement for
holding and to build an addition for locker rooms.
The assembly rooms area does not provide the same convenient
access to necessary plumbing for the holding area. The costs
of bringing in the necessary infrastructure would add to the
renovation costs in this area.
8 It would be extremely difficult for a holding area in the existing
basement to serve as an intake area for a future Type I holding
facility.
8 There is no clear way to provide a vehicular sallyport on grade
with secure access to a basement holding area.
. Moving prisoners between grade and basement would ideally
involve a custody elevator. Moving inmates through stairways
in restraints is unsafe, and moving them without restraints
reduces security.
All things considered, if the department can secure funding for a holding
area in new construction, it would be far superior to renovating the
basement.
.
9
2. New Construction:
Parameters:
. If possible, the Department would like to locate the facility on their
own property and more specifically on the parcel of land bordered by
H, 16th, Eye, and 15th Streets.
. The Temporary Holding Facility holding facility should be designed and
located in such a manner that would make it possible to use it as the
booking area for a future 128-bed Type I local Detention Facility.
. This study does not include an automobile parking analysis, but the
site plan should include a future parking structure to be constructed
simultaneously with the Detention Facility.
Recommendations:
. Locate the Temporary Holding Facility east of the existing
Communications Building and near the intersection of 16th and Eye
Streets. (See Site Plan Phase 1.)
. This location will not require demolition of the existing
Communications Building nor the existing Storage Facility and will only
slightly reduce the amount of available parking spaces. It will,
however, require the purchase and demolition of the Insurance Agency
Building facing Eye Street.
. In the future, the 128-bed Type I Local Detention Facility could be
housed in a five-story high structure located at the intersection of
15th and Eye Streets, and a seven-stories high storage and parking
structure for 252 cars could be placed near the intersection of Hand
16th Streets. (See Site Plan Phase 2). At that stage, the
communications and the storage buildings would both have to be
removed.
Note: The total building area of all three buildings (Booking,
Detention, and Parking Structure) would be around 160,000 s.f.,
which is within the allowable area of about 180,000 s. f. permitted for
this parcel in this zone (C-B).
,
15TH STREET ,'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'l
I
..
1 :r:
ì (J)
-I
) ::u
IT1
) IT1
I -I
1
j
. t
16TH STREET
(
~t~
11 úI N
~ 0
15TH STREET
I
(f)
-i
;0
T]
T]
-i ,
16TH STREET \
(
[{o ~ 11
If.
I~
) ~ N
I
I '
10
5. Statement of Probable Costs
The following costs are today's market costs (1 May 96) and do not include
any inflation.
A. CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
Direct Construction Cost:
Demolition $ 18,000
Site Work $ GO,OOO
Building Construction $ 472,000
Subtotal: $ 550,000
Contingencies @ 10% :t $ 50,000
Total Construction Cost $ GOO,OOO
Indirect Costs @ 30% $ 180,000
(Architect's fees, printing, plan check
fees, advertising, testing, inspection,
construction contingencies)
Total Project Cost $ 780,000
This total project cost does not include purchase of the private
property on the site or movable furniture and equipment.
-
11
B. MODULAR (PREFABRICATED) CONSTRUCTION
Direct Construction Cost:
Demolition $ 18,000
Site Work $ 60,000
Building Construction $ 497,500
Subtotal: $ 575,500
Contingencies @ 10% :t $ 57 ,500
Total Construction Cost $ 633,000
Indirect Costs @ 25% $ 158,000
-
(Planning fees, Printing, plan check
fees, advertising, testing, inspection,
construction contingencies)
Total Project Cost $ 791,000
This total project cost does not include purchase of the private
property on the site or movable furniture and equipment.
.
12
6. Appendix
. GoverninQ Codes:
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 2 (Edition 1995) Sections
308 and 4 70A
Occupancy: 1-3: Local Detention Facility (Temporary
Holding)
Type of Construction: V - 1 Hour up to 3,900 s.f. between
separation walls.
Automatic Fire
Sprinkler System: Required.
Emergency Power: Required.
Roof Covering: Fire Retardant.
. Zoning
C-B: Central Business Zone
Permitted Use
Category: Police and other Emergency Service Centers
Building Height: No limits.
Yards: Not required. I
!
Floor Area Ratio: 3.0
BA5234GL.XO2
.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS SUE DAVIS
ROY ASHBURN Dlltrlct No.1 Clerk ot Board ot Supervisors
STEVE A. PEREZ Dlltrlct No.2 Kern County Administrative Center
BARBARA PATRICK Dlltrlct No.3 1115 Truxtun Avenue. 5th Floor
KENNETH w, PETERSON Dlltrlet No.4 Bakersfield. California 93301
MARY K. SHELL Dlltrlct No.5 Telephone (805)861-2167
April 29, 1996
Ms. Mary F. 'Berglund, Chair
California Transportation Commission
1120 "N" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Berglund:
The Kern County Board of Supervisors is extremely concerned about a recent staff recommendation
to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate $45 million in State Highway
Transportation funds which have been earmarked for many years toward the future expansion and
improvement of Highway 58 in Kern County. We strongly oppose this recommendation and
respectfully request that the Commission maintain full funding for this project.
Improvement of Highway 58 has been a top priority for state transportation funding in our region
for decades. More recently, State Transportation Improvement Plans in 1990,1992 and 1994 all state
the importance of this project in improving inter-regional traffic flow, and the 1996 STIP calls for
continued route adoption work. In 1991, Congress authorized expenditure of$5 million in federal
funds for Highway 58, which was identified as a major transportation project. The City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern have allocated more than $20 million in future fees to the
construction of the Highway 58 extension from Highway 99 to Interstate 5. Why, then, are CTC
staff recommending deletion of $45 million in state funds at this critical juncture?
The metropolitan Bakersfield area in Kern County has been among the state's fastest growing
regions. Completion of Highway 58 is key to addressing the transportation demands which this
growth has created. Conversely, further delays in completing Highway 58 will worsen the already
serious congestion on our local highways, contribute further to air pollution, and deter future
economic development in Kern County.
I
The Kern CoUnty Board of Supervisors asks members of the Commission not to pull the plug on
Highway 58. Please help us to finish this vital transportation project by keeping funding intact.
Thank you very much for considering the Board's views.
Sincerely,
t:::!:a~:::raf Ci
Kern County Board of Supervisors
BP:AK\hwy58ctc.1èt '.~-'\
cc: Roads Department
, Resource Management Agency I '
~ity of Bakersfield . I. . 'V-i~'~1
Kern CounCil of Governments ; j!
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce '"=, - i ~
, :rfY MANAGER'~ OFFICo¿:
. ~" -=----------=---r-" ~.
------ - - ------- -- ----
--------