HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/96
--
<,~
"" -
~ .
--
B A K E R 5 F I E L 0
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 1996
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER '1
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
J. The Economic and Community Development Department has received a funding request from
Restoration Community Project, Inc. That organization owns a facility at 721-8th Street, and
they propose to use it as transitional housing for women who may be recovering from substance
abuse, homeless, or referred at discharge by a correctional facility. Staff is preparing an
agreement for the May 22nd Council meeting for a request for 1994 HOME CHDO funds in the
amount of$133,650. The deadline for use of the 1994 CDHO funds is June 30th.
2. The latest report on the Burn Site Project is enclosed. Staff visited the Department of Toxic
Substance Control office in Sacramento this past week. The DTSC has indicated that our
application for the Expedited Remediation Program should be approved quickly. They have also
offered their assistance with our public outreach program, once the application is approved.
3. Development Services has prepared a detailed report, which is enclosed, regarding the noise
levels generated by Mesa Marin Raceway in relationship to the surrounding land use.
Unresolved problems still exist.
4. Regarding the changes in retiree health benefits and the information meeting which was held for
them several weeks ago, a report is enclosed showing the inquiries and changes that have been
generated as a result of the notification to the retirees.
5. A positive for the downtown may be in the works. A TV station is looking at moving into the
vacant Pacific Bell building. Some tax increment rebate may be in order to enhance the
likelihood.
6. The City Physician interviews were this week. We used a five person panel, including an
Assistant City Manager, Assistant Police Chief, the Human Resources Manager, the Risk
Manager, and an expert from another city. The results were unanimous for Dr. Christiansen.
That will appear on a future Council agenda.
.1:'--~"~
,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 10, 1996
Page 2
7. As you may separately be aware, the feeding program has been moved out of Central Park to
the homeless facility. That is good news. We are, on a partially related matter, discussing a
lease extension with the Museum.
8. A response to a complaint letter you recently received regarding refuse bins is enclosed for your
information.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Carol Williams, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
--
Æ ~' .
;
-
B A K E R S F I E L D
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
May 3, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager @
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Restoration Community Project, Inc.
Transitional Housing HOME Applicant
Restoration Community Project, Inc. (RCP) has applied for HOME funds to rehabilitate a 20
room facility for use as a transitional housing for women and women with children. The
target groups are those women recovering from drug and/or alcohol abuse, homeless or
referred at discharge by a correctional facility. The organization owns the facility at 721 8th
Street, a former maternity hospital and (later) senior rest home known as the "Freise House."
Although the building has been vacant for several years, inspections by an architect and
building inspectors have determined that the structure is basically sound but in need of
rehabilitation due to a lack of maintenance and some vandalism. RCP Baordmembers have
spoken to all of the adjacent neighbors as well as the Councilperson representing the area; all
parties are aware of the proposed use. The facility will house up to 25 women and children
in a program incorporating services and training designed to encourage independent living.
Residents may live there for a maximum of 24 months.
RCP qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and as such, can
access CHDO set-aside funds. Staff is preparing to bring an agreement to Council on May 22
for $133,650 in 1994 HOME CHDO funds for the rehabilitation of their facility. We are
reaching a deadline for use of the 1994 CHDO funds. These funds must be encumbered by
June 30, otherwise the City will lose the monies.
atrcp.mem/gen.8/jf
--~~ RECE~VED~~'." .'\
\
'~
~ ¡
I rAY - 1 1996 I
--~ ;
~CITY MANAGER'~_~~~~c.~,
-------
;
~ .
.
-
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
, May 6, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director fJ()J1{ ~ ~
RE: UPDATE ON BURN DUMP PROJECT
The outlook for the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) reviewing our
application for the Expedited Remediation Program is very good. Staff visited the DTSC
--
('.:. '
'¡' . I
.
MEMORANDUM
May 6, 1996
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE
SUBJECT: MESA MARIN NOISE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING
DEVELOPMENT
Representatives of Mesa Marin have been talking to my staff and Councilwoman Smith about
plans to apply for an expansion of their conditional use permit. Several appointments have been
made and broken to file an application. However, preparing for the meetings has given us
occasion to consider how things are going with Mesa Marin.
As you may recall, several months ago, the City Council directed staff to review the existing land
use ,plans around Mesa Marin raceway to resolve land use incompatibilities with the planned
residential areas in close proximity. There were a couple of false starts with Mesa Marin's
consultant who claimed to have the problems all worked out with the neighbors. We gave up on
him and started our independent review. An accurate acoustical analysis of the raceway was
needed so the area subjected to noise impacts would truly be known. This would be used to
determine the area of study. The city hired Gordan Bricken and Associates, an acoustical expert
experienced with the unique noise patterns of raceways.
Field measurements were taken by the consultants for a Late Model Stocks race in the Fall of
1995. The acoustical analysis (February 1996) revealed the noise levels in excess of our Noise
Element standards covered a surprisingly large area. Recommendations from the study included
prohibiting residential development within 5,000 feet, granting a variance from the Noise Limit
Performance Standard (NLPS) for the raceway and extending existing sound barriers at the track.
The General Plan Noise Element standards are divided into two types:
1. For noise sources subject to State or Federal control, the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) standard is applicable. The CNEL represents a 24-hour average sound
level.
2. For noise sources not subject to State or Federal control the more stringent Noise Limit
Performance Standard (NLPS) is applicable. The NLPS represents maximum noise limits
permitted in certain time limits (30 minutes per hour, etc.) and is influenced by time of
day (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) or night (10:00 pm to 7:00 am).
The extension of Mesa Marin's hours of operation beyond 10:00 pm was very significant
in terms of our local noise standards.
r RECEIVED
~ ~ I
I---.-'-'-"~-~¡ I
~
\ ' '/-81986,
i \.
CllY MANAGER'S OFFICE
.
ATil'n Tandy
",,' May 6,1996
, Page 2
The problem of reconciling the neighborhood with Mesa Marin appears to have several aspects:
1. The amount of land subject to the consultant's recommended 5,000 foot "Buffer" is far
too large to realistically change the land use to a non-noise sensitive use (commercial,
industrial or resource). Changing all land use within 5,000 feet of the site to non noise
sensitive uses is a very unlikely scenario as the area impacted would be in excess of 3
square miles. Virtually all these property owners helped organize the sewer assessment
district for this area based on mostly residential land uses. The area impacted covers
more than 1,920 acres, which represents an area 64 times larger than the "Marketplace
Place" project. It would be the single largest contiguous area designated commercial or
industrial or both within the Metropolitan area. Changing to an industrial/commercial
complex would require extensive professional studies, environmental impact report and
would likely be very disruptive for the affected property owners. An approved residential
subdivision and Caesar Chavez School are already located within 1,000 feet of the site.
Thus, the council idea of changing the land use plan to solve future noise conflicts is very
unlikely.
2. A great deal of the property subject to noise impacts is zoned for residential
development. Residential tracts may not be approved under California law in such
circumstances (inconsistent with Noise Element of the general plan). This is the reason
Nickel Enterprises initially challenged the legality of the City Council decision to extend
the operational life of Mesa Marin Raceway. Their argument was based on the
inconsistency of approving a use which generates noise in excess of local standards in
proximity to property zoned for residential uses.
3. Mesa Marin is not fully in compliance with its current CUP requirements.
Although there al)l)ears no easy answer, the following could reduce certain concerns about the
obvious inconsistency between the City Council's desire to keep Mesa Marin and the city's
policies and standards.
When Mesa Marin requests any change, require that berms be built where physically possible.
The owner has talked to staff several times recently about expansions for other racing type uses.
The reason noise is so well controlled on the south side is an existing berm with seating (see
Exhibit 4). Mesa Marin is already talking about increased temporary seating but doesn't want to
build a berm. Building up the berm would actually reduce noise exposure on adjacent property.
The other part of the solution is to change noise element to require all noise sources to be
subject to unweighted CNEL requirements. Existing noise standards for sources not subject to
local control permit trains, planes and automobiles to be dealt with by the less stringent 65
CNEL standard. Doing this would not change the sound level but it would significantly reduce
the area out of compliance with the general plan (see Exhibit 5).
-~---
Afm Tandy
.°.' May 6, 1996
Page 3
Using CNEL is not very accurate for this type of noise generator but the same may be said of
train traffic (intermittent noise events) which this community seems to have accepted as a part of
life. An advantage to this action is that we could have one noise impact standard for the entire
metropolitan area.
Doing these two things would significantly reduce the city's liability for both approval of
residential tracts and future approvals of changes to the raceway operation. If the adjacent
property owners object, they could easily make an environmental issue out of the relaxation of
standards.
If Mesa Marin does not submit an application or an annual sound study by the end of this
season, I will have to report noncompliance with conditions of approval to the City Council. At
that time, if this solution is pursued, we would be faced with the problem of coordinating an
amendment to the general plan and the CUP. Staff is preparing a reminder letter to Mesa
Marin on the need to comply with the CUP and trying to do some groundwork on the general
plan amendment and berming.
MG
Attachments
m\mat4.26
-.. - ... .
-".'- ..",
i
".. --
----'.,--,_."----'-.. -
~ EXHIBiT ;4,
-" .. . .. ,-,'_.. ,
M~~'_~~~
L50 CONTØ~'
5 II PH WIND OUT
., .. '-'-----.--.-.
OF NORTHWm
---,.,.---. --.,.-..-,.- -,---, ._, .'-.-_u_-,---. -----, ----, --- -" h' ,. ._.. ._, _. , .- ._-,--_.,._-,... -- ,-
~
1. = 1OC)OI
"
,', "
- ¿' , Lt
..
I
I.. It ,', '~J.$) I
'- ~., ,,~~ I
~..~~
.."J.~.. I
.......,'f I
. ~ ". I
I
I
I
I
--
..... --..
\Ie. &I
55
~R
1.1
"R
1.1 I."
'"It
..
..
"
,
, °'
,
'" I "
LI ' \ I.M. HH. "
I
\ °' \ ...
I-U. ' \ I .. R-M'
\ ' I ..
...
, \ I .. "
" I ..
I "
/'
I ..
I ... '"
I
14
-----
;; . ---~~,-~~~-, ,~ :~ . ~'_~::'---~=~:-~~i~-- ~~~~-:~ ,: -: :'~~'~-~~:-~=,~~T~;=~;--"- "'::7 : '~L!.1fl~1~~t:fi:r
'it.
.~. '~'
'" ElB1IItIt '.'
,;
, uÈSi~íiiiii'
--,w'--- L .--
85 -CNEL CONTOUR
. ""-----'." ,.-,
5 UPH WlND.OUT
, -- '----" ---- --_._--"
OF NORTHWEST
--" ._--- "__.n ""_'-H--__--' -, "ç I
~
/:"'<~ ¡
fI = 1000'
d-:' "'1 \.t
I.a ,..~ I
'- ~;'~"'*~ I
~i.~.' I
."~
' ~"..~ I
/" 4~ MUG: \.Me
,', I
þ' I
,f/ I
------- '.'
------ ---------------
Mow. -"11
, ~ "eo. &1
101 ...uc.
I
CoCo I
\.1 I
I
I
lot I
o~ I sa
I
,...,.. .... -
\.11 I
'HAl CIIA'oIU I
~C"o.,,'
1.1 I
..It '-II
.
...
I. It 1.1 ,.
,.
,.
'-I ,.
,.
,
" ,
, ,
, °' "
, ' "
, I " "
I. It \ I.'" It I Hi'll ' "
o~ , ,.
t.", , I ,, " I....,
, I ,. '
" " ,
' I ,
I '
/'
I ,.
... "
I -
~, .
15
/- ----
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
DA TE: May 7, 1996
TO: John W. Stinson
Assistant City Manager
FROM: Ginger RUbi~
Benefits Tee n cia. ,
SUBJECT: RETIREE MEETING STATISTICS
The following are the figures you requested.
Total number of retirees: 308
Meeting attendance: 46 retirees
Number of option letters sent: 40
Number of phone calls: 83
Number of appointments scheduled to date: 10
Number of changes to date: 7
---
RECEIVED ~
[M~--8~ I -,
I,
1
¡CITY MANAGER'f': ~'
-.v,,----~-,' -> .
",,-.. '" Æ .
--
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326,3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER
May 6, 1996
Richard E. Hardesty
RER Equipment Rental
5304 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, CA 93313
RE: REFUSE BIN RENTALS IN BAKERSFIELD
Dear Mr. Hardesty:
In response to your May 1, 1996 letter on this topic, we have updated our listing to show
your new company name. I would also like to clarify the City's position with respect to
refuse bin rentals.
Regarding the delays described in your letter, I would like to clear up any misunderstanding
over timing. When I told you that we would take the issue to City Council in either April
as a special item, or in June as part of our annual rate revision, it was true. However, we
could not make it a special item in April as I was out for a week after being struck by an
automobile. I would like to apologize for not letting you know that the item would wait
until June.
Regarding your itemized points of concern:
1. A Referral List for bin users will be kept current according to written
requests from bin vendors to be placed on that list. The City cannot endorse
or recommend one vendor over another, nor can it be party to a "gentleman's
agreement" which selectively serves certain areas. The City will simply require
bin users to provide adequate containers for the service to be rendered.
2. As stated above, the bin rental rate should be dropped from the City rate
schedule during our annual revision report in June 1996.
3. As we have discussed previously, refuse containers are customarily provided
by hauling service providers, whether they are municipal or privately-owned.
In order to maintain the separation of bin provision from service provision
which creates the unique market niche for you and other firms here in
Bakersfield, there should perhaps be a franchise or contract agreement
developed. This is because no one can predict how future managers or
7 .
Letter
Mr. Richard E. Hardesty
RER Equipment Rental
RE: Refuse Bin Rentals in Bakersfield
May 6. 1996
Page 2
elected officials would view the current situation. Although you and the other
two bin rental firms originally told me that this would not be necessary, we
still maintain that it would be the most sound way to protect businesses such
as yours. It would also enable the City to refer bin vendors by zone without
restraint-of-trade concerns. We have also suggested this to the City's refuse
hauling contractor as well, since their current contract does not include
commercial bin rental.
4. As agreed, we are in the process of contacting renters of City-owned bins (1.5
through 4 cubic yard) to refer them to a list of private vendors. You and
your competitors should be seeing a few new accounts of this type, as well as
several multiple unit buildings which the City is converting from hand-held
cans to commercial bins. Please note that some City-owned bins are being
placed in certain locations in lieu of a group of plastic refuse carts for
separate businesses, when it is efficient for us to provide service by
frontloading truck instead of the automated type. This substitution of a City-
owned bin for a few plastic carts costs the City roughly the same, and no bin
rental charge is made since cart service rates include a container provided by
the City or its contractor. Perhaps this small portion of bin provision could
be included in a franchise or contract, should one be developed.
As you can see, the City has refrained from competing with you per your original request.
We are continuing toward the point where bin rental will be taken off the City's rate
schedule. If you wish to pursue a franchise or contract to further enhance your position in
the business community, please call me at (805) 326-3114.
Sincerely, £",
";;{l ~
, ~evi arnes
Solid Waste Director
KB:smp
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Walt Heisey, Sandstone
Glen Brazeal, Kern Dumpster
Stephen H. Boyle, Clifford & Brown
KBCORMEM.RER.L TR
-
c_~----,._._--~~,.-. ---,._-~C- --
.l1AY~06"'96 MON 10:41 CITY l1ANAGER'S OFFICE FAX NO. 805 324 1850 P, 02
"RER . INDUS7RIAi.
Ii" C=r;' rr::.rryf'E)))j7
Admfnlttr8tfon ~~lF"
S3CM Aldrin Ct., 8akersfield. CA 93313
, nDS"~hle EclUlf mo"' 'hntel, '"e. (805) 831-2800 FAX (805) 837-1651
May I. 1996
Mr. Kevin Barnes. Solid Waste Director
City of Bakersfield
4101 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield. CA. 93309
Re: Resolution on City Sanitation Dept. leasing refuse bins
Dear Mr. Barnes,
I am'wrytjng this letter for two reasons. The first reason is to request that you have the
name changed on the refen-aiJist you have for those people who call regarding trash bins
from Sam's-U-Drive to RER Equipment Rental. As I had indicated to you several months
ago this bran~h location was involved in a pending sale. That sale of this Sam's-U~Drive
branch was completed and closed escrow on February 29. 1996.
The second reason for this letter is to attempt to attain from you the letter whi~h you
said would be forthcoming when you contacted me by phone on December I, 1995, In
that conversation you described to me the direction the City of Bakersfield planned to take
after discussing the matter with Mr- Tandy. I asked you at that time ¡fyou would outline
what you have just explained to me in writing so ( go over it with the President of our
company and you said tbat you would after you had a discussion with the other two
companies- After not hearing anything for some time I contacted you again on January 23,
1996 about when we could expect the letter you had mentioned. During that phone
conversation you did mention again that the City had suspended renting trash bins until.
everything was completely resolved. When I asked for a time fi'ame on the letter you said
you should have it out in 7-10 days.
After a period of over three weeks and the letter had not arrived I called you office on
February 1~, .996 and left a message for you to call me. I called again on February 22.
1996 and you were not available so I left another message and received your return call on
February 23. 1996. When T asked you about the letter thatjrou had indicated would be out
in 7-10 days on January 23, 1996 you said you had just been to busy. When I asked you
when you thought you would be able to get the letter out you did not offer an answer or
..-... L8CIItI"".
-0 Rø=- Hw I, "-"-"""il CA tI33O8 . 21 a2 UIIIan Ave,. 8aIt8NIIeW CA 9330S . 53IM AAIIIn Ct. 8AII8rdeIII. ÇA 933 IS
(1051 83loftC1DF^X (lIIJII)ai.2M5 (105)31707581 FA ( (8051311-8570 C815111.'t3.2IIIOCIFAX (lll!i)83MI!II
. t1A't'-06-96 t10N 10: 42 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FAX NO. 805 324 1850 P.O3
I ~.1i'ER . INDI.I$TIUAL
. RESIDENTIAt ~(Q)~~
. COMAlE'lft:'ÁL
AdmbMtf8tten
5304 Aldrin Ct.. Bakersfield, CA 93313
Ro,.d.'. Equip"'.'" A."lal, I"... (80S) 837-2800 FAX (805) 837-1651
seem to want to. When I asked you about the original verbal outline you gave of the
removal ofthe bin rate from the rate schedule you replied that you weren.t sure maybe
April, maybe July. I realize that this issue may not be of much interest to you or your
department but it does happen to affect the income stream of three private tax paying
companies in this City.
From the separate verbal phone conversations that you had with Walt Heisey, Glen
Brazeal, and myself we have the following )'Oints of concern :
J) The Referral List: In your conversation you indicated the list would contain the
three ofu~ the private contract haulers, and some manufactures. In our original meeting
with you we informed you that we had a gentleman's agreement that we did not place bins
in the contract haulers area and they did not place bins in the City incorporated area. This
agreement has been in p1ace for a long time and had been honored by all parties without
the City of Bakersfield's involvement. Therefor there is no reason for them to be on the
list or receive referrals. As for Manufactures I see no reason whatsoever for them to be
listed. There are no local tax paying bin manufactures to my knowledge. All three of our
local tax paying bin companies have had new bins available for customers to purchase
locally.
2) The removal of the bin rate from the rate schedule and the time table as to when that
would happen.
3) Some kind of written assurance that the next time there is a change in personnel at
the City Sanitation Department or City Management that this same issue doesn't resuñace
again. There are contracts given to the private haulers for 5 to 10 years which I'rovide
them certain assurances that investments they need to make to provide their service are
not cut off sooner than anticipated. Why shouldn't the private bin leasing companies have
the same type of assurances to protect their investments as well as future investment
needed to service the growing customer base in our city.
4) When we had inquired what would happen to the existing bin customers the City is
renting to or supplying at no charge we were told they would be given notice that they
would have to get a bin fTom one of our companies and those bins would be pulled in and
probably used for municipal needs. To the best ormy knowledge this has not happened
yet.
.... l.ocMIoM
11045 r1o8edale.~ s.,~, CA 1/3308 . 2122 UIIIan -., BnhnIIeId CA 933II!i . 531MAIðrÍlc:t.. ~~CA93313
(81151 831.2tIOQ'AX (80$) 531.~5 I8O5J 321.7WI FAX (ItðS) Si>7.1'670 (80S) I133-I!IaO FAX ~ '"701851
- =
,---. ,,---.
~. MAY-06..i9B MON 10: 42 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FAX NO. 805 324 1850 P. 04
,.
;. Fïf!:R . INOilSrHIAI.
. RESIDENTIAL
.. COMAIElfCIAL CC(Q)~W
/£TIll iJJ ~ I f(ß;/ f(lJfl œ AdmInIstration
5304 Aldrin Ct.. Bclkersfield. CA 93313
¡ "o.ed8Ie Edu;pm'nf Aerot,.l. 'nc. (805) 837.2800 FAX (805) 837-1651
Since our last phone conversation on February 23. 1996 I have not heard from you
regarding this matter. It seems the only time there is any communication regarding this
matter is when we initiate it and that has been limited to verbal conversations by phone.
We are interested in getting a final resolution to this matter so we can move forward
with confidence and continue to provide the value added service that our three companies
have done for close to three decades. We are anxiously awaiting your written response to
resolve this matter.
~
. ,q~
Richard E. Hardesty
RER Equipment Rental
cc: Walt Heisey, Sandstone
Glen Brueal. Kern Dumpster
Stephen H. Boyle, Clifford & Brown
Bakersfield City Council
Irma Carson
Patricia J. DeMond
Patricia M. Smith
Kevin McDennott
Randy Rowles
Jacquie Sullivan
Mark C. Salvaggio
..... L_!eM
-"-""""' -.!J~t'..~ "1'""~A.... ".~..0<1."""- r-1 ...... ,.. ".~.'."""'" ".......