HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/93 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
~//~/)~C~L December 17, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION /
1. With regard to the labor groups' threats of litigation on the Hotel, we are thinking
through both legal and other remedial alternatives. You should be aware,
however, that as a home rule city in California, you have the right to exclude
Bakersfield from the prevailing wage law, in its entirety, should you wish. That is,
of course, not the way we would like to settle this, as it would be a major
confrontation politically and publicly. As we continue to work on other methods
to resolve that potential dispute, please keep it in mind. Other communities in
California have done so such 'as San Diego and Long Beach. It has been court
tested.
2. Per the Vice Mayor's comments, we will implement the Brown Act changes the
first of the year. We would ask you to avoid referring minor items to Committee
due to the time and expense of the new requirements. We will also be looking
at other cities and their experience to see if there are other ideas we might want
to borrow. It will, overall, be a big change from long-established procedures here.
It will slow things down to comply - 72 hours notice on all agenda items, or
personal delivery of fifteen notices to the media. The meetings will, of course, be
open. Minutes are required. Any documents used are public. Anyone can
record and/or broadcast the entire session. The media may be broadcasting
proceedings before we can administratively produce minutes. Overall, it will tend
to formalize the proceedings, making them more rigid, less flexible and more
costly and time consuming to prepare for and followup on. On the other hand,
of course, the legislature enacted the changes to get more public access to the
process, which it will do.
3. Enclosed is a copy of the Request for Proposal that went out to search firms on
the City Attorney position. It contains the time deadlines and related information.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 1993
Page -2-
4. Rumors from the League of California Cities are that, because it is an election
year, the Legislature will not be looking so strongly toward the cities to capture
our revenues this year. Only time will tell whether ,that is accurate or not.
5. There are two items enclosed on graffiti.
6. There is a memo enclosed on the subject of the availability of funding for park
construction in the Saddle Drive Park area. The subject came up at the last
Council Meeting.
7. Regarding the Council's goals - Since scheduling workshops and trying to
schedule a separate meeting date proved unproductive, let us try a new tack! I
think you were far enough along in the process that the staff is capable of refining
the document another step or two along the lines that you were headed. We will
attempt to refine it further, clearly delineating what we have changed from where
you were in the draft when your work was interrupted. We will see if we can't
facilitate the finalization of the document and complete some of the leg work. In
your regular sessions, you can then do the final editing. Please remember that
this does have a lot of meaning in terms of keeping the staff and public informed
about what the City Council's priorities are, and where staff should focus our
attention.
8. I received a total of 31 applications for the Public Works Director position. The
issue of whether or not to have an engineering certification did not develop as
being substantial. All of the better qualified were P.E.'s. Therefore, I will drop the
proposed change in the job specification, and leave it with the required
engineering degree. Since the applicant pool was not very large, I have extended
the close period for about five weeks. I am also going to use the Norm Roberts
firm, on a very limited basis, to solicit other qualified applicants from around the
State. They will not be conducting a full search. It will be a Iow cost service
purely for solicitation of additional applicants. I will keep you advised of the
status.
9. Regarding the State proposal On restructuring government, we have been active
participants in that process. The Mayor and John Stinson appeared at one
session and made comments. Gail Waiters appeared at a second session. We
are in the loop on that subject matter.
10. There is a memo enclosed indicating the status of the interruption on the adoption
of the HCP at the Federal level. We are taking proactive steps to resolve that
problem.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 1993
Page -3-
11. There is an article that appeared in a California publication on our Fire
Department enclosed, for your information.
12. There is a memo enclosed from Public Works about a Gosford Road median
opening. You may get calls on that subject. It is, simply, to keep you informed.
13. There is a memo enclosed from the Water Department regarding the California
Water Plan (Bulletin 160/93). This is from a Council Referral.
14. The Planning Department's comments on Pacificana are enclosed for your
information.
AT. alb
Enclosures
cc: Department Heads
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
December 16, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, Acting City Attorney
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS OF THE BROWN ACT
The Brown Act was amended recently with the passage of Senate Bills
36 and 1140, and Assembly Bill 1426. Pursuant to your request, a
summary of the effects of this new legislation, which takes effect
April 1, 1994, is set forth below.
Committee Meetings - TheBrown Act applies to "legislative bodies."
Section 54952 (amended by Senate Bill 1140) amended the definition
of "legislative body" to include standing committees of a legis-
lative body which have a "continuing subject matter jurisdiction,
or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or
formal action of a legislative body." This definition also
includes a multi-member body that governs a private corporation or
entity that either "is created by the legislative body to exercise
authority delegated to it by the legislative body" or that receives
funds from a local agency and its membership includes a member of
the legislative body. This would indicate that the standing
committees of the City Council will now be subject .to the Brown
Act.
Newly Elected Councilmembers - Section 54952.1 (amended by Senate
Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) expands the definition of "member
of a legislative body of a local agency" to include persons elected
to serve as a member of. a legislative body who have not yet assumed
the duties of office. Section 54952.7 (amended by all bills) adds
a provision allowing the legislative body of a local agency to
require that copies of the Brown Act be given to all members of the
legislative body and other bodies appointed by that legislative
body, including those who have been elected to serve as a member of
the legislative body, but who have not yet assumed office.
Meetings - Section 54952.2 (amended by Senate Bill 36 and Assembly
Bill 1426) clarifies the definition of "meeting" as any
congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body in
the same time and place to hear, discuss or deliberate upon any
item within the subject matter jurisdiction of that body. This
includes the use of direct communication, intermediaries or
technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members
to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an
item. Specifically excluded from this definition are the
following:
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 2
1. Individual contacts between a member of a legislative
body and any other person.
2. Attendance of a majority of the members at a
conference open to the public which involves a discussion of issues
of general interest, so long as the members do not discuss among
themselves business of a specific nature within their subject
matter jurisdiction.
3. Attendance of a majority of the members at an open
and publicized meeting to address a topic of local community
concern organized by a person other than the local agency, provided
the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific
nature within their subject matter jurisdiction.
4. The attendance of a majority of the members at a
purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that the members do
not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature within
their subject matter jurisdiction.
Secret Ballots - Section 54953 (amended by Senate Bill 36 and
Assembly Bill 1426) adds a provision prohibiting the taking of
action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
Recording of Meetings - Section 54953.5 (amended by Senate Bill 36
and Assembly Bill 1426) currently allows any person to tape record
a public meeting unless the legislative body makes a reasonable
finding that the recording would be disruptive. This amendment
expands the authority to audio or video recording, as well as a
still or motion picture camera, absent a reasonable finding that
the recording cannot continue without noise, visual obstruction or
illumination that would constitute a persistent disruption of the
proceedings. It also mandates that any recording at the direction
of the local agency be subject to inspection pursuant to the Public
Records Act, and may be erased after 30 days. Any inspection must
be provided without charge on a tape recorder made available by the
local agency.
Broadcast of Meetings - Section 54953.6 (added by Senate Bill 36
and Assembly Bill 1426) forbids a local agency to prohibit or
"restrict the broadcast of its proceedings in the absence of a
reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished
without noise, illumination or obstruction of view that would
constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings."
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 3
Meetings Within the City- Section 54954 (amended by Senate Bill 36
and Assembly Bill 1426) was amended to require that regular and
special meetings be held within the boundaries of the territory
over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, with specific
exceptions.
Posting Requirement for Closed Sessions and Public Statements -
Section 54954.2 (amended by Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426)
currently requires that, at least 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting, the local agency post an agenda containing a brief
description of each item to be transacted or discussed at the
meeting. This amendment expands this requirement to items to be
discussed in closed session. The current statute also states that
no action or discussion may be undertaken on any item not appearing
on the posted agenda. This amendment provides exceptions to that
prohibition for responses to statements made or questions posed
during public statements. It also allows members of a legislative
body to ask a question for clarification, provide a reference to
staff or other resources for factual information, or request staff
to report back to the body at a later meeting concerning any
matter. The body may also take action to direct staff to place a
matter of business on a future agenda.
Public Statements at Special Meetings - Section 54954.3 (amended by
Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) expands the requirement for
agendas to provide an opportunity for the public to address the
legislative body to special meetings as well as regular meetings.
It also forbids the legislative body from prohibiting public
criticism of the policies, procedures, programs or services of the
agency or the legislative body.
Closed Sessions - Section 54954.5 (added by Senate Bill 36 and
Assembly Bill 1426) sets forth the information which must be
described on the agenda for closed session items, and contains
suggested formats for this information.
Closed Sessions - Pending Litigation - Section 54956.9 (amended by
Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) allows closed sessions for
pending litigation. This amendment specifies circumstances which
permit a closed session for pending litigation which has not been
formally initiated. It also more specifically defines "significant
exposure to litigation."
Closed Sessions - Personnel Matters - Section 54957 (amended by
Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) allows closed sessions for
personnel matters. This amendment expands the definition of
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 4
employee to include an officer or an independent contractor who
functions as an officer or an employee but not any elected
official.
Closed Sessions - Matters to Be Reported Following the Session -
Section 54957.1 (amended by Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426)
currently requires a public report by the legislative body of any
determinations to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee
made in closed session. This amendment requires a public report of
specified actions taken in closed sessions, as follows:
- Approval of an agreement concluding real estate
negotiations, after the agreement is final. The report must be
made either at the meeting during which the closed session is held
(if the approval of the agreement by the legislative body renders
the agreement final), or as soon as the other party or its agent
has informed the local agency of its approval (if the final
approval rests with the other party).
- Approval to defend or seek or refrain from seeking appellate
review or relief or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of
litigation must be reported in open session at the meeting during
which the closed session is held. The report must identify°the
adverse party and the substance of the litigation.
- If approval to initiate or intervene in an action is given,
the report must specify that the direction to initiate or intervene
has been given and that the action, the defendants and other
information will, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any
person upon inquiry, unless it would jeopardize the agency's
ability to serve, process or conclude existing settlement
negotiations to its advantage.
- Approval of the settlement of pending litigation must be
reported after the settlement is final, under specific
circumstances.
- Disposition of claims must be reported as soon as reached in
a manner that identifies the name of the claimant, the substance of
the claim and any monetary amount approved for payment and agreed
to by the claimant.
- Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the
resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a
public employee must be reported at the same meeting as the one at
which the closed session is held. Such report must identify the
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 5
title of the position and any change in compensation. Any report
of a dismissal or non-renewal of an employment contract must be
deferred to the first public meeting following the exhaustion of
administrative remedies, if any.
- Approval of an agreement concluding labor negotiations must
be reported after the agreement if final and has been accepted by
the other party.
These reports may be made orally or in writing. Copies of any
contracts, settlement agreements or other documents that were
finally approved in the closed session must be provided to any
person who has submitted a written request within 24 hours of the
posting of the agenda, or any person who has made a standing
request for all documentation, if he or she is present at the time
the closed session ends. If the action taken requires retyping,
the documents need not be released until the retyping is completed,
provided that the mayor orally summarizes the substance of the
amendments for the benefit of the requesting party. Any other
person may obtain copies of the documentation on the next business
day, absent necessary retyping.
Documents Distributed at Meetings - Section 54957.5 (amended by
Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) requires that any agenda or
documents distributed in connection with a matter subject to
discussion or consideration at a public meeting (other than
writings exempt from public disclosure) are public records and must
be made available to the public without delay (as opposed to any
time prior to the commencement of the meeting). Such documents
which are distributed during a public meeting shall be made
available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by
staff, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.
Reconvening After Closed Session - Section 54957.7 (amended by
Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) requires the legislative
body to reconvene into open session prior to adjournment and to
make disclosures required by Section 54957.1. These announcements
may be made at the location announced in the agenda for the closed
session, as long as the public is allowed to be present at that
location to hear the announcement.
Elements of Misdemeanor - Section 54959 (amended by Senate Bill 36
and Assembly Bill 1426). Currently, it is a misdemeanor for a
member of a legislative body to attend a meeting where action is
taken in violation of the Brown Act with knowledge of the fact the
meeting is in violation of the Act. This amendment makes it a
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 6
misdemeanor for that member to attend a meeting where action is
taken in violation of the Brown Act with the wrongful intent to
deprive the public of information to which it is entitled under the
Brown Act.
Civil Actions - Section 54960 (amended by Senate Bill 36) currently
provides that any interested person may commence an action for the
purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened
violations of the Brown Act. This amendment allows the district
attorney to commence such an action. It also allows such an action
to determine the validity of any rule or action by the legislative
body to penalize or discourage the expression of one or more of its
members or to compel the legislative body to tape-record its
sessions. It provides that the court may, if it determines that a
violation of the statutes Providing for closed sessions has
occurred, order the legislative body to tape record its closed
sessions and preserve the tape recordings as the court deems
appropriate. It makes the tapes subject to discovery by the
district attorney or the plaintiff in a suit pursuant to the Brown
Act, under certain circumstances.
Actions to Determine or Cure Violations - Section 54960.1 (amended
by Senate Bill 36 and Assembly Bill 1426) expands the ability to
commence an action to determine that an action taken in violation
of the Brown Act is null and void to the district attorney, as well
as any interested person. 'It extends the time period in which the
party must make a written demand to cure or correct the action from
30 days to 90 days, except for actions taken in open session and in
violation of Section 54954.2, in which case the time period remains
30 days.
Accessible Facilities - Section 54961 (amended by all) currently
prohibits any public meeting in any facility that prohibits the
admittance of any person on the basis of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry or sex. This amendment expands
this to facilities which are inaccessible to disabled persons or
where members of the public may not be present without making a
payment or purchase. It also states that no notice, agenda,
announcement or report required by this Act need identify any
victim or alleged victim of tortious sexual conduct or child abuse
unless the identity of the person has been publicly disclosed.
The mandates imposed by these amendments will result in an
overwhelming increase in the staff workload. Every committee
meeting of the City Council, as well as those of the Planning
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
December 16, 1993
Page 7
Commission and the Central District Development Agency, must have
a formal agenda which must be posted at least seventy-two hours
prior to the meetings. Moreover, minutes must be taken and
prepared for each of these meetings.
I intend to implement these new procedures as soon as possible so
that the Council, committees, commissions and agencies are familiar
with them by April 1, and so that staff is prepared for the
additional demands.
JKS:kkr
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
corr4\l~n\brnact3.mem
Executive Search Firms
RFP - City Attorney - 1994
David M. Griffith & Associates
5715 Marconi Avenue, Suite A
Carmichael, CA 95608
(916)485-8102
Ralph Ander'sen & Associates
4931 Birch Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 250-8828
Hughes; Heiss & Associates
675 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 108
San Mateo, CA 94404 ~
(415) 570-6111
Norman. Roberts& Associates, Inc.
1800 Century Park East, Suite 430
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1507
(310) 552-1112
Shannon Associates
1400 "K" Street, Suite 311
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 447-8022
William Hamilton & Associates
980 West 17th Street, Suite C
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(71'4) 667-6001'
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
CITY. OF BAKERSFIELD
The City of Bakersfield is seeking a qualified ~ Executive Search Firm to recruit a
replacement for the City Attorney position.
All inquiries concerning this RFP are to be directed to:
John W. Stinson
· ' Assistant City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
.. Bakersfield, CA' 93301
(805) 326-3751
Proposals are to be marked: Executive Search - City Attorney
RFP Issuance Date: December 14, 1993
Proposal Due Date: January 7, 1994 at 5:00 PM
Interview Finalists: No later than January 21, 1994
Decision of Award Contract: No later than January 26, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................ : ...................... 1
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM ................. 1
3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF .................................................. 2
4. SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................... 2
5. RFP INTERPRETATION AND ADDENDA ............................................................ 2
6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 2
7. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................. 3
8. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENTS ............................................................. 3
9. SELECTION PROCESS ....................................................................................... 5
10. SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 6
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Introduction
The City of Bakersfield wishes to retain an Executive Search Firm to recruit a new
City Attorney. The City Attorney is the Chief Legal Officer for the City. A copy of
the job description as well as an organization chart is attached.
· The City of Bakersfield encompasses an area of 100 square miles and provides
its residents with a full .range of municipal services. The City operates under a
Charter, with 'a Council/Manager form of government.
Bakersfield has an annual budget of $170 million and approximately 1,060 regular
full-time authorized positions. The population is 200,000, and growing.
The services of the Consultant will be retained to recruit for the City Attorney
position beginning on January 26, 1994.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM
The Executive Search Firm will conduct a statewide search for a new City Attorney
which would include:
o dedicating an experienCed recruiter to locating a replacement for the
current City Attorney.
° development of a candidate profile, including interviews with
Councilmembers, the City Manager and others to determine needs.
o development of a professional brochure to be sent to candidate
sources and potential candidates.
o creatiVe advertising in key publications that will reach talented
candidates.
o presenting a positive image of the City of Bakersfield and the City
Attorney position.
o conducting an extensive statewide search attracting numerous
talented an'd qualified applicants.
o accepting applications/resumes.
°, initial screening of resumes.
o designing and administering supplemental questionnaires to
remaining candidates that will provide complete background data.
o conducting progress meetings with City' Council.
o referencing checking top candidates.
o determining five (5) finalists to be presented to the City Council.
3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF
City Staff will review and evaluate the proposals submitted and will make a final
recommendation to the City Council.
4. SCHEDULE
The City wishes to have a new City Attorney no later than May or June, 1994.
Therefore, the Executive Search Firm woUld need to be retained by
January 16, 1994, in order to meet this deadline..
5. RFP INTERPRETATION AND ADDENDA
Interpretation of RFP
All providers Shall make careful examination of the requirements, specifications
and conditions expressed in the RFP and fully inform themselves as to the quality
and character of services required.
Discrepancies,: omissions or requests for interpretation, should be submitted in
writing to:
John W. Stinson
Assistant City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 326-3751
5.2 Addenda
Any change in the RFP will be made only by written addendum, duly issued to.
each firm to whom the RFP was submitted. The City shall not be responsible for
any other explanations, or interpretations.
6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
6.1 Compensation
Include your compensation requirement to perform these services.
6.2 Timeline
A timeline must be completed showing the length of time the consultant'
anticipates is necessary to complete the search for City Attorney.
2
6.3 Method of Conducting Search
Include your plan on how your firm will conduct the search for the City Attorney
for the City of Bakersfield.
7. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The submission of a proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the provider has
investigated and satisfied himself as to the conditions to be encountered, the
character, quality and scope of work to be performed and the requirements of the
¢ ty.
7.1 Proposal to Remain Firm
All proposals shall remain firm for a period of at least one hundred twenty (120).
days from proposal opening date.
7.2 City of Bakersfield Statutes and Rules
The terms and conditions of the RFP and the resulting contract or activities based
upon the RFP shall be construed in accordance with the City of Bakersfield's
statutes and rules. Where State of California statutes and regulations are
referenced, they shall apply to this RFP and to the resulting contract.
7.3 Signature of Provider
The proposal and any clarifications thereto shall be signed by an officer of the
provider company or designated agent empowered to bind the firm in a contract.
The signatures of all persons signing the proposal shall be longhand.
7.4 Complete Written Proposal
Only written proposals will be accepted. No oral, facsimile, telegraph or
telephone proposals will be considered..
8. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENTS
For ease in review and to facilitate evaluation, the proposals submitted for this
project should be organized and presented in the following requested order:
8.1 Cover Page
8.2 Name of Firm and Proposal Title
8.3 (a) Organizational Information
Provide specific information concerning your firm in this section.
8.3 (b) Contract Information
Provide a list of any contracts you may currently have or previously had with the
City of Bakersfield.
8.4 (a) 'Qualifications and Experience
Provide specific information in this section concerning your firm's capabilities and
experience as it relates to the services provided. Provide a list of other
organizations which your firm works with, and provides recruitment services for
positions such as City Attorney or other high-level management positions.
Include names and phone numbers of references for these services provided.
8.4 (b) Samples
Provide-samples of recruitment material for similar positions that your firm has
developed.
8.5 Professional Team
Include the name and' location of the office where the work is to be performed.
Identify the principal consultant and what percentage of their time will be devoted
to the Bakersfield City Attorney recruitment. Provide a list of personnel who are
part of your staff and the length of time employed. Attach curriculum vitae for all
significant members of the professional staff which reflect their experience in this
type of work. Finally, provide an organization chart for the professional staff
which identifies their titles.
8.6 Insurance
Provider's staff shall maintain a single limit broad from commercial general liability
insurance policy in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. per occurrence'with
combined liability for handling hazardous materials, personal injury, property
damage, automobile liability and professional liability with a reliable insurance
carrier authorized to do business in the State of California and statutory Workers
Compensation coverage.
8.7 Contract
Proposal shall contain a completed sample contract. See attached example
contract.
4
8.8 Exceptions (General)
If you cannot comply with any.conditions of the scope of work to be performed,
explain what conditions cannot be complied with and the reason.
9. SELECTION PROCESS
9.1 Solicitation Caveat
The issUance of this solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the
part of the City; neither shall the City pay for costs incurred in the preparation of,
or submission of, proposals.
9.2 Proposal Submission
Submit five (5) copies of your proposal to:
John W. Stinson
Assistant City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
9.3 Initial Screening
All proposals received by the specified deadline with be reviewed by the City Staff
for content, cost~ related experience and professional qualifications of the
Executive Search Firms (including length of operation/experience). After the initial
screening, the City Staff will select those firms deemed qualified for further
evaluation. Interviews of those selected firms may be conducted as part of the
final selection process.
9.4 Rejection Of Proposals
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received and to waive
any informality, technical defect or clerical error in any proposal as the interest of
the City may require. Applicants submitting proposals which do not substantially
meet the requirements will be considered noncompliant.
9.5 Notification
After evaluation of proposals and approval by the City of Bakersfield, all providers
will be notified by letter of the new provider, within ten days of the final selection:
5
The Contents of the proposal and any clarification thereto submitted by the
successful provider shall become part of the contractual obligation and
incorporated by reference, into the ensuing contract.
All proposals become the property of the City of Bakersfield and will not be
returned to the provider.
10. SELECTION CRITERIA
The City of Bakersfield reserves the right to aWard this contract not necessarily to
the firm with the lowest cost, but to the firm which will provide the best overall
match to the RFP requirements.
An evaluation team comprised of representatives of the City of Bakersfield and
other team members as deemed necessary will review all proposals meeting the
criteria of this RFP.
Failure to provide requested information or unwillingness to accept terms,
conditions and other requirements of this RFP may result in rejection of the
proposal.
alb
RFP\ATTORNEY.94
AGREEMENT NO. 9 2 ' 5
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into on March 25m 1992,
by and-between the CITY. OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation,
referred to herein as the "CITY" and NORMAN ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES,
INC.,' referred to herein as the "CONSULTANT".
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents it is experienced and
exceptionally well' qualified in the field of executive recruitment
and selection; and,
WHEREAS, the current City Manager will retire in July of 1992;
and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to employ CONSULTANT to conduct a
recruitment for the City Manager, as set forth herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals herein, CITY
and'CONSULTANT mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. The scope of' work is as set forth in
CONSULTANT's Proposal, submitted by cover letter dated
March 4, 1992, which Proposal is incorporated herein by reference
and attached as Exhibit "A". The scope of work shall' include all
items and procedures necessary to properly complete the task
CONSULTANT'has been hired to perform, whether specifically included
in the scope of work or not.
2. COMPENSATION. CONSULTANT shall be 'paid for services
performed under this Agreement as follows:
$15,000, plus reasonable substantial reimbursement costs
not to exceed $6,500.
This compensation set forth in this'paragraph shall'be the total
Compensation for the services provided by CONSULTANT, including all
out-of-pocket costs incurred.. CITY shall pay no fee other than the
compensation listed in thiSparagraph unless otherwise agreed to in
writing by the CITY.
3. PAYMENT PROCEDURE. CONSULTANT shall be paid for services
rendered after receipt of itemized invoices for the work completed
and approved by CITY 'in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement. Payment by CITY to CONSULTANT shall be made within
'thirty (30). days after receipt and approval by CITY of CONSULTANT's
itemized invoice. .Payment for services will be made ~n three equal
installments; the first upon acceptance of this contract, the
second at the conclusion of the sixth week of services, and the
third and final payment upon' presentation and acceptance of the
final report.. Payment for expenses will be reimbursed upon receipt
of invoice and after review andapproval by City.' Ail requests for
reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by proof that such
expense was incurred.
4. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of anyparty to enforce
against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute
a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provis~on at a
later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this
Agreement.
5. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This contract sets forth the
entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes ail other oral
or written representations. This contract may be modified only in
writing approved, by the City Council and signedby all the parties.
6. EXHIBITS. In'the event of a conflict between the terms,
conditions or operations set forth herein and those in exhibits
'attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth
~herein shall prevail.
7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT stipulates that
corporately or individually, the firm, its employees and
subconsultants have no financial interest in either the success or
failure of any project which is dependent on the results of the
studies prepared under this Agreement.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. CONSULTANT shall, at
CONSULTANT's sole cost~ comply with all of the requirements of
Municipal, State and Federal authorities now in force, or which may
hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall
faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out o~
this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal
statutes, 'rules or regulations now in force or which may hereafter
be in force.
9. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. This Agreement calls for the
performance of the services of CONSULTANT as an independent
contractor, and CONSULTANT will not be considered an employee of.
the CITY for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the benefits
provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall~not be
construed as forming a partnership or any other association with
CONSULTANT other than that of an independent contractor.
10. INSURANCE. During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT
shall maintain a single ·limit broad form commercial general
liability insurance policy in an amount of not less than $1,000,000
per occurrence with combined liability for personal injury,
'property damage,, automobile liability and professional liability
with a reliable insurance carrier authorized to do business, in the
State of California and statutory Workmens' Compensation coverage.
Said policy or policies of insurance shall expressly n~e the City
and its agents, officers and employees as additional lnsureds..
Said insurance shall not be. subject to cancellation, non-renewal,
or.coverage reduction without thirty (30) days written notice to
CITY. .CONSULTANT shall provide to the CITY proof of insurance
endorsements and certificates of insurance prior to execution of
this Agreement. Said proof of endorsements and certificates of
insurance shall be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "B".
11. INDEMNITY. CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless City, its officers, agents and employees against any and
all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands
whatsoever against them, or any of them, for injury to or death of
persons or damage to property arising.out of, connected with, or
caused by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT's employees, agents or independent
contractors or companies in the performance of, or in any way
arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or
not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder.
12. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution.
It is the product of negotiation and therefore shall not be
construed against any party.
13. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by
all parties and terminate on the selection of a City Manager by the
City Council, unless sooner terminated as herein provided.
14. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising
under, or growing out of, this contract shall be instituted in Kern
County, California.
15. ASSIGNMENT. This contract shall not be assigned by any
party, or any party substituted, without prior written consent of
all the parties.
16. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this
Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the
parties to the contract and their heirs, administrators, executors,
personal representatives, successors and assigns.
17. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this.
Agreement represents and warrants they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the corporation or
organization, if any, named herein and that this Agreement is
binding upon said corporation or organization in accordance with
its terms.
18.. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any'
party upon thirty (30) days written notice to all other parties.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY. During the term of this Agreement,.
CONSULTANT will be dealing with information of a legal and
confidential nature, and such information could severely damage
City if any of said information were disclosed to outside parties.,
CONSULTANT will not disclose to anyone, directly or indirectly,
either during the term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter,
a~y such information or use such information other than as
necessary in the course of services provided to the City under this
Agreement. Ail documents that C0NSULTANTprepares and confidential
information that might be given to CONSULTANT in the course of
providing serVices under this Agreement are the exclusive property
of the City and shall remain in the City's possession. Under no
circumstances shall any such information or documents be removed
from the .City without the City's written consent first being
obtained.
20. NEWS RELEASES/INTERVIEWS. Ail Consultant and
subconsultant/subcontractor news releases, media interviews,
testimony at hearings and public comment shall be prohibited unless.
expressly-authorized by the City.
21. NOTICES. Ail notices relative to this Agreement shall be
given in writing and shall be sent by Certified or Registered Mail
and be effective upon~depositing in the United States mail~ The
parties shall~ be addressed as follows, or at any other address
designated by notice=
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
150 ! TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
CONSULTANT= NORMAN ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, INC..
12424 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 850
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025-1042
22. TAX NUMBERS.
CONSULTANT's Federal Tax ID Number: 95-4162093
CONSULTANT is a corporation? Yes x No
(Please check one)
23. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this
Agreement represents and warrants they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Agreement-on behalf of the corporation or
organization, if any, named herein and that this Agreement is
binding upon. said corporation, or organization in accordance with
its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed, the. day and. year first-above written.
"City"
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI
City Attorney
COUNTERS I GNED:
"CON-qULTI~'"
Title
MC/kef
AGREE\CIT¥.MGR
3-17-92
CLASS TITLE: CITY ATTORNEY 920
CLASS CHARACTERISTICS:
Performs professional' and administrative work as the chief counsel and
legal representative of the City; provides legal counsel to 'the City
CoUncil, City Manager, department heads, and agencies, commissions and
boards of the City; prepares resolutions and ordinances for the City
Council; provides the legal defense for all civil and workers' .compen-
sation actions brought against the City; prepares legal documents for
the City Council,.Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and other
boards and agencies of the City; represents the City in civil.and
criminal cases.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:
Appears for and represents the City in the defense of civil actions,~
including personal injury and property damage; represents the City in
'workers' compensation actions; represents the City in administrative
hearings; prepares misdemeanor criminal complaints and prosecutes
violations of city ordinances; prepares legal documents required for
annexations, general plan'amendments, and establishment of special.
districts; prepares all legislative documents, charter revisions, .
ordinances and resolutions; assists and advises the Council and a ·
variety of commissions, boards and agencies on legal matters; is the
general counsel ~for the Redevelopment Agency; provides legal counsel
for the City's water, public works, planning, recreation, police, fire
and building departments; prepares and tries suits in Municipal and
Superior Courts for recovery of civil debts and damage claims.
DESIRABLE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Training and Experience: Membership in the California Bar Association
and 10 years of experience in the practice of law, including consider-
able experience in municipal practice.
Knowledge, Abilities, and Skills: Comprehensive knowledge of general
criminal and civil law including that of municipal corporations; com-
prehensive knowledge of methods of litigation and court representation;
comprehensive knowledge of the various operations of a municipal govern-
ment. ExtensiVe trial experience.
Ability to conduct litigation as a representative of the municipality;
ability to direct subordinates in processing civil and.criminal actions
and defending civil actions; abilitY to prepare a variety of legal
documents, instruments, and reports; ability to formulate and present,
at any time, complex legal opinions on various aspects of municipal
operations.
12/80
Approved by the City Council: 12-17-80
Approved by the Civil service Board: 1-27-81
M'EMORANDUM
December 10, 1993
To: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
From: Hilary Rojo, Planning TechniCian
RE: Graffiti Program Update
1) During the last two weeks, 136 work orders have been
processed. Since the Thanksgiving Holiday, graffiti hotline
ca~ls has increased tremendously. Several dozen neighborhood
Paint outs have been coordinated,' so th~cails should start to
Slow down. However, graffiti will most likely increase over
Chri'stmas Vacation.
2) Last week I visited with the City of Southgate's Police Chief
Ron George to discuss his "award winning" comprehensive graffiti
program. The primary ingredient to the program was community
mobilization and citizen involvement. We are welcome to visit
Southgate anytime and see his'graffiti-free city. He has also
offered to come to Bakersfield and do. a presentation.
Also that day, I attended Orange County Police Chief's Gang
Prevention Summit in Anaheim. I collected resource materials on
many good programs dealing with gangs and graffiti.
3) A meeting has been set with the California Avenue Merchants
(Union to Eye) to discuss the importance of quick removal and to
form a partnership between merchants (Wednesday, December 15th
0930 at Community Development). Rachel Meek, Crime Prevention
Specialist- Police Department, and Paul Chavez, Graffiti Removal-
General Services, has been invited to attend.
4) The Chester Paint-out last Saturday, with the Highland High
Senior Class Students, was highly successful. Nineteen buildings
on Chester Ave. between Brundage and California were painted.
One b'6ilding was reported to have fecal matter smeared under the
graffiti. To date, the buildings that were painted have not been
re-tagged. The Downtown area which was painted out three weeks
ago has not been re-tagged either.
5) We have two new part-time volunteers which will assist us
with graffiti work order processing.
6) The graffiti software program is almost complete. Jim at
Data Processing has done a great job integrating the program to
meet our needs. This software program should generate work
orders for General Services, area tag reports complete with
monikers for Police, track paint code numbers/owner release forms
and sort billing district numbers. Volunteers will input the
3,000 back work orders. This software program will cut the
program's administrative time per work order in half.
CIT~A?~aGER~
t0 DEC ~3 ~ .~ lO
December 14. 1993
To: Jake Wager, Economic & Community Developmen irector
From: Hilary Rojo, Planning Technician
RE: Changes in 32-ERASE Graffiti Removal P~ogram
Citizen Labor & City Paint Focus
Aithough my involvement with the Graffiti Removal Program has been
brief, it became apparent that the City of Bakersfield does not
have sufficient resources or current staff capacity to remove all
graffiti which is called in by residents to the Hotline. So, it is
imperative that we change the focus from City removal to Citizen
removal.
I have spent the last few weeks speaking with callers and offering
them free paint- if they would do the removal in a timely, ongoing
manner. Out of approximately 75 calls, only one has said that he
didn't have time. Most of the citizens calling the Graffiti
Hotline are frustrated by the problem and wish to be mobilized into
action. It actually makes them feel better to be in partnership
with the City. Many cities, including the one I recently left,
mobilize their community members to combat graffiti. The City of
Southgate has found much success in citizen labor coupled with city
paint.
Already, since we have stocked-many neighboroods with paint, our
calls have dwindled since last Saturday. The last four days we
have seen a 60% reduction in calls.
I hope to focus the next six months on community mobilization. I
will cover the City, neighborhood by neighborhood, and find
citizens who will organize and remove the graffiti within a day.
Currently, I am training two part-time volunteers to process work
orders and answer the hotline. I hope to receive another volunteer
to be out in the field to assist with paint coding and delivery.
Of course as we grow, a paint pick-up site office will be helpful.
The City removal employee will then be utilized to keep up with the
constant graffiti on City's parks, walls, walkways, buildings and
signal boxes.
If you choose to go with this direction of removal, I will generate
a brochure (in house) with removal guidelines similar to the sheet
enclosed. Once ready, we will publicize the "free paint" program
to the community through print, audio and visual media.
M EMOR A N D U M December 15, 1993
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER . ~ /
FROM: LELAND J. ANDERSEN, COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF SADDLE DRIVE PARK
As per our conversation this afternoon, following is a recap of
available funding for acquisition and development of the park site.
Currently there is $138,000 available for acquisition and $443,000
available for development. $106,000 of the acquisition funds will
be used for the purpose of purchasing the two and a half acres.
The balance of those funds ($32,000) will be used with additional
funds that are collected to purchase one other park site within
that area.
We are estimating that $5-600,000 will be necessary to develop the
park site. We are anticipating submitting monies within the 1994-
95 fiscal year to begin development. We also anticipate that it
will take approximately two years to complete the project. As long
as development continues monies should be available to complete the
project. It should be noted that not all the monies currently
available should be used on the Tevis Park site as other
development projects within that zone have contributed to the fund.
As you are probably aware the zone in which the above revenues are
collected is bounded on the North by Stockdale Highway, by just
south of White Lane on the South and Buena Vista and Gosford on the
West and East sides. There are some 4-5 development projects
within that zone and as such all contribute to the funding.
I hope this gives you some answers. If there is anything else I
can add please contact me at your convenience.
/lg
PARK~MPROVEMENT FUND
FUNDS AVAILABLE
AS OF 10-11-93
FILENAME:FUND322\RECAP#__.~'~.~ 7-1-90TO [ / INTERESTI FUNDS NETII DATE OF
ALLOCATED AVAI LABLE1 AMOUNT 15T~
BEFORE AVAILABLE l DISB
I ACCT ' DESC__TION o-~-m 7-~-9~ TO 0-30-~217-~-92TO 0-30-~37-~-93TO ~0-~ ~-~3 TOTAL .... DISB'S DlSS'S
'56521
pARK ~'~QcD ~=~.~ .~Tn~n~l cF~ES-CAL STATE 40,598.300.00 40,870.66 / · 48,356.53 0.00 129,825.49 ' 8,579.23 138,404.72 '138,404.72
56522
PARK PARKA__ ACQ ~q=~q ~A,^ ' -------'"'~-~ . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
56523
. ~--~,~,,,~ 6,329.64 66,485.87 28,653.00 0.00 i 101,468.51 5,226.78 106,695.29 106,695.29
,56527 PARK ACQ FEES-JENKINS 0.0¢ ................................................. ;i;0 0.0( .............................. 01'~ ................................................. 61'~'~ ..................................... ~'i;'~ ...........................................
56531 PARK I~EV FEEs-CAL sTATIC' 60,010.00 219,240.00 129,585.00 12,490.00 421,325.00 21,945.51 443,270.51 '~ 443,270.51
56532 PARK DEV FEES-STOCKDALE 14,500.00 50,470.00 14,500.00 85,743.96
· 670.00 80,140.00 J 5,603.96 85,743.96
50537 PARK DEV FEES-JENKINS 26,840.00 57,950.00 45,270.00 11,660.00 1141,720.00
8,O77.95
54010
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 4,396.00 32,622.00 62,726.00 0.00 99,744.00 0.00
149,797.95
149,797.95
TOTALS.. 2 2~,27~-.~.~ 896,263.71 840,765.61 96,044.71 2,0._~79,~8.49 99,744.00 _2,079,348.49~ 121 820.00 1,957,528.49
MEMORANDUM
December 15, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ~ COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ~NSERVATION
~'LAN (MBnC~')
Attached is correspondence to keep you informed of the status of the MBHCP. The MBHCP
has received approval from the State Department of Fish and Game but has stalled at the
Federal level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has questioned basic concepts of the plan
which they agreed to earlier. Those concepts have to do with the multi-species approach of the
plan, plan funding and monitoring.
The City and County will be meeting with regional fish and wildlife management on December
23, 1993, and has forwarded the attached correspondence to assist in moving the project forward.
JM:pjt
1\1cc12.15
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ,~ERVICES DEPT. ;~ESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCy
TED JAMES. AICP. Director .,~-.~--~.~ JOEL HEINRICHS, AGENCY DIRECTOR
· ,,v' ['~,~ Air Pollution Control District
2700BAKERSFiELD."M", STREET,cA 93301SUITE 100 :~~~
?' Englneerlm; & Survey Services I)el:)artment
Planning & Oevelol3ment Services (3el~artment
Phone: (805) 861-2615 ii ~1 Transportation Management Department
FAX: (805) 861-2061 ~-_~~:~' Waste Management I:)epartment
December 13, 1993
Representative Bill Thomas
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington. D.C. 20515
RE: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Section 10(a) Permit Application
Honorable Bill Thomas:
The purpose of this correspondence is to request your assistance in securing the federal approval
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) which is' currently
undergoing review by the Regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Portland, Oregon.
Over six years ago the City of Bakersfield and Kern County initiated a joint program to obtain
a Section 10(a) Permit under the Federal Endangered Species Act and a Section 2081
Management Agreement pursuant to the State Endangered Species .Act.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is a progressive multi-species'
conservation program that is designed to mitigate the impacts of urban growth on federally and
state protected plant and animal species within the 408 square mile Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan area.
The City and County undertook the preparation of the MBHCP to comply with state and federal
endangered species laws as a part of our General Plan for future metropolitan growth. The
MBHCP benefits the building industry and establishes a dependable mechanism for conservation.
The goal of the program is to acquire, preserve and enhance native habitats which support
endangered and threatened species, while allowing urban development to proceed in accordance
with the Metropolitan Bakersfield .2010 General Plan. The issuance of state and federal
Endangered Species Act permits will remove the necessity of individual applicants having to
address endangered species impacts and mitigation on a case-by-case .basis.
The City and County staff have worked closely with a steering committee made up of
representatives from local government., state and federal resource agencies, conservation groups
and the building and construction industry. The MBHCP is the culmination of six years of
meetings and negotiations. Countless hours and substantial local expense went into the
development of this program which involved the active participation of the Sacramento Field
Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The MBHCP has been jointly approved by the
Bakersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The State Section 2081
Management Permit' has also been approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Decemi~er 13. 1993
Page 2
The federal Section i0(a) Permit application for the MBHCP was submitted to the Regional U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Office on August 27, 1993. Unfortunately, it is our perception that
· little progress has been made in moving the application forward in Portland. It is also our
observation that the regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff is going through a redundant
review process that has already occurred with the Sacramento Field Office.
The Sacramento Field Office was closely involved in program development and had expressed
in correspondence dated July 8, 1991, that ".the final plan appears to address all of the elements
required of conservation plans pursuant to 50 CFR Government Code 17.22(b)(1)(iii)." In July,
1991, City and County representatives met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff including
the Regional Director in Portland, Oregon, where the program was well received. Subsequent
comments received by the City and the County t¥om the Sacramento Field Office dated
November 20, 1992, included comments from both the Sacramento and Portland regional staff.
Recent comments from the Sacramento staff prepatory to submitting the Section 10(a) Permit
application implied the acceptability of the program and a desire to expeditiously process the
10(a) Permit.
'In light of all the involvement and close coordination with the Sacramento staff, and our
understanding that the Portland regional staff.w~ being kept apprised of the program direction,
we were quite disturbed to recently learn that the Portland Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service submitted 68 comments to the Sacramento Field Office (see attachment). Many
of the comments express concern for the multi-species conservation approach which is the basic
premise that underlies the MBHCP. SO great is our frustration over the apparent lack of
progress in obtaining final approval of the MBHCP that we are unable to express it in writing.
All the elements of the MBHCP and Implementing Agreement were worked out in lengthy and
painstaking discussions with the state and federal wildlife agencies. The U.S. Fish and 'Wildlife
Service representative to our program played a lead role in the development of the HCP and
Implementing Agreement. We were assured throughout the lengthy process of the development
of the Implementing Agreement that appropriate levels of the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service
were being kept informed and that the program would be in a position to obtain expeditious final
approval. Over a three year period, literally every line of the Implementation Agreement was
worked out in detailed discussions in Sacramento involving the State Department .of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The countless hours of negotiations and the significant consensus built locally among industry,
environmental and public groups to develop a workable conservation strategy is now being held
hostage by a review process being undertaken by the Portland Regional Office. We are
frustrated at the lack of progress that has been made to move such a significant multi-species
conservation program tbrward. For example, to our knowledge, the Federal Register notice has
December 13. 1993
Page 3
not yet been published, despite the tact that the application materials include a completed Federal
Register notice form that was intended to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this
regard. The status of the MBHCP approval process has become another example of the
problems citizens and local agencies encounter with the process of developing conservation
programs in response to state and federal endangered species laws. Unless the resource agencies
can demonstrate their commitment to facilitate the development of locally acceptable programs
which are consistent with the intent of the Endangered Species Act. landowners, local agencies
and conservation groups will be reluctant to commit the time and resources that are presently
required to undertake the tedious' negotiations and redundant review procedures that characterize
the current state and federal 'process.
We would appreciate very.much your assistance in moving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
review process forward. If you have any questions concerning .this matter, please contact either
Ted James, Kern County Planning Director, or Jack Hardisty, City of Bakersfield Planning
Director at (805) 861-2099 and (805) 326-3733 respectively.
Ve ry.truly yours, ~~~.~..~
JAM ~'~P,~ Director ~ -' /'/ - /'Y/'~
TED
),KC'K HARDI~STY, DirecJAW'
Planning and~evelopment Services ///'Bakersfield City Plann..ij3ffbepartment
TJ:jb
c:ted
cc Kern County Board of Supervisors
Mayor and Bakersfield City Council Members
County Administration Office
Alan Tandy, City Manager
County Counsel
Resource Management Agency Director
P[~ANNi~NG & DEVELOPMENT ~ERVICES DEPT, i~ESOURCE ~.'~ANAGEMENT AGENCY
TED JAMES, AICP. Director .~,~,~ JOEL HEINRICHS. AGENCY DIRECTOR
2700 "M" STREET. SUITE 100 ~ Air Pollution C~ontrol Oistrfct
fiAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 ? [~, EneJineer,ng & Survey Services Oepartment
Planning & Deveiol~rnenl Services Oepartmeflt
Phone: (805) 861-2615 .ii .~i
~~~? TransDortation Mana~jement Department
FAX: (805) 861-2061 Waste Manacjement Oel~ar~ment
December 1.3., 1993
Representative Calvin Dooley
U.S. House of Representatives
.Washington. D.C. 20515 -
RE: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Section 10(a) Permit Application
Honorable Calvin Dooley:
The purpose of this correspondence is to request your assistance in securing the federal approval
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) which is currently
undergoing review by the Regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Portland, Oregon.
Over six years ago the City of Bakersfield and Kern County initiated a joint program to obtain
a Section 10(a) Permit.under the Federal Endangered Species Act and a Section 2081
Management Agreement pursuant to the State Endangered Species Act.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is a progressive multi-species
conservation program that is designed to mitigate the impacts of urban growth on federally and
state protected plant and animal species within the 408 square mile Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan area.
The City and County undertook the preparation of the MBHCP to comply with state and federal
endangered species laws as a part of our General Plan tbr future metropolitan growth. The
MBHCP benefits the building industry and establishes a dependable mechanism for conservation.
The goal of the program is to acquire, preserve and enhance native habitats which support
endangered and threatened .species, while allowing urban development to proceed in accordance
with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The issuance of state and federal
Endangered Species Act permits will remove the necessity of individual applicants having to
address endangered species impacts and mitigation on a case-by-case basis.
The City and County staff have worked closely with a steering committee made up of
representatives from local, government, state and federal resource agencies, conservation groups
and the building and construction industry. The MBHCP is the culmination of six years of
meetings and negotiations. Countless hours and substantial local expense went into the
development of this program which involved the active participation of the Sacramento Field
Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'. The MBHCP has been jointly approved by the
Bakersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The State Section 2081
Management Permit has also been approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.
December ~3. 1993
Page 2
The federal Section 10(a) Permit application for the MBHCP was submitted to the Regional U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Office on August 27, 1993. Unfortunately, it is our perception that
little progress has been made in moving the application forward in Portland. It is also our
observation that the regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff is going through a redundant
review process that has already occurred with the Sacramento Field Office.
The Sacramento Field Office was closelv involved in program development and had expressed
in correspondence dated July 8, 1991, that "the final plan appears to address all of the elements
requiredof conservation plans pursuant to 50 CFR Government Code 17.22(b)(1)(iii)." In July,
1991, City and County representatives met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff including
the Regional Director in Portland, Oregon, where the program was well received. Subsequent
comments received by the City and the County from the Sacramento Field Office dated
November 20, 1992, included comments from both the Sacramento and Portland regional staff.
Recent comments from the Sacramento staff prepatory .to submitting the Section 10(a) Permit
application implied the acceptability of the program and a desire to expeditiously process the.
10(a) Permit.
In light of ali the involvement and close 'coordination with the Sacramento staff, and our
understanding that the Portland regional staff was being kept apprised of the program direction,
we were quite distUrbed to recently learn that the Portland Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service submitted 68 comments to the Sacramento Field Office'(see attachment). Many
of the comments express concern for the multi-species conservation approach' which is the basic
premise that underlies the MBHCP. So great is our frustration over the apparent lack of
progress in obtaining final approval of the MBHCP that we are unable to express it in writing.
All the elements of the MBHCP and Implementing Agreement were worked out in lengthy~and
painstaking discussions with the state and federal wildlife agencies. The U.S.. Fi!sh and Wildlife
Service representative to our program played a lead role in the development of the HCP and
Implementing Agreement. We were assured throughout the lengthy process of the development
of the Implementing Agreement' that appropriate levels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
were being kept informed and that the program would be in a position to obtain expeditious final
approval. Over a three year period, literally every line of the Implementation Agreement was
worked out in detailed discussions in Sacramento involving the State Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The countless hours of negotiations and the significant consensus built locally among industry,
environmental and public groups to develop a workable conservation strategy is now being held
hostage bv a review process being undertaken by the Portland Regional Office. We are
frustrated at the lack of progress that has been made to move such.a significant multi-species
conservation program forward'. For example, to our knowledge, the Federal Register notice has
December 13. 1993
Page 3
not yet been published, despite the tact that the application materials include a completed Federal
Register notice form that was intended to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this
regard. The status of the MBHCP approval process has become another example of the
problems citizens and local agencies encounter with the process of developing conservation
programs in response to state and federal endangered species laws. Unless the resource agencies
can demonstrate their commitment to facilitate the development of locally acceptable programs
which are consistent with the intent of the Endangered Species Act, landowners, local agencies
and conservation groups will be reluctant to commit the time and resources that are presently
required .to undertake the tedious negotiations and redundant review procedures that characterize
the current state and federal process..
We would appreciate very much your assistance in moving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
review process tbrward. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact either
Ted James, .Kern County Planning Director, or Jack Hardisty, City of Bakersfield Planning
Director at (805) 861-2099 and (805) 326-3733 respectively.
V ery truly_'~ta~.~ ,~'~--,,~y°urs' . ~'/~' ~~ ~ ~,~/'"'~'~ ////. ~ ~"/ _
TED JA~ES,~klcP, Director ~i~R~.~'D:~T~Y, Direc~~
Planning ~'t,~l,~evelopment services Bakersfield City Planning E)elSartment ·
TJ:jb
c: ted
cc Kern County Board of Supervisors
Mayor and Bakersfield City Council Members
County Administration Office
Alan Tandy, City Manager
County Counsel
Resource Management Agency Director
D PART NT
FOCU.S:
[ ~-~---] DEPARTMENT FACTS
Bakersfield is located at the south- grow at a rapid pace. Bakersfield is currently Population served ]95,771
~ ~ ]em end of California's fertile San the fourth fastest growing city in the United Are(3 (square milesl 106.7
I ~ [ Joaquin Valley. The city's location, States, and shows no signs o~ slowing. Educa- Stations l 1
just 90 miles south of Fresno and 90 miles tional opportunities include a community col- Engine Cos.
north of Los Angeles at the intersection of lege and a growing State university. Truck Cos. 2
Highway 58 and Highway 99, has contributed Bakersfield's topography is mostly flat val- Patrols 4
to the growth of both its transportation indus- ley floor except for thc northeastern pan of Budget $I 5 million
try and the number of. people relocating from town which extends into the rolling Sierra Isa Rating 2 '
and commuting to Los Angeles. Bakersfield's Nevada foothills. Its climate ranges from Personnel
Iow median home price, under one hundred extreme summer time temperatures to long
thousand dollars, has brought many former periods of fog and near freezing temperatures Paid firefighters .170
Reserve firefighters 50
Los Angeles residents to our area. in the winter. The city also experiences sev-
Tile city contains miles of quiet residential eral major wind storms each year. Civilian employees 25
areas and numerous golf courses. In addition, History Incidents
it has two major rail yards, a commercial The Bakersfield Fire Department was first Fires 1,884
transportation airport (located just outside the organized on October 17, 1874. As the. city EMS 6,809
city limits), a general aviation airport, and 661 attempted to .strengthen its fire defenses, fol- Other 6,063
miles of city streets. The area is home to seven lowing a second disastrous conflagration, the Total 14,756
oil refineries and several large chemical facili- department was converted to a paid fire de- Busiest Engine Co. (E-2) 2,387
ties. Major industrial base includes oil--ex- partment in 1905. The department is rich with Busiest Truck Co. (T-1) 810
ploration, prodtiction, and refining; agricul- tradition and in 1974 we proudly celebrated its Fire Loss ) $5..3 million
lure; transportation; construction; and manu- centennial. Apparatus
facturing. ' The department's growth and development 1500 GPM Engines ] 4
Bakersfield spans 106 square miles, gener- can be traced to the city's four conflagrations. Aerial ladder trucks 2
ally following Kern River from the base of the Plagued by high summer temperatures-- gen- Ladder towers
Sierra Nevada Mountains westward toward erally 100 to 110 degrees, low relative humidi- Patrols 6
Interstate 5 and Elk Hills. It is the county seat ties, and frequent winds, Bakersfield has found Command Vehicles 3
of Kern County. 'Kern County is 'known not itself repeatedly besieged by disastrous fires. HOZ mat van l
only for its abundant agriculture, but also for The first of these devastating fires occurred Staff vehicles 20
producing more than half of all the oil pro- July 7, t889. In just 3 hours, 15 square blocks
duced in California. The city's population is went up in flames. Every business in town and
just under 200,000 people and is continuing to half of the town's residences were destroyed ..........
1500 people were left homeless. Subsequent
conflagrations occurred on .September 7, 1904,
Steve Hamblet is a Bakersfield firefighter August 22, 1919, and October 28, 1928.
with three and a half years of service, who Records show the 1904 fire eventually took i.'I
serves in the department's wildland/urban in- three live~ including one of a Bakersfield
terface station, and is a member of the fireman, and the 1928 fire left 25 Bakersfield
department's heavy rescue team. He also serves firefighters and three Fresno firefighters in-
as a counselor in the "Juvenile Fire Setter jure& This fire threatened to destroy the entire
Program." downtown area and was stopped only after a
Mark Cohen is a Bakersfield firefighter with heroic stand was made by members of the two ....
seven years experience. He also has worked departments. : . . ,..¢;; '-
for both the Los Angeles County Fire Depart: Concerned about suppressing all future '."
. . %:: .~.~-
ment and the U.S. Forest Service. He has an fires before they'reachedconflagration propor- _ ::...:.~
AA degree in Fire Science from Los Angeles ~ CONnNUED ON PAGE lO ~/}i~ '" "' ' ..-;. :'.!~i~i}!~.¢:!~} '
Valley College.
7
Tm~ C,t~rvov. z,m~ Fza.~ S~.wc~. A D~c~£~ 1993
' Bakersfield
Fire
Department
in action
Photo right: Haz mat 11 offers
citizens protection from chemical
hazards in the community; Photo
below: Fire extending into an
exposed apartment complex was
what was round by ,first-arriving
companies; Engine 2 prepares to
cut i~ off.
"THE O]BIGINAL"
AS USED AT EXTRICATION '92 &
92 WORLD EXTRICATION COMPETITION
Tota} glass removal with
one easy-to-use tool!
~ Less glass inside' vehicle
compartment
~ Less movemem to vehicle & patiem
¢, Mor~ comrol over auto glass
¢~ 100% effective on all auto glass
~ Faster than an5, other manual tool
~ Safer removal of side &rear glass
Wehr Engineering
6673 w. 800 N St., Fairland, tN 46126
FAX i -317-835-2992 ~ 1800-45%GLAS
Photo above {top] The Olive Drive training f,-,.-i!itv,.~..., as seen·
'from. the air; photo above [bottom} Bakersfield and Kern
County firefighters teamea up to battle this, "~ 990 refinery
fire; the third to strike this tacili~ in three years.
PHO'iOS BY FIREFIGHTER TERRY LyoNS
~:~','1~ ~ I~FC:P.M~F~ ~Qg~
ned as a class one fire department until 1976 Since this time. Bakersfield
Bakersfield when, unable to keep up svith the city's rapid had t~e opportunity of reguiariy ..qs~istitnz units
~ COm~NU~D ~aO,~ ~^C,~ 7 growth, the departmem's rating slipped to a from the Kern County Fire
class 2. Also, as resul! of this agreement is our !2
lions, the city spent ihe next 25 years further In 1982 ,'our city re~ched agreement with -acre joint training facii.ity. This site comains
strengthening its fire defenses. By i~955, the the County of Kern for a Joint Powers Agree- classrooms, a video production studio, a fire
Bakersfield Fire Department had achieved a merit between the city and county fire depart- servic,e library.'a drill tower, a burn building,
class i N.B.F.U. (now I.S.O.) rating. The merits. This document provided for closest heavyrescueprops, hazardousmate:ials!~'rops.
!955 survey assessed the department only 87 engine company response in metropolitan and offices. The facility has been a tremen-
deficiency points--less than any other depart- Bakersfield regaidless of jurisdiction. The dons asset to our department and is used by
ment in the country. Tha department contin- area served contains some 300,000 residents, personnel from around the region--w~: believe
it to be one of the finest in the s~ate. Our two
departments also cooperate in ihe staffing of a
joint communications center. All this gi,,'es
economy of scate, and gives the public ~etter
mT~t~R~'~'m ~,,,~,t~ ~,.~ ,m~ .,~a~o and faster service.
Current Operations
The Bakersfield Fire Department provides
l~lIIklllilll~ LI'I~. fire suppression services, emergency medical
services, hazardous materials response, haz-
'ardous materials regulation, aggressive fire
prevention and fire safety education services,
disaster preparedness, and a heavy rescue
' team. The department is headed by Fire Chief
Steve Johnson and supported by his adminis-
trative staff. Deputy Chief Mike Kelly serves
mbi d
Over 100 years of co ne' runs thedepartment'sadministrativeservices,
water supply, fire prevention, arson investiga-
tion, and hazardous materials regulation units.
legalexpe ie isa lablefFom Assistant Chief Owen Macarthey commands
r ncc av the department's Operations Division, which
also includes the training section, and is re-
sponsible for disaster preparedness.. Assistant
these CSFA recommended Ch,e~ Henry Pacheco heads the department's
Support Services Division. Support Services
. has responsibility for public relations and fire
compensation safety educati°n' facility and equipment main-tenance'
xAltlr, l(Or, qI and communications.
Fire suppression remains the department's
and tirement ttorneys.rea-,~. most challenging mission. With the cit?s
population having doubled and its area'having
increased by 30 square miles in the last 15
years, planning for, and providing, adequate
fire fighting resources is one of the department's
biggest problems. Another concern is that the
construction boom of the last 15 years has now
Linda J. Brown (Greenbrae) {415) 925-9212 made wooden shake shingles the predominant
roof ~ype in the city. This has occurred despite
Richard Elder (Concord) (5!0) 676-7991or {800) 242-COMP attempts by the department to control the use
of such roofs. GNen the city's conflagration
Scott O'Mara (San Diego) (619) 239-9885 or (800) '247-1222 potential, this construction Practice may prove
to be a problem for the department for many
Arnold Petersen (Santa Ann} (714} 972-3000 years to come. Also of concern is the fact that
the city has now infringed on the wildland
Tom Wicke {Woodland Hills} (818) 703-6000 interface. And although the city has not had a
disastrous wildland fire, we do seem to lose a
few structures to vegetation fires each year.
City firefighters attempt to make up for the
NOTICE shortage of resources through aggressive ac-
Makingafalseorfraudulentworkers'compensationclaimisafelonysubject lion. The department is proud that its
to up to 5 years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000 or double the value of firefighters have once again distinguished
the fraud, whichever is greater, or by both imprisonment and fine. ® Co~m,u~ o~
~' ing props at our training center so that C.S.T.I. currently under the command of Battalion
accredited technician and specialist courses Chief David Lugo. Chief Lugo has recendv
can be taught there. He is also working to developed the teams's operations procedures
, '~,?-ONfJNUED FROM PREVIOUS P,~,3~ develop improved team operating and staffing manual. The heavy rescue team is just one
:hemselves through the rescues made at three procedures. Chief Johnson savs he sees more way our organization has sought re meet-
multiple family residential fires, hazardous materials response as one of the the needs of our community.
When fire broke out at lJakersfield's Mis- department's biggest developments. Conclusion
,ion Hotel, first companies on scene found Our hazardous materials regulation efforts Chief Johnson is optimistic about the fu-
heavy fire on the second floor of a "center are coordinated by our Hazardous Materials lure of the department. He says, "We ail
. , type hotel. This late night fire fully Division. Field engine companies support the recognize that being properly staffed, trained,
in~,otved one unit and fire was quickly extend- division by performing the necessary inspec- and motivated to handle any emergency is one
ing down the central hallway and into two lions, of the key elements of ohr mission as
occupied rooms that had fire burn through Division activities include enforcing state firefighters; however, our department realizes
itheir doorways. Truck company firefighters "right-to-know" laws, SARA title 3, and un- that only through a proactive public education
had to rescue these occupants via ground lad-. derground tank monitoring, program can we truly achieve our mission of
ders while the first engine was charging its Our fire prevention bureau consists of the 'the preservation .of life and property'." It is
lines. Later arriving companies also rescued Fire Marshal, three Captains--who perform with this in mind that our department currently
iseveraI people from the heavilv charged hall- douNe duty.as arson investigators and as offers some 14 public education services, but
way. Through the efforts of Bakersfield inspectors, four Civilian inspectors, and a sec- more importantly , we are looking at ~:ven
!firefighters no lives where lost at this fire. In retary. Our fire safety education efforts in- more public education opportunities' in the
two other "multi dwelling" fires last year elude Juvenile Fire Setter counseling, "adopt7 future as a result of Senate Bill 198." (Note:
:aggressive search tactics by city fire fighters a-school", "Puppet Company Number l",Ea.rth- Senate Bill 198 requires employers to main-.
also led to the rescue of civilians, quake preparedness, and other programs, lain an injury and illness prevention program).
[n another interesting recent fire, two alarms Department members perform these programs Chief Johnson reports, the departtnent's
were struck for a fire at a central area ware- on a relief or overtime basis, future is also filled with many other important
house. First units on scene found an eight Our department is also in charge of disaster and challenging opportunities.
thousand square foot warehouse wellinvolved preparedness for the city. These activities At this time, the department is currently
with fire on the north side. An interior attack consist of elaborate planning activities, and an planning for two new fire stations to be con-
with 2-1/2 inch hose lines held the fire to the annual city wide disaster drill. Our depart- structed on the city's rapidly developing west
north half of the structure--saving over half its ment is responsible for the city's Emergency side during the next five years. The depart-
contents. What made this fire unique was the Operations Center which is usually set up at ment is pushing our computerization program
fact that the warehouse belonged to the Kern our headquarters station; We also work dill- into its second phase--which will link all the
County Fire Department and was used to store gently to train our citizens in disaster pre- department's computers and further automate
fire equipment, paredness measures, many response and report related functions.
Our department's EMS activities consist of The department's heavy rescue team is And, the department is working to develop a
EMT-I first response in advance of made up of 42 members. Its missions include Master Plan for fire Protection in the Greater
paramedic ambulances. Members also · high and low' angle rescues, confined space Bakersfield Area. With the skill of our person-
work in support of paramedics for the benefit rescues, trench rescues, swift water rescues, riel and our leaders, the department remains
of the patients. Another major focus of the and building collapse rescues. The team has poised and ready to enter the'twenty-first
department is improving our EMS effective- been organized for four years now and is century. []
ness through the use of "Automatic External
Defibrillators" and civilian CPR training.
Under the leadership of Chief Johnson, the
department recently raised more than forty
thousand dollars for defibrillators through pri-
vate fundraising efforts. Chief Johnson says $t~1~I ONI Y RO~ Tt~~
he hopes to have all department companies .....
defibrillator equipped within six months. Acura, Audi, BMW, Buick, Cadillac,
The department also has a hazardous mate- Chevrolet, Qhrysler-Plymouth, Dodge,
rials response team. The team consists of a
three member engine company trained to spe- Ford, GMC, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti,
cialist level. The team has a well-equipped Isuzu, Jaguar, Jeep, Lexus, Lincoln-
van and is supported on incidents by techni- Mercury, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
clan trained alternates scattered throughout Mitsubishi, Nissan, Oldsmobile,
the department. Our. haz mat van features the
standard variety of level A and B suits, "decon" Pontiac, Porsche, SAAB, Subaru,
supplies, and a "Haz catting" kit. It also Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo
features a computer data base, cellular and fax
capability, and should soon be outfitted with a f~
weather station and computer plume modeling Please Phone Ron Teeters
capability. ~ for an Appointment and Directions
Chief Johnson has been working diligently
to strengthen the department'sHaz Mat team. -~r~rlir~~ IZS!ontade, CA 91761 a,,,o c,,~ o,. (909) 984-3668 (800) 782-4031
His efforts include getting three members -~ . , . -.
certified as C.S.T.I. instructors and develop-
11
THI~ CaLiFORNIA F~a.s 'S~,avtc~ · DECE~X, IBER. 1993
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORAN~M
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager i~r ~.~~
FROM: Ed W. $chulz, Public Works D
DATE: December 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Gosford Road Median Opening
A developer for a parcel of land adjacent to Gosford Road has submitted a
plan for an additional median opening on Gosford Road, approximately 1000
feet north of White Lane. The attached report provides more detail on the
reqUest.
I am prepared to approve this request, but since additional median openings
on our arterial system do cause some concern, I wish to inform you and. the
councilmembers of my intent.
The trees in thc median, which will have to be removed as part. of this
project, will be relocated to other parts of this median or to parks within this
district.
D12 .m~o
Attachment
14 D~.C 9~, 4 r 09
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~,
MEMORANDUM ',
TO: Ed W. Schulz, Public Works Director
FROM: Stephen L; Walker, Traffic Engineer~-~
DATE: December 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Proposed Left Turn Lane on Gosford at the "Gosford Park Shopping Center';
located north of White Lane/Gosford Road.
For your information and use, I prepared the following atmlysis of the left turn
proposal:
The shopping center is parcel 12 of Parcel Map 9301 and is located on the east
side of Gosford Road, immediately north of an existing shopping center
containing a grocery store and drug store. The "Gosford Park" center is a small
commercial shopping area with some cross-access from the existing larger
shopping center to the south but it is not under the same ownership or operation
per the architect. Several months previous, the architect for the site had checked
with me on the possibility of a left turn lane median opening. Afte'r checking the
proposed site plan, street frontage distance and the separation from other
openings, I concurred with his proposal
The left turn lane as proposed for southbound traffic on Gosford Road, does not
appear to be detrimental to the flow of traffic and will reduce U-turns from
occurring at an existing median opening immediately south of the site and at the
signalized intersection of Gosford Road and White Lane. The proposed left turn
lane will eliminate the need for a signal to accommodate U-turns at the existing
left turn median opening to the south. U-turns are detrimental to efficient
intersection operation which can be avoided through the use of left turn openings
in advance of an intersection.
The location is an adequate distance away from the signalized intersection and
will not negatively affect its operation. The separation from other left turn lanes
is acceptable. Access to proposed future development on the west side is not
affected.
On the negative side, the added left turn lane will eliminate some median
landscaping.
MEMORANDUM
-~ December 16, 1993
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
\ /W
FROM: Gene Bogart, Water & Sanitktio~ Manager
SUBJECT: BULLETIN 160-93
CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE
The State Department of Water Resources has released for public review a draft
report that documents the long-term water supply requirements that underlie the
comprehensive water policy of the State of California. Both volumes of this document are
now on file in the City Clerk's office.
The draft publication--formally titled Bulletin 160-93--is the latest five-year update
of the California Water Plan. First developed in 1957, the California water plan is intended
to show the relationship between water needs and supplies in future years.
Among the report's major points:
-Urban water needs, fueled by growth projected to be 49
million people by 2020, will increase by 3.8 Million acre
feet, after accounting for 1 Million acre feet of urban
water conservation.
-Demand for agricultural water will decrease by about 2
Million acre feet by 2020 due to both a reduction of
400,000 crop acres and increased agricultural irrigation
efficiency.
-There will be increased demand for water for environmental
purposes, including the Bay-Delta estuary, instream fish flows,
and migrating waterfowl.
In releasing the draft report, Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary of Resources, and David
Kennedy, DWR Director, said there was extensive public involvement in its development,
including an advisory committee of urban, agricultural and environmental interests which
helped with its preparation. As part of the process to collect information, ten public
hearings on the plan will be held in January and February. Comments received then will be
used to finalize the bulletin, which is scheduled to be completed in mid-1994.
CITY OF
BAKERSFIEI. D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JACK HARDISTY, Director
1501 TRUXTUN AVE.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
(805) 328-3733
December 17, 1993
Kern County Planning & Development Se]-eices
2700 ,M" Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacificana Specific Plan
Gentlemen:
We thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the
Pacificana Specific Plan. In general, the project is inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as it relates to public
facilities, contiguous development and the need for urbanization within the planning
horizon. The mitigation proposed is vague, ambiguous and assumes "others" will pay for
the necessa]7'freeways to make this classic case of "leap frog" development work.
CEQA requires the identification of impacts and adoption of mitigation at
the earliest stage of development. While this is a Program E.I.R., and may not require
that mitigation measures be immediately implemented, such mitigation measures must be
identified and programs for their implementation established, especially for regional
impacts.
1. Page 1-8 Table' 1-2: The City of Bakersfield is ve~3' interested in this Project and
should be included under "Local."
Page 2-6, Transportation/Circulation: The development of mitigations is largely
being deferred to future studies. The City would appreciate input into these ~,
studies.
3. Page 2-23, Mitigation Measures -
2.8.7 IA. A traffic impact study should be done on a regional level to
determine regional impacts prior to any development. These
regional impacts should be mitigated through a phased construction
.program coordinated with the phasing of the project..
lC. The word "exceed" should be replaced with "degrade below".
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 2
ID. Improvements should be provided by development interests.
2. Where is the funding for the. West Beltway? What about the South-
Beltway?
3. 10th line. The developer should not just "participate" - he should
provide 100% of on-site signal costs.
6. Last sentence - What is the "Capital hnprovelnent Plan for the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan"?
9. The specific plans for the West and South Beltways need to be
adopted 'prior to approval of subdivisions.
14D. The grammar of the first sentence is very obtuse.
17. Shouldn't 'the developer provide "bus" signs and displays?
4. Page 2-38, 2.8.9, Noise: If the noise impact is insignificant without mitigation,
why have three pages .of mitigations?
5. Page 2-41, 2.8.10, Public Services and Facilities: Only one environmental impact
is listed. What abont the many potential impacts to the various other systems?
6. Page 2-47, Mitigation 2.8.10.18.A: Will there be another EIR prepared for the
Wastewater Collection/Treatment Master Plan?
7. Page 2-47, Mitigation 2.8.10.19: What services?
8. Page 2-47, Mitigation 2.8.10.18.A: Will there be another EIR prepared for the
Wastewater Collection/Treatment Master Plan?
9. Page 2-47, Mitigation 2.8.10.19: What serviceS?
10. Page 2-48, 2.8.10.23: What is the "Project Wide Water Resources Availability,
Utilization, and Development Phasing Plan? Is this the Water Resources
Management Plan referred to on Page 2-167 What services?
11. Page 2-56:Under Project Impacts, Transportation/Circulation, the proposed
project should be a "4", mitigation measures required.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Se~wices
December 17, 1993
Page 3
12. Page 3-4, 2nd paragraph, 3rd & 4th line: The Metro Plant is not "proposed" at
this time, but may be an alternative recommended in a study currently in
progress. No on-line service date has been established.
13. Figure 3-3: The Bakersfield Metropolitan Water Reclamation Facility should be
noted as a "location under study".
14. Page 3-28, 3.2.4, Sewer Service, 1st paragraph: The last line should indicate that
the City's Master Plan facilities "could be capable of providing service" not "may
provide" service. Current City policy does not easily peixnit sewer service
provision to Unincorporated areas.
15. Page 3-29, 3.2.4, Sewer Service: What will discharge requirements be? ' What
means of effluent disposal will be utilized? Will this system be private or
operated by a County Service Area?
16. Page 3-29, 3.2.4, Storm Drainage: Avoiding "in-ground storm drain facilities" will
likely be cheaper to build but will be costlier over the long term, especially to the
street .and drainage facility maintaining organization.
17. Page 4-7, Agriculture, 1st paragraph, 3rd line: It is stated the County has "no
control" over land use changes away from agriculture. The County does not have
to approve an amendment or specific plan to change the use.
18. Page 4-7, Land Use Planning Constraints: The proposed development does not
appear to be "generally consistent" with 2010 policies. The project is a classic
"leap frog" proposal.
19. Page 4-8, Adjacent Land Uses: 2nd paragraph - what modern technologies?
Impacts on residential from farming and vice versa are just as significant today as
they were some years ago.
4th paragraph - prevailing winds are from northwest with some southeast winds.
Rarely h'om north or south.
5th paragraph - Notification of potential dairy odors Will be totally ineffeCtive.
The homeowners will force a dairy farming operation to move eventually.
Kern County. Planning & Dev: Services
December 17, 1993
Page 4
20. Page 4-9, Adjacent Land Uses: 1st paragraph - A new wastewater treatment
plant, if built, will not provide any new urban-level services not currently available
. in the developed City of Bakersfield. The last line intimates these sewer services
will be.available to Pacificana--not necessarily without meeting certain conditions.
21. Page 4-10: The Legend "Kit Fox Siting" should read "Kit Fox Sighting".
22. Page 4-11, Mitigation Measure No. 2: State how Kern County will ensure this
measure is completed?
23. Page 4-11, Mitigation Measure No. 3: States nothing. What is required? What
is mitigation specifically intended to do?
24. Page 4-11, Mitigation Measure No. 4: What is intended? If EMF has no known
impacts, why are you proposing mitigation?
25. Page 4-11, Mitigation Measure No. 5: What does "historical purpose" mean in
this context? When is landscaping installed?
26. Page 4-11, Mitigation Measure No. 6: Who will implement the streetscape
standards? When?
27. Page 4-11, Cumulative Impacts: States "the disCretionary action such as proposed
by the subject specific plan has no inherent cumulative effect." Cumulative
impacts refers to two or more individual effects which when considered together~
are considerable or whicli compound other environmental impacts. Clearly, this
project in conjunction with the several other projects within the southwest
metropolitan area has massive effects on air quality, transportation, ag land loss,
public service impacts (fire, police, sewers, etc.).
28. Page 4-12, 4.1.5, Level of Significance after Mitigation: What about Air Quality,
Page 2-35 and Visual Quality, Page 2-517
29. Page 4-25, Mitigation Measure No. 1: How will grading be phased? By whom?
When ?
30. Page 4-25, Mitigation Measure No. 2: What significant impact is this measure
intended to mitigate?
Kern Count' Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 5
31. Page 4-25, Mitigation Measure No. 3: Will this measure be required for sign·
permits? Electrical permits? Pools'? Block walls in excess of 6 feet? Clarify
actual permits which require such technical studies.
32. Page 4-26, Mitigation Measure No. 1: What significant environmental effect is
this intended to mitigate?
33. Page 4-39, MitigatiOn l~leasure 4.3.3:
I) What are "site Specific special planning documents?" If subsequent reports
are submitted when tentative tract maps are processed, how can the
recommendations by the archaeologist be incorporated into the sPecific
plan?
2) Nine significant archaeological sites have been identified. What is the
mitigation for the nine identified significant sites?
34. Page 4-51, Mitigation Measure No. 2: What specific measures are to be used?
How will each measure be monitored?
Practices.
35. Page 4-51, Mitigation Measure No. 3: What is "Best Management ' 9"
List measures. How will each be monitored? When will each measure be
implemented? Which agency will be responsible to ensure each measure is
implemented?
36. Page 4-51, Mitigation Measure No. 4: Where will the wastewater treatment plant
be located? Spreading area for this size project is extensive, where will the
spreading area be located?
37. Page 4-65, Mitigation Measure No. 1: If impacts to petroleum extraction
activities are not significant, why are there nfitigation measures proposed?
38. Page 4-65, Mitigation Measure No. 2: Who will monitor the "cleanliness" of the
oil well site? By what standards will "cleanliness" be evaluated?
39. Page 4-66, Mitigation Measure No. 7: Who will monitor this mitigation measure?
40. Page 4-66, Mitigation Measure No. 8: Who is required to comply with this
measure?
41. Page 4-67, 4.7.1, Setting: Why is the South Beltway not included?
Kern County Planning & Dev. Sel~ices
December 17, 1993
Page 6
42. Page 4-75: The formula "(approach volume + exit volume) X 12 = leg volume"
is not explained as to its origin. Is this an accepted practice or a derived formula
based on sa~nple counts. Explanation is desirable.
The City of Bakersfield's 1991 traffic volume counts are listed as being used for
this report. The 1992 counts have been available since February 1993 and should.
be used.
43. Figure 4-14: Several traffic'controls were changed in early 1993 or were shown
incorrectly and need to be updated on this map. Buena Vista/Stockdale is now an
4-way stop; Ming/Old River is now a signal; Pacheco/Stine is a signal;
Pacheco/Wible is a signal; and Panama Lane/Wible is a signal. Map also does not
correctly show California/New Stine in area of Stockdale Highway.
442 Figure 4-17: The existing Volume to capacity 'ratios shown on the map can be
misleading, especially in the urbanized area. Intersections are the controlling
factor in Level Of Service and V/C ratios are less of a factor when road segments
are shorter than two miles between major intersections.
45. Table 4-9, Page 4-83: Buena Vista Road/Stockdale Highway was made a 4-way
stop in early 1993 and should be analyzed again.
46. Table 4-9, Page 4-86:"Stine Road at Stockdale Highway" should be listed as
California Avenue/New Stine Road at Stockdale Highway based on location
shown Figure 4-14 map of intersections. The chart also indicates a LOS in the
pm as "C". Other studies have this intersection as an "F" for the pm peak hour.
Did the engineer study North Stine Road/Stine Road at Stockdale Highway by
mistake instead of California Avenue/New Stine Road at Stockdale.Highway.
Correction is needed or a study of California Avenue/New Stine Road at
Stockdale Highway is needed.
47. Table 4-9, Page 4-86: "Stine Road at Ming Ave" should be New Stine Road at
Ming Avenue or New Stine at Ming needs to be studied and included in the list.
48.. Table 4-9, Page 4-87: Wible Road at Panama Lane was made a traffic signal
controlled intersection in January 1993. Please update and study as signalized
intersection.
49. Figure 4-18:The figure shows very unrealistic traffic volumes on streets north of
Taft Highway (State Route 119). For example, per this figure, only 1,100 ADT is
expected on Stockdale Highway west of Coffee Road in the Year 2020. Even
Kern County, Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 7
with a "Beltway" these figures are not believable and are e'specially strange when
compared to Figure 4-19 where.the same segment has an ADT of 33,100 in 2010
with the project and With a beltway. Correction needed on title of figure or text
on page 4-91 or both.
50. Figure 4-20 and 4-22: Again, V/C ratios can be misleading for street segments in
urban areas since the major intersections are the controlling factor in Level of
Service on short segments.
51. Figure 4-23 and 4-24: Comparing them to figures 4-25 and 4-26 implies that 23
and 24 are without the project. Please clarify or correct as needed.
52.' Table 4-12: This table of year 2010 does not study the same intersections listed in
Table 4-9. Many intersections in the urban area are left out. They should be
included for comparison.
53. Table 4-13: Same comment as above.
54. Table 4-14: Same comment as above.
55. Figures 4-27 thru 4-29: The maps of turning movement projections are only done
with the.project. Turning movement projections should be included on additional
figures of 2010 and 2020 WITHOUT the .project for comparison of trips.
56. Page 4-129, Mitigation Measure No. 1: Include language that all measures
detailed for each traffic study shall be implemented by the developer.
57. Page 4-129: Why is the South Beltway not included?
58. Pages 4-129 thru 4-136: The mitigation required is vague and appears to rely
heavily on road improvements already being in place outside of the focused study
area. From information in the appendix traffic study report, additional
intersections should have been studied north and east of the focused study area.
This is based on the peak hour volumes of the. project only that are entering or
leaving the study area north and east. It is normally a City and a CalTrans
requirement to study intersections where 50 or more peak hour project trips are
expected. These intersections where 50 or more peak hour project trips are
expected should be included in the list on page 4-129 as a minimum.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 8
The mitigation section does not estimate the project's share of any identified
mitigation. This shOuld be shown even if more specific studies are done later
with each phase or tract.
The off-site road way system that needs to be in place by 2010 and 2020 with the
· project should be estimated. Since this is a very. large and ambitious project, as
much information as possible on future needs is. highly desirable for efficient
planning of infrastructure. Paragraph 7 on page 4-131 should be more detailed in
this respect.
59. Page 4-130:
1.D) Who will install the improvements and how will it be accomplished?
2) Who will construct the West Beltway and how will it be accomplished?
3) All on-site traffic signals are the responsibility of the developer (rather
than requiring his "participation" in the provision of such signals). What
fee program will pay for off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals?
Who will pay? How much? When?
60. Page 4-130, Mitigation Measure No. 2: Who will pay for construction of "at grade
expressway?" When? When will this expressway be built? How will right-of-way
be secured? When? Who Will pay for right-of-way acquisition?
61. . Page 4-131, Specific Off-Site huprovements..., Paragraph 6: Reference should be
made to any Subsequent amendment to the Traffic Impact Fee program. The
"Capital hnproveluent Plan" should be identified as being for the Traffic Impact
Fee Program. It should be noted this program does not currently include
improvements that may be required to mitigate impacts resulting from this
project.
Paragraph 9 - How will the West Beltway get built north of Taft Highway?
62. Page 4-131, Mitigation Measure No. 6: How will developer contribute to those
off-site traffic impacts which are within the City of Bakersfield?
63. Page 4-131, Mitigation Measure No. 10: Change "should" to "shall" to clarify the
developer's responsibility. Mitigation measures must be imposed in order to be
~nit/gation.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17,' 1993
Page 9
64. Page 4-131, Mitigation Measure No. 11: Change "shouldI' to "shall" to clarify the
developer's responsibili~. Mitigation measures must be imposed in order to be
mitigation. Clarify when this measure is required, at the first 100 lots or 500 lots
or when?
· 65. Page 4-131:
6) What fee program7 Who will pay? How much7 Such a program must be
developed as a mitigation measure subject to public review - not prior to
recordation of a tract map, which has no public review. The Capital
Improvement Plan for the Metropolitan. Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
Area was not adopted with this Project as a consideration. There is no
connection between this project and that Plan, and no evidence that the
Plan contains mitigation for the impacts of this project.
7) How will offsite improvements be made? By whom? The 2010 Plan
Circulation Element was adopted without this project in the Plan.
Improvements as set forth in the 2010 Plan do not address the impacts of
this project, and were not designed with the impacts of this project in
mind.
8) Some areas through which the West Beltway runs may not be subdivided.
How would these· portions of the. Beltway be dedicated?
9) Who will construct the West Beltway? How will this be done?
Construction of the West Beltway cannot be put off until the tract map
stage. The traffic impacts of this project will not be created solely by uses
for which tract maps are required.
10) A mitigation measure must be imposed in order to be a mitigation
measure. This should read: "The master developer shall upgrade/extend
Shafter Road east of the proposed West Beltway'Corridor to an Arterial (6
lanes) prior to submittal of the first tract map within the project."
Conditions of approval of a tract map cannot be imposed on the master
developer if he is not the applicant for the subdivision. This is too late to
impose such a condition.
Il) See comments for #10, above.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Se~ices "
December 17, 1993
Page 10
66. Page 4-132, Mitigation Measure No. 12: Rewrite to include what the developer
will actually do. Mitigation ~neasures must be imposed in order to be mitigation.
Current language requires the developer to "explore," whatever that means?!
67. Page 4-132, Mitigation Measure No. 13: How will this measure be. implemented?
By whom? When?
68. Page 4-132, Mitigation Measure No. 14: How will this measure change the City
of Bakersfield procedures? How will this measure be implemented? By whom?
69. Page 4-132:
12) That is the purpose of this E.I.R. - to explore methods to reduce or
otherwise mitigate project-related vehicular trips and recommend
mitigation measures.
14.D) This is the first place that specific mitigation measures are recommended
(e.g., "the project proponent should either provide the off-site ~
improvements directly (with assurance of fixture reimbursement or credits
if a relevant fee program is in place), or the development must await other
sOUrces of implementation"). Of course, this is for "non-Pacificana"
developments. Even though this is a Program E.I.R., such mitigation, with
more specific implementation requirements (since this project has actually
been proposed), is appropriate for this project also.
70. Page 4-133, Paragraph 15'.A., 3rd line: Should "fair-share" be "ride-Share"?
71. Page 4-133, Mitigation Measure No. 15: A-D should be written to actually
require something be done. What specific measures will the Transportation
Management Association actually require? When? How much of a reduction to
the traffic impact of Pacificana is anticipated?
72. Page 4-133:
15) Hoxv will the TMA be funded? What is the TDM Plan? How does this
mitigate anything? What strategies will increase vehicle occupancy rates
and provisions for public transportation?
73. Page 4-134, Mitigation Measure No. 16: Exactly what portion will be required for
Park and Ride usage within commercial development?
Kern Cotlllty Planning & Dev. Se~ices
December 1.7. 1993
Page t 1
74. Page 4-134, Mitigation Measure No. 17: Change "should" to "shall" thereby
clari .fying the responsibility, of Golden Empire Transit District. Specify when this
will occur. "Coordinate with" is inadequate wording, explain exactly what is
meant, what exact action must take place7
75. Page 4-134, Mitigation Measure No. 18: Change "should" to "shall" in first and
several sentences. When will this measure be implemented? How will Kern
County monitor program?
76. Page 4-134, Mitigation Measure No. 19: How Will the number of parking spaces
required in "office areas" be calculated? Are these spaces in addition to 'the
required spaces? What zone designations will require such parking spaces'? How
will Kern county monitor this measure?
Part "B" of this measure: Change "should" to "shall" and specify what is required;
who will implement this Park and Ride facility, where will the facility be located,
when will this take place?
Part "C" of this lueasure: What exactly is required of the TMA? How will this
measure be accomplished? When?
77. Page 4-134:
18) How can this be implemented?
78. Page 4-135, Mitigation Measure No. 20: Does Part "B" actually require anything
of anyone? Is it possible that all of Pacificana be built and not have a single
shower/locker room constructed7
79. Page 4-135, Mitigation Measure No. 21: Will the developer be required to
implement "additional traffic mitigation techniques" at the request of the County?
If so, rewrite and require that such techniques be implemented.
80. Page 4-135:
20.B) In what way does "encouragement" of the provision of facilities mitigate
anything?
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 12
81. Page 4-136:
4.7.4 What' are the cumulative impacts of this project? How have the cumulative
impacts been addressed? What is the mitigation recommended for these
cumulative impacts?
4.7.5 How does the development of "subsequent improvement Programs," the'
elements of which are not identified, mitigate anything to a level of
insignificance?
82. Page 4~152~ Mitigatiou Measure Nos. 1-6: Explain how the County will monitor
these measures over the years construction activities will take place within the
Pacificana Specific Plan area.
83. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 2: How is this different from existing
Uniform Building Code requirements for electric and gas aPpliances?
84. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 3: "Bicycling and walking should be
encouraged..." What is the developer required to do? When? How will Kern
County monitor this?
Transportation Demand Management System techniques are to be used in the
design of project thoroughfares and is the improvements of roadways in the
vicinity of the project. What exactly is the developer required to do? What is the
mitigation measure requiring? When? How will this measure be monitored?
85. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 4: Where are these easements to be
located'? When are they required? What exactly is the developer required to do?
When?
86. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 5: Sidewalks are required for all urban
development in the metropolitan area now. What is required by this measure?
87. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 6: Seems to require bicycle storage areas at
schools, retail facilities and office buildings. What is the responsibility of the
developer? What kind of facility is required? When is this required? Who will
monitor this measure? How? Bicycle lanes and trails seem to be required.
Where? When? What is the developer actually required to do?
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 1.7, 1993
Page 13
88. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 7: Exactly what is required of the
developer? How much parking for rideshare employees is required? When will
this measure be implemented? How will Kern County monitor? '
89. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 8: What is actually required of the
developer? When will this measure be implemented? How will Kern County
'monitor this? How do you "encourage" employers to provide shower/locker room
facilities?
90. Page 4-153, Mitigation Measure No. 9: This is currently required by state law.
What exactly is proposed? Is this different from the current state mandated
requirements?
91. Page 4-169, Mitigation Measure No. 13: Does this measure require the request
for a building permit on a swimming pool requires an acoustical analysis report?
Perhaps you should clarify the class of permits subject to this requirement.
92. Page 4-169, Mitigation Measure No. C: Explain exactly what the developer is
required to do.
93. Page 4-169, Mitigation Measure No. 4.9.3.3: Change "should" to "shall", explain
how this measure is to be monitored.
94. Page 4-169, Mitigation Measure No. 4.9.3.4: Explain exactly what is required of
the developer and how this measure will be achieved.
95. Page 4-169, Mitigation Measure No. 4.9.3.5: What are the standards for "located
as far as practical from. noise sensitive areas?" Who determines this? When?
96. Page 4-175, Sewage Treatment 4.10.1.8: How will the project be sewered? It is
inconsistent with the 2010 General Plan to plan urban deVelopment without the
basic public 'facilities. Where will the "interim" wastewater treatment plan be
located? Where will the treated effluent be disposed of? Remove all discussion
in the text regarding possible usage of a yet-to-be-constructed City sewage
treatment plant as this plant is intended solely for the incorporated area and may
lead reviewers to believe usage of the new plant by Pacificana is a possibility,
We take excePtion that after mitigation (unspecified) that sewage treatment
impacts are "insignificant." On what basis can the.argument be made? Where is
the "interim" plant to be located? Where will the wastewater be disposed of?
How will the sewage plant be paid for.9 Are there sensitive land uses next to the
Kern County Planning & Dev. Sm~,ices
December 17, 1993
Page i4
sewage treatment plant? Is a buffer area required? Are you proposing a prOject
without basic public facilities which appears inconsistent with the 2010 General
Plan? Are you leading reviewers to believe the City of Bakersfield will provide
sewer service to Pacificana when in fact we will not.
There would appear to be a great deal which is unknown about the type of
sewage disposal proposed for Pacificana, to the point that there is substantial
evidence that the typical impacts of a sewage treatment plant arguably may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment (Appendix G in CEQA lists merely
the extension of a sewer trunk line as typically requiring an environmental impact
report). Pacificana environmental analysis on the impact of a sewage treatment
plant is nonexistent. They don't know where the plant will be located, they don't
know where wastewater will be disposed of, they don't know what land use
conflicts might arise, they don't know how wastewater disposal may effect
groundwater. A lot of unanswered questions for an impact specified as
"insignificant" after mitigation. The mitigation in Pacificana for sewage treatment
has tlefinite parallels with Sundstrom vs. County of Mendicino. In fact, mitigation
in this specific case involved the requirement for a subsequent study to determine
the methodology, impacts and mitigation for sludge disposal (like Pacificana) was
regarded by the courts as "significant" and formed the basis for requiring an EIR.
97. Page 4-182, Sewage Treatment: Effluent Disposal - What are preliminary waste
discharge requirements?. How will sludge disposal be handled?
98. Page 4-183, Ultimate Sewer Connection: The verbiage contained in this
paragraph is not consistent with statements in prior paragraphs. The project area
would need to annex to the City of Bakersfield for.City sewer service to become
available under current policy.
99. Page 4-188: What method of sewage disposal will be uSed? How will it be
accomplished? If such disposal requires the construction of a wastewater
treatment plant, whO will construct it? Who will pay for it? Where will it be?
100. Comments on Appendix 9.7, "Traffic Impact Study Report ('Revised)" dated
October 11, 1993, Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates:
Most, but not all, of the comments for the TransportatiOn and Circulation section
of the EIR are also applicable to the traffic study report in the appendix. The
writer of the EIR may have misinterpreted some of the traffic study's analysis and
corrections should be posSible.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 15
Table 5 - Several intersections are incorrectly.shown as 4-way stops that have
been signalized for some time. An update should be done. Others, such as New
Stine/California at Stockdale are shown as Stine at Stockdale, a different
intersection, and have a higher LOS than we have calculated. See also comments
above on same subject.
Most of the exhibits in the traffic study are reproduced in 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheets.
This is too small to read many of the volumes °on the maps to try and compare
maps and text descriptions. Please use foldout maps of a larger size in corrected
study.
As noted in the Transportation and Circulation section comments, the focused
traffic study area is too focused. It leaves out several intersections just outside
the focus area that appear to have more than 50 peak hour project trips through
the intersections. This is our suggested method of determining which
intersections to study and it would capture more intersections that will be
impacted by the project.
All mitigation outlined in the traffic study, and its revisions and corrections,
should be implemented and made a part of the conditions of approval, if
approved, of the proposed specific plan.
In general, the traffic study uses acceptable methods and assumptions but is
somewhat broad in assumptions of off-site improvements being built, especially
the beltways. Additional intersections outside of the current focused study area
need to be included in the revision.
101. Page 47, 1st Paragraph: Implies land owners may decide alternate uses of land
on their own and Kern County has no diSCretion. This is erroneous. Kern
County has sole discretion over land use, true the land maybe allowed to be
fallow, but no non-agricultural use is permitted.
102. Page 47, 2nd Paragraph: States the long-term impacts to petroleum exploration
and extraction is temporary: This is incorrect. Change in zone district from. A
(Agriculture) which permits oil drilling by right to urban zoning necessitates the
land use approval of each and every individual oil drilling activity, by discretionary
permit only.
Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 16
103. Page 47, 3rd Paragraph: States development program consistent with the policies
of general plan. Proposal is specifically inconsistent with land use policy #73
which provides outward expansion of urban designations so that it maintains
continuity of existing development (paraphrased). Clearly, the proposal is not
consistent with the intent of the policy as the project is over 3 miles from existing
urban development.
104. The plan continually and extensively alludes to the use of groundwater as a water
supply. Our principle concern is continued groundwater overdraft of the basin in
unincorporated areas of the County. The plan also refers throughout the
document, to groundwater "reserves". The groundwater basin in and around the
Pacificana area is, according to the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR), in critical groundwater overdraft. There are no "reserves". It is stated
within the plan. that a water balance between the current agricultural use
consumption and urban use consumption may be struck. Although there is a
trade-off on water consumption upon the conversion of agriculture to urban use,
the groundwater overdraft condition is not mitigated, even with conservation and
re-use measures taken into account. The plan 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 serve" letters were issued .for
development by purveyors who do not bring in a surface water supply and balance
out their consumptive use.
There are several references in the Pacificana plan document to the plans of
nearby regional water agencies providing groundwater recharge programs in the
area. The plan states that adverse environmental effects or significant impacts on
existing groundwater resources in Kern County, would not result from
groundwater consumption by the project, given the magnitude of recharge
activities proposed by the DWR and others. It appears the Pacificana proponents
are attempting to mitigate their groundwater take by associating with the water
storage projects of others. These projects, the State Water Bank-Kern Fan
Element, the City's 2800 Acres Project and planned Kern County Water Agency
projects are recharge, banking and extraction programs. The water is not
permanently in the basin. The waters stored by these projects are not owned nor
are they available to the Pacificana proponents. In the case of the City 2800
Acres, the City Kern River stored water is strictly for use within the City limits of
Bakersfield. All references, inferred or otherwise, to the City 2800 Acres
Recharge Facility and the water stored underground there, should be removed
from the Pacificana plan.
Kern CountY Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 17
In Section 2.8 - Environmental Impact and Mitigation Matrix, under 2.8.10 Public
Services and Facilities part' 13. states "domestic service requirements will be met
through the supply of groundwater owned by the Master Developer
(emphasis added)". The project proponent shoUld provide a determination and
· recorded proof of ownership of the groundwater and quantify the volume of the
right.
The above-mentioned section also states that arrangements shall be secured with '
~ the Kern Delta Water District or other State authorized water purveyor .... ,
however documentation within the plan does not contain indication of who the
purveyor will be. The Kern Delta Water District is an agricultural water district
in the area and does not provide domestic water services. The City of Bakersfield
is opposed to the formation of special districts or entities that result in further
proliferation of special districts at or near the City's Sphere of Influence.
In Volume II - Appendices; Infrastructure Cost Estimates, are listed several
alternatives for the water system (no purveyor named) and apparently is relying
on the conversion of existing agricultural groundwater water wells to domestic
well standards,' California Department of Health Services and the Kern County
Environmental Health codes and ordinances provide strict guidelines for the
construction of new domestic water wells. The standards for agricultural wells are
less and given that the existing wells on the Pacificana Property were apparently
drilled several years ago, before the present well standards were used, it is
doubtful the existing, agricultural wells could be used or converted for domestic
purposes. However, with full documentation and thorough water quality testing
and analysis, it might be possible to use the existing wells for stand-by or private
fire-protection services. If the existing wells tested favorably and were allowed to
be used, any newly constructed wells for domestic consumption w°uld have to
take extra precautions in design and construction to be protected from the
influences of the existing agricultural wells.
105. At the present time, an agreement between the City and County (Joint Powers
Agreement) provides a Fire Protection Plan for an area called the J.P.A.
boundary. All areas outside the J.P.A. boundary fail'under a second agreement
called "Mutual Aid." CitY growth as well as organizational changes can cause the
J.P.A. boundary to enlarge.~ It is currently being considered for change.
Kern ~County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 18
Several areas should be considered concerning Fire Protection in the Pacificana
Specific Plan.
1. Currently the J.P.A. Boundary is approximately two miles, from Pacificana
but this could change quickly even before this information is presented.
2. It is very likely that the City of Bakersfield will border Pacificana and be
the primary Fire Protection or at the very least the primary assisting entity
for Fire Protection.
3. Volume I Section 4.10.1.3 (Page 4-172) Fire Protection of the Pacificana
Specific Plan states that Kern County Fire Station #53, located in Old
River is,the closest fire station approximately 4 miles east of the site. The
City of Bakersfield's Fire Station #13, located at 6915 Stine Road is
approximately 5 miles east of the site and assists Stations #53 on many
assignments. Two future fire station sites, one already purchased at
Stockdale and Buena Vista, may be funded and built within 5 years. It is
5-1/2 miles north of the site. Another proposed fire station not yet
purchased will be located in the area of Buena Vista Road and Pensinger.
This site is located 2-1/2 miles north of Pacificana. Given these facts, in
the very near future, it is highly probable that the City of Bakersfield will
be the closest fire protection with three fire stations within the general
response ~tandard criteria.
106. Page 4-186, Mitigation Measures ¥olume I Section 4.10.3, Fire Protection:
4. Agree with provisions for Helipad.
5. Agree with County since fire station sites are compatible in both entities.
Would like to add that with a comprehensive built in Fire Protection Plan
(alarms, fire sprinklers) two sites may be considered.
6, 7, & 8 All codes and improvements will be assessed by the County. A
comparison with City codes will be made and the most stringent
code will apply or be considered.
9. Pacificana should be required to present a Community Fire Protection
Plan which will include the installation of built-in fire protection for all
occupancies. This would include fire sprinklers, alarms and education.
.Kern County Planning & Dev. Services
December 17, 1993
Page 19
The consideration of the items mentioned above would greatly reduce the impact
of the added fire protection needed to both the City and County fire departments
in the event that either entity becomes the primary fire protection. The future
will without question brinl~ the City of Bakersfield and the proposed Pacificana
together as bordering mUnicipalities.
Thank you for permitting us to review the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and we look forward to reviewing your response to our concerns in the Final.
Sincerely,
/~/ Planning Director
MG:pjt
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
p:pacific
MEMORANDUM
December 13, ~
C 17r Y ~^~w~4~': ~' ' ALAN TANDY' CITY MANAGER
F..R~M: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIR~~;v ~
DFg 93 4 ~ O~
SUBJECT: LETYER FROM KERN RIVER PARKWrA~Y DATED 12/1/93
Following is in response to the above-referenced letter. The following number references are keyed to the
margin of the parkway letter.
1. A ten-foot easement was never proposed by the applicant or staff. The recommendation was that the
easement run from the waters edge to a point located 10 feet south of an existing trail (see attached
Exhibit "B").
2. This court case is not relevant to the issue. Access is being required through State Map Act Sections
66478.4 - 66478.6 and the Kern River Plan Element (KRPE) of the City's general plan.
3. The proposal being considered provides an access easement which follows the trail designation on the
referenced map. The timing of trail acquisition is more clearly set forth in KRPE Section 5.3 which
indicates that at this time, only pedestrian access shall be required as a condition of approval for land
subdivision.
4. This statement is correct. The Planning Commission is the local agency empowered through the map
act to determine what is "reasonable" and what is consistent with the-policies in the KRPE for the
proposed subdivision.
5. The city staff has proposed an access easement. Existing cross fencing and existing grazing uses do not
allow for equestrian access. Because of Section 5.3 referenced in #3 above, we are not requiring that
the applicant restrict existing uses which are compatible with sensitive habitat areas and make
improvements to directly provide for equestrian access. It is staffs interpretation that this would not be
consistent with Section 5.3. A requirement to provide fence modifications to allow easier pedestrian
access is included.
6. The proposal at this time (which may change with committee recommendation) provides for an access
easement which recognizes existing field conditions (including an existing trail) sensitive resources,
private property improvements and general plan policies. The proposal consists of a public access
easement/buffer combination which varies in width from about 50 feet at its narrowest point to 200 feet.
The proposal from the Kern River Parkway (attached profile) does not recognize existing conditions, which is
some cases includes an impassable riparian area 100 feet thick, and proposes a 12-foot paved area for a
bikepath and maintenance vehicles. The KRPE does not propose a bike path in this area and staff does not
recommend that paving be allowed in the buffer area.
At this time, the Planning Commission Parks Committee is considering the proposals for access easements and
buffering for the project and will be meeting with staff the week of December 13 - 14 to discuss options. The
project has been continued to the January 20 Planning Commission hearing.
JM:pjt
Attachment
l\matl2.10
~ ? 12/1/93
River
parkway Committee
'~ P.O. Box 1861 · Bakersfield. CA 93303
~ I~ I I I ' IIII1! IIII '11 I I I I II ............
I~,---~?:-:--~-~t~ ...... I Il I' I I
To: City Planning Commission
Ref: Request to overrule City Staff recommendation fo~k 10 foot easement
along the Kern River and to deny zone change 5452 and TPM 9899 of
Nickel Enterprises
Commissioners;
The Kern River Parkway Committee asks that the Planning CommisSion
grant a 100 foot buffer/easement along the entire proposed project (5452
· and 9899) as it adjoins the Kern River near Rancheria Road.
~ 'We feel that the zone change and parcel mapping should be denied
on the basis that the proposed ten foot easement does not fulfill the
following requirements:
A) Recent Court findings of Nickel Enterprises vs State of
California-Case no. 199557 conclude that access to and along
this portion of the River be sufficient to "secure access
and recreational use for rafting, fishing, hiking and other
river related uses" Bakersfield Californian April 27, 1993.
B) The Ker'n River Plan Element and the City of Bakersfield
2010 General Plan--Ch 4 Page 14 and sheet no. 3, require
riding and hiking trails along this portion of River frontage.
The Kern River Plan says, "Riding and hiking trails shall
be located in the general areas indicated on the plan map"
· ~ C) The Subdivision Map Act of the State of California requires
that access to and along the Kern River be reasonable.
The Kern River Parkway Committee has a long track record in the
CommUnit~ for promoting the preservation of the Kern River and of developing
the Trail Systems which are an integral.part of the Kern River Plan Element.
We say that the ten foot easement is not sufficient nor safe for pedestrians
or horse~.en. We ask why the City Staff is excludingt ~~ Equestrian Use of the
Riverbanks ?
Horsemen are a traditional recreation use group within the River
Corridor. We would like this recreational'use to continue for the Citizens
of 'Bakersfield. Even the people that-will someday buy a .home at the top
of the bluff overlooking the River will require and desire reasonable
access to and alonG the River. The 100 foot easement will allow safe
access~~ at the top2of the bluff for both riding, hiking, and bicycling
and ~rotect the Rivers edge longterm. This non-buildable buffer should
allow a hiking, riding and bicycle trail Let's follow the policies
and goals of our. Kern River Plan and Year 2010 General Plan.
We ask that the Planning Commission not to be "short sighted"
This is one project that can enhance our Community and make it a better
place to stay and play. The Kern River Corridor and its Trail Systems can
be an ammenity that will' be benefitted by property owners immediately
adjacent to the River ~ w~tl as the entire Community of Bakersfield.
-Rich O'Neil
OLCESE .. , ~ ' . ..
.o KERN RIVER
PUI~ING p l. al~IT . .
THE KERN I - ~rO
~' ~' ' - +- i ~,
,',, + ~ + + ~____~_.__~ ; _
· " ·
CEL [
EXHIBIT, B
RECOMMENDATION
FOR RIVER* A~CESS
.
K
~ EXI~ING ~L~ :~ -- ,,
~ ~ T29S, R29E
"~ . .] ; 119503
KERN · RIVER
P AR K, WlA ~
i o N
RICH O'NEIL ' ~ ~ P.O. BOX 6'24
~,~ ~'- ,.,,~AKERSFIELD, CA
805'399-9672 ~ /5,~4~,. ~ 93302.0624
FOR
~, ALAN TANDY
CITY MANAGER
l t~.:~'~.o~,.,.~::~.:.;,,..,: ~hL.'..~-J
~:.' ,~ · W~'Y~:' '"i'""l ~'. '
Dec--er 6, 1993 ~OR ~DZA~
Contact: ~
· (805) 395-4177
The Kern smail Business Loan Fund (KSBLF)-announced today
that First Interstate Bank, the third largest bank in California
has become a particiPating lender in the Fund. The KSBLF makes
loans of up to $15,000 to Kern County small businesses that are
'unable to obtain commercial financing or. do not have adequate
personal remources. To date ten loans have been approved for a
total of $131,000.
First Interstate has three branches in Kern county and has
recently acxIuired California Republic Bank of Baker~£ield which
will make it the second largest in Kern County. "With the
addition of First Interstate's $50,000 participation, our lo=n
*fund now has a pool of funds over $250,000 to lend to deserving
local companies ", states Jay Bingham, Chairman of the KSBLF.
"As the first of the three "major" California banks to
participate, we believe the banking communtt]F t4hroughout
state is recognizing the importance of making c4~pital available
to emerging small businesses that provide the bulk of our state's
new Job formation. It also enables us to offer new programs such
CZTY ~ANAGER-~
as our "microloan" program." "First Interstate Bank of
10 DS0 95 5 = 50Calif°rnia is Please4 to participate in the Kern Small B~siness
2101 "K" Strcet MaU J Bakersfield, CA 93301 ~ (~0~ 3954177
.Loan ~und. 'our financial commitment to the KSBLF is one way for
First Interstate Bank of Cali£ornia to show its strong support o£
the business communities we Serve," said Vicki B..~etzer, Senior
Vice President and District Hanager.
The KSBLF is now funded by 'seven lenders including Co~munity
Pirst Bank, California Republic Ba~k, Mojave Desert Bank, Sierra
National' Bank, Union Bank, the City of 'Bakersfield and First
Interstate Bank. In addition, the loan fund is partially
guaranteed by eight local corporation~: Castle & Cooke. Homes,
Inc., Jim Burke Ford, Bill Wright Toyota, Three Way Chevrolet,
stinson s~ationers, Nehama & Weagant', S.A. Camp Companies and
Mid-State Development Corporation~
For more information contact Ed Young at (805) 395-4177.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE Comm,.ees:
State Cap~tol
Sacramento. CA 95814 ~ Asr:culture
Telephone: (916) 445-7558 ~'t[~!~. ;,, Elect~ons. Reapportionment and
D~str~ct Offices --'"~-' Constitutional Amendments
1111 FultOn Mall. Su~te 914 ~:~,,~_/..~.~;~ Transportation
Fresno. CA 93721 Water. Parks. and Wddhfe
Telephone: {209) 264-3078 ~ Ways and Means
512 N. Irwin. Suite A JIM COSTA Subcommittees:
Hanlord, CA 93230 Chairman, Resources,
Telephone: {209) 582-2869 ASSEMBLYMAN, THIRTIETH DISTRICT Agriculture & the Environment
TranSportation
Merced Chairman Joint Commitlees:
Telephone: {209) 384-1194 ASSEMBLY DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS Energy Regulation and the Environment
Fisher~es and Aquaculture
Joint Legislative Liaison Committee
MemDer:
Nat:onal Conference of
State Legislatures
AssemDIy Rural Caucus
California Debt Advisory Commission
Legislative Advisory Committee.
Wildlife Conservation Board
November 10, 1993
Honorable Bruce Babbitt Complimen~ of
Sec~et-&r-y--~f--%he--I-n-t-er~-o.~ ..... ASSEMBL.W,A~N~!MCOSTA-
Interior Building 30~Assemb~ Dis~ict
1949 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Babbitt:
I am writing to express my grave concern regarding the
environmental standards recently proposed for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by the Clinton
Administration..
Estimates by state water officials project a loss of nearly
25 percent in water deliveries from the Bay/Delta under these
proposed new requirements during normal years and even higher
losses during dry years. The Miller/Bradley law has already
reduced water deliveries and has increased unemployment in
California. Our economy cannot afford substantial new water
supply reductions.
The management of this important resource must involve a
balance that is fair to all of the various impacted
..... interests~ including agricutture,-the envi-ronmen~, industry/
and urban users. As you indicated when you met with water
user groups in Fresno this summer, you favored such an
approach to this issue. However, it appears that the plan
the Administration intends to impose will be detrimental to
industry and agriculture and it will cause as many
environmental problems as it claims to solve.
Enclosed is a copy of an editorial by the Sacramento Bee, a
newspaper generally supportive of the policies of the Clinton
Administration, expressing valid criticisms of the
Administration's proposal.
Printed on Recycled Pal~er
I urge you to ensure that the Administration's plan is fair
and equitable and does not put in jeopardy the future of the
California economy and the state's water rights system. I
cannot overestimate how damaging these actions could be to
the credibi'lity of an Administration that. supposedly places
the economic recovery of California as one of its highest
priorities.
Me~ber of the Assembly
30th District
JC:rh
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Honorable Barbara Boxer
Honorable Vic Fazio
Honorable Richard Lehman
Honorable Cal Dooley
Honorable Mickey Kantor
Thomas McLarty .
John Emerson
Tom Epstein
B6 The Sacramento Bee Final · Wednesday, November 3. 1993
~,,,, .~-,.,..~ ~ ~,.
The Sacramento Bee
Locally owned and edited for 135 years
JAMES McCLATCHY, editor, 1857-1883
C.K. McCLATCHY, editor, president, 1883. t936 ELEANOR McCt.~TCHY, president 1936. t978
WALTER 15, JONES, editor, 1936-1974 C.K. McCLATCHY, editor, 1974. t989
-'" ~REGORY FAVRE, executive editor PETER SCHRAG, editodalpage editor
FRANK R.J. WHI3-rAKER. president and generel manager
Environmental train wreck
· ~ alifornia spent the first 90 y6ars of this State officials, analyzing the feds' own fig-
century building a water system that ures, say those cuts to the Southland are
secured the safe.ty~ of i..ts~c~)mmunities_and, l.[kely_to~r-un~as~h-igh~a~s-29~5-pez, een.t.--~,md'
laid the foundation of its modern prosperity, that's only in the years when it rains. In
But if the federal government goes ahead drought years, the plan says the feds will be
with the plans it unveiled on Monday, we taking even more water away from people
may spend the last decade of the 20th centu- and letting it run out to the ocean to support
ry dismantling that system as well as a large fish.
part of the state's economy.
It's hard to tell how seriously to take the The management of a public resource as
threat. As proposed, the plan flies in the face critical to everyone's survival as water re-
of President Clinton's pledge to make the quires a balancing of interests- farms, cit-
restoration of California's economy a special ies, people, fish, indust, ry and environment
priority. Implementing it, moreover, would alike. But the rules driving .this plan allow
almost certainly prompt, a blizzard of litiga- no room for balance. Fish and wildlife come
tion that would take many years to resolve, first, and once the feds decide that a species
But there's no question that the water crisis needs protecting, there's no appeal allowed.
the Environmental Protection Agency's pro- The bitterest irony about the federal plan,
posal would foment is the purest and poten- however, is that it's unlikely to benefit even
tially most far-reaching example of the kind the environment over the.long run. Like the
of environmental train wreck that Interior defective statutes on which it's based, the
'Secretary Bruce Babbitt once said he was feds' plan focuses exclusively on piecemeal
committed to avoiding, steps to protect individual species without
Acting at the behest of a friendly environ- regard, for the long-term impact on every-
mental lawsuit that allowed it to argue it thingelse. - .......
was compelled to exercise the hear:dicta~ori-
al powers of the federal Endangered Species
Act, EPA now proposes .to take over the op- ~'T nder the act passed by Congress last
eration not only of the federally built Cen- ~J year, over-pumping of the groundwa-
.tral.Valley Project, but the State Water Proj- ter basins that currently supply 40 percent
ect as well. That means more water for fish of California's water will be accelerated and
and wildlife, and less water - a lot less - for the scope of the devastation will spread. Un-
cities and farms alike. The only question is der the Endangered Species Act, stripping
how much less. water away from irrigated agriculture to
benefit one species will hasten the destruc:
L ast year, over the strident objections of tion of valuable habitat for birds, snakes and
the Wilson administration, Congress other wildlife that depend upon those pro-
voted to take away 20 percent of the water ductive farmlands. Ultimately, shutting off
that used to go to San Jose, the San Joaquin water deliveries to California's cities just in-
Valley and the growing communities of the creases the pressure for building new and
East Bay. EPA estimates this new plan will potentially even mote destructive water de-
reduce by as much as another 18 percent the livery systems such as the Peripheral Canal.
water that currently goes to farms thl'ough- That's the train wreck toward which we're
· . out the Central Valley and to the hom~s and headed. Before we get there, the hope is that
businesses of half the state's population liv- Clinton will realize he can't save the Golden
lng in Southern California. State by destroying it.
Sacrar~-nto Bee
November 5, 1993
The White House - belatedly -
DAN WALTERs has come to understand that there
is a fundamental and perhaps un-
resolvable conflict between its ha-
Clinton caught tional policies and Clinton's politi-
cal interests in California; a state
in water trap ,~t~ 54 vitaielectoral votes..
It's inevitable, for instance, that
· · Pentagon spending is going to be
A ;ears-long political battle slashed even further, and that
vet how much water will eliminate tens of thousands
sho[lld be diverted to ira- more defense-related jobs in Cali-
prove water quality and fish hahS- fornia. The White House is at-
tat in the Sacramento-San Joa- tempting to reduce the po'litical
quin Delta reached a climax of fallout by touting its defense-con-
sorts last §pring when Gev. Pete version programs and concentrat-
Wilson blocked action by the State lng them on California, l~ut it's'a
Water Resources Control Board. faint effort at best.
The dispute had pitted political- Clinton and his minions are al-
ly influential farmers against a co- so beating the drum on illegal Sm-
al'ilion of utb-~-n'-water'users--and ......... migration` tO biff-fit Wiisor~'s -
environmentalists, and the water thrusts on that issue, but unless
board had indicated that it was the federal government can actu-
ready to order a significant shift of ally cut the flow of bodies across
water from a~icultural users to the border, it's likely that StoreS-
improve cleansing flows through g'ration will be a potent political
the Delta. weapon for Wilson in 1994.
Had the water board acted, it
would have driven a wedge be-
...
tween the farmers and Wilson, ~he threat to cut off high-
who can't afford to lose any sup-
' lway funds was sidetrack-
port as he prepares for an uphill ed at the last moment only
re-election campaign in 199-t. But after Democratic leaders in the
by suspending its Delta water de- Le~slature bludgeoned the '¢Faite
liberations at Wilson's behest, the House with the potential political
- board, in effect, shifted the politi- effect. But that, in turn. an~red
cal onus onto President Clinton, environmentalists who had
because the Environmental Pro- pr. essed for the tighter smeg con-
tection Agency. was ready to step trols the EPA originally advocat-
into the issue, ed.
"That wouldn't be the worst 'This week, the EPA tumbled in-
thing that could happen," one to:the political trap on water that
high-level Wilson aide said pri- Wilson had set last spring. It un-
rarely at the time. veiled its own Delta plan, cal/ing
Even then, Mth the Clinton ad- for diversions of hundreds ofthou-
min.ist-ration-ju~t-a-few-wee~s-old;- s~ihcI~- 6f a-a-~-~- fe~t -o'f ~-vat~t-ff-om--
Wilson and his political advisers
were devising strate~es to make agricultural and other users into
increased Delta flows. The Wilson
the new president the fall guy for administration, not unexpectedly,
the economic ills besetting Cali- maximizes the potential mag'ai-
fornia, thus mitigating - or so rude of the EPA water diversion
they hoped - the voters' natural plan, saying it could mean as
inclination to blame the incum- much as 8 million acre-feet per
bent governor, year, nearly 10 percent of all the
water consumed in the state.
I n the months since, the A diversion of that size could
blame. Clinton strategy has have huge economic impacts,
become steadily more evident which, one can be certain, will be
as Wilson has .highlighted such magniffed in the heat of' political
specific issues as immi~ation, de-
tense spending cutbacks and, battle.
most recently, a threatened loss of Fish don't vote, and Wilson
federal highway funds in a dis- clearly hopes that those who
pure over automotive smog con- would lose the water - especially
trols, farmers , will take out their
wrath on Clinton.
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 AGRICULTURE
(916) 445-8498 = ~ RULES
DISTRICT OFFICES: .~ ~ ~'~ WATER, PARKS, AND WlLDUFE
-' ~ ~. HEALTH
[] 100 W. COLUMBUS STREET ~ .....
SUITE 201 --. ,~ ' ",
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 /' ·
(805) 324-3300
[] 821 WEST MORTON AVENUE,#C
PORTERVILLE, CA 93257
(209) 783-8152
December 9, 1993
Mr~...Alan Tandy,. city_Manager ..................
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Tandy:
I received your correspondence earlier this year indicating your
support for Assembly Bill 1015, regarding the expansion of the
enterprise zone program.
As you know, I coauthored AB 1015 and, therefore, am sorry.to
~rgport ~t~a~_this._measure failed passage in th~ Assembly Committee
?on~Rev~nue~and Taxation.on July 12,~1993. ~
Senator Leonard has authored Senate Bill 845, which would also
designate additional enterprise zones. Currently this measure is
pending as a two-year bill in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation
Committee. ~I'in~end to support SB 845 should it reach me for a
~GER~ote -on th~ Assembly FlOor. ~ . _ -:' ~ ~
Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to give me
4=0~he benefit of your input.
Sincerely,
Assemblyman, Thirty-second District
TH:Db
Printed on Recycled Paper
~,,L,~ U. $. Department of Housing and Urban.~velopment
~ ill '~ ~ Wa~hingt0n, D.C. 20410-7000
f~
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY December 3, 1993
"' 1993
Nr, To~s A, Arc±n±ega
?resident
California State University, ~akersfield
9001Stockdale Highway
~akers~ield, CA 93311-1099
Dear Nr, Arciniega~
· ............... 6n-6~h~'l~f-~-6reta~y-C-~sne~oS,'thank ~ou for your
letter of November 11, 1993, expressing your support for
the Section 108 loan guarantee application submitted by the
City of Bakersfield.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD) Los Angeles Field Office received the application in
late October 1993. An initial review of the application
presented issues which required further response from the
City.~ This additional material was received on November 9,
1993. Staff in the Los Angeles Field Office are currently
.preparing their required recommendation on the fundability
of the application.
The Los Angeles Field Office recommendation regarding
the application will be forwarded to HUD's San Francisco
Regional Office for approval by the Regional Administrator,
Nr. Art Agnus. Regardless of the recommendation made by
the Los Angeles Field Office, the application will be
forwarded to HUD Headquarters for a final review.
The staff in the 5os Angeles Field Office have
indicated that several citizen complaints have been
received regarding the project. These complaints ha~e been
referred by HUD to the City for response. Further, the
City has apparently scheduled a public hearing for
December 15, 1993, to address public opposition to the
project. HUD sees this hearing as a positive sign that the
City will provide more information to the public regarding
the project.
Please be assured that the Bakersfield application has
been receiving and will continue to receive prompt
attention from HUD staff. Thank you for your interest in
the Department's programs.
Very sincerely yours,
~th C. William
..................... ~6ty Assis~an~Secretary
for Grant Programs