Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/95 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM Ray 19, 1995 FROM: ALAN TANDY,. CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The owners of the hockey team report considerable progress in terms of lining up additional participants for the league this next season. These are all multiple steps, they progress one step at a time and are not yet finished, but it is looking like: Anchorage is becoming more receptive to being in the league; Reno has moved ahead - they have an agreement at staff level moving toward Board approval; San Diego is in - unless they can land an IHL team (which is a long-shot); finally, Tucson, which was not even expected until 1996-97, is going out for an RFP and we have supplied them with the documents we prepared here. So, overall, the league does seem to be coming together. 2. There is an update enclosed on the Willow Flycatcher issue from the Water Resources Department. 3. We have reached tentative settlement with the Police Department Sergeants bargaining unit. In the "backward step" category, I understand that the County staff has now suggested another delay to the County Board, in terms of universal garbage collection - this time, to wait and see when we give orders to our franchise haulers to automate. We plan to have that before you fairly shortly, by the way. Nonetheless, this is a very slowly evolving area of County progress. On a related note, I will meet with their new CAO next week to see if there is a more progressive environment on discussions on the tax split, and other issues. I do not expect miracles, but it would be progress if they were willing to actively pursue good faith discussions. 5. The Hotel has a lot of work yet to do, but it is moving forward with the planned opening date of June 1st. 6. A reminder that we continue with the budget presentations from General Government, Finance, City Attorney and Fire on Monday, the 22nd, at noon, and with Water Resources and Community Services on Wednesday, the 24th, at 5:15 p.m. As we have done in previous years, we will provide you with a list of responses to questions and concerns expressed. This will be in your Friday delivery for the next few weeks. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May lg, lgg5 Page -2- 7. A meeting was held on May 8th with the residents in the vicinity of Panorama Hills Park. Amemo is enclosed from Lee Andersen which highlights some of the comments made by those attending the meeting. A second meeting will be scheduled within the next three to four weeks. 8. A memo is enclosed regarding a presentation Fire Department staff conducted last Saturday at the Fire Training Center. The program was designed to inform potential new employees of the basic job requirements and skills needed to qualify for a position with the Fire Department. 9. Responses to Councilmember inquiries are enclosed regarding the status of the Mercy Charities Housing Project and a homeowner petition for the resurfacing of Littler Court. 10. Enclosed is an update on street light purchases and installations due to annexations. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads Trudy Slater Carol Williams MEMORANDUM May 16, 1995 TO: GAIL WAITE~STANT CITY MANAGER FROM: FLORN CORE, WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: "WILLOW FLYCATCHER" REFERRAL The document package that was received by Council, from the Kern River Watermaster, is a culmination of comments on the listing of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher as an endangered species and designating Isabella Reservoir (the shoreline) as critical habitat. The City of Bakersfield is part of the Kern River Interests that the Watermaster is representing. The bird has been listed as an endangered species (as of February 17, 1995) however, the critical habitat designation was left open to comment and review through April 28, 1995. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service should make their determination by this summer. Attached are the summaries from the "Council Referral Tracking List", copies of the Mayor's letter that was read into the record and filed, a City Water Board Resolution on the Flycatcher listing and a recent letter from City Water Resources Department sent during the extended comment period on the habitat designation. DEP~NT OF WA~R ~SOURCES G~ BOGART, Ma~ger ~RN COR~ Water Re~u~s D~ctor PA~ICK E. ~~. Su~lendent ~ ~, Fommst~g and Re~s ~ICE ~ Bus~e~ Manger ~N R~R DISPA~R 326-3716 April 25, 1995 Mr. Sam F. Spiller, Field Supc~isor ~i~na ~olo~cal Sc~ccs Offic~ U. S. ~SH ~ ~LDLIFE SER~CE 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoen~ ~ 85021 RE: SOU~WES~RN ~LLOW FLYCATCHER - DESIGNA~ON OF IS~EL~ RESERVOIR AS CRI~C~ H~ITAT Dear Mr. Spiller: ~ Ci~ of Bakers~eld is ve~ concerned with the Fish and Wildlife's draR rule of inclu~ng Isabella Rese~oir as part of a critical habitat designation for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. ~e desi~ation would severely inhibit activities along the lake shoreline and consequently ~11 greatly decrease thc desired storage capaci~ in thc rcsc~oir. ~is will have a dramatic affect on the c~osure to Rooding in Bakersfield, thc availability of excellent qualiW drinking water supplies and th~ economic stabili~ of the Bakersfield area. ~e inclusion of Isabella Rcsc~oir as critical habitat could reduce conse~ation storage by as much as sev~n~ percent (70%). Such a drastic cut would limit thc abili~ to store and re,late Kern River Rows for Rood control and cause water to be lost to ~hc Bakersfield ~re~. With a diminished storage capaciW, the peak spring snowmelt runoff on the Kern River would be required to be released in an untimely manner when the Bakersfield and valley area demands are low. Potentially, large quantities of water would be passed through our communi~ and lost. Water that escapes beneficial use has to be replaced by groundwater overdrafting or increased dependance on limited im~rted water supplies. ~erdraRing of groundwater not only lowers water levels and increases ~st but can also lead to the degrading of the quality of drinking water supplies in our communiW. In hi~ sno~elt years, such as 1995 is or as a result of a sudden h~a~ precipitation event, it is possible that ~thout ~11 usc of th~ Isabella Rcsc~oir space and regulation, vast areas of Bakersfield and the valley ~oor could be exposed to ~ooding. ~e m~joriW of IsabellR Rese~oir docs not presently ~nd cannot be expected in the ~ture to provide the biological and physical features needed for thc Rycatcher. ~c current vegetation in the Kern River south fork delta has encroached into rcsc~oir storage takclines as a result of the histo~c 1986-92 California drou~t. Because this area is subject to inundation in the course of normal operations of the rese~oir as a Rood control and water conse~ation storage facili~, the area is unstable and is not suitable as breeding habitat. For example, in large water years such as this year, thc rcse~oir is forecast to ~11 to capacity and most if not all of the south fork delta ~11 be submerged for an extended period of time. 7000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715. MR. SAM SPILLER UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE PAGE - ! - The City of Bakersfield and thc other Kern River Interests have cooperated on successful activities to increase the population of the flycatcher outside the vicinity of Isabella reservoir and nearer to its natural breeding habitat in the upper south fork area. A successful program to reduce the brown- headed cowbird parasitism of the willow flycatcher was conducted and the reported results are good. The results indicate that the program is effective in' reducing cowbird parasitism of the willow flycatcher and increasing the flycatcher's reproductive rates. The Isabella Reservoir shoreline is not necessary to conserve the breeding ground of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and such a designation would cause substantial adverse economic impacts to the ongoing activities of water management and conservation of Kern River water in Bakersfield and the surrounding areas. In addition to increased costs to pump groundwater for drinking supplies, there will be substantial reductions in crop production, all causing several million dollars of economic hardship in our community of over 370,000 people. Unless the United States is able to purchase and replace the conservation storage space in Isabella Reservoir and provide assurances of flood control protection for our City, it should not attempt to include it as part of the critical habitat designation. The benefits of excluding Isabella Reservoir from the designation will far outweigh the benefits of including it as a portion of the designation. The City of Bakersfield urges you to remove Isabella Reservoir from the designation as critical habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Very truly yours, GENE BOGART Manager Horn Core Director cc: City of Bakersfield Water Board Alan Tandy, City Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney Charles H. Williams, Kern River Watermaster KERN RIVER WATERMASTER 1415 - 18th Street, Room 705 P.O. Box 1195 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93302 Telephone 805-325-3116 Facsimile 805-325-7518 April 26, 1995 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETI, JRN REI~EIPT REOUESTED Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoeniz, Arizona 85021 RE: COMMENTS CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT REGARDING THE SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER; FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 60, NO. 38, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 (PAGES 10694-10715) Dear Mr. Spiller: These comments axe prepared by the Kern River Watermaster on behalf of Kern Delta Water District, City of Bakersfield, North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District, Henry Miller Water District, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Hacienda Water District, Olcese Water Disuict, Rag Gulch Water District, Kem-Tulare Water Disu'ict, Cawelo Water District and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Each of the~e public agencies are dependant on the continued conservation storage of Kern River water in I~abella Reservoir for the beneficial uses of groundwater storage, replenishment and irrigation. These comments are presented as a supplement to earlier comments submitted on November 24, 1993, with regard to the original proposed rule concerning the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Federal Register Notice Vol. 58, Number 140, Friday, July 23, 1993, Pages 39495-39522). As requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") in its February 27, 1995, Federal Registex Notice our original comments and exhibits will not be resubmitted, but are incorporated by reference and made a part of these comments. These supplemental comments are given to provide further evidence to support two (2) conclusions: 1) that there will be no additive net benefit to the willow flycatcher by designating Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat; 2) that the Service should exclude all portions of Isabella Reservoir from the proposed designation. Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Page 2 April 26, 1995 ' L Summary Since November 1993, certain events' have occurred .that underscore our earlier conclusions that the Service's proposal to include Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat is contrary to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, ct. seq. CESA'): 1) Isabella Reservoir does not contain the physical and biological features of willow flycatcher habitat; 2) the reservoir area is not essential to the conservation of the species; 3) exclusion of the reservoir shall not cause an extinction of the species; 4) the benefits of excluding this portion of the proposed rule outweigh the benefits of inclusion; 5) including Isabella Reservoir in the proposed critical habitat role shall cause substantial economic hardship to thousands of residents and several communities of Kern County; and 6) designation of Isabella Reservoir shall cause a taking of the conservation storage and water rights of the citizens of Kern County requiring thc payment of just compensation. H. Comments A. Isabella Reservoir does not meet the critical habitat definition. ESA provides that critical habitat only includes two (2) sons of areas. First, an "area occupied by the species, St the time it i~ li~te,,d.., on which are found those physical and biological features fl) essential to the conservation of the species and (ID which may require special management considerations or protection." Second, areas 'not occuoied at the time of listing upon the express "determination of the Secretary that such areas are essential for the Conservation of the ~pecies." Section 1532(5)(A). Isabella Reservoir fails to meet either of these del'tuitions. The willow flycatcher was proposed for listing on July 23, 1993, and actually listed on February 27, 1995. According to biologists of the Kern River Research Center ("Research Center") "no willow flycatchers were observed in the South Fork Delta in 1993, even though consiclemble vegetation was present" ($~e, Entrix, Inc. Report, dated November 19, 1993, citing Whitfield). Likewise there is no evidence that the willow flycatchers occupied any portion of Isabella Reservoir in February 1995. Furthermore, because Isabella Reservoir is subject to periodic flooding and a fluctuating water level resulting from the fulfillment of flood control and conservation storage purposes of Isabella Reservoir, it does not possess a stable environment suitable for breeding habitat for the willow flycatcher. The scientists at the Research Center, have stated in their most recent comments dated March 18, 1995, (Attached as Exhibit "A"), that: Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Page 3 April 26, 1995 "we believe that the majority of I~abella R;~ervoir doe~ not presently or could r~a~0nabl¥ be expected in the 'future to _c~ssess the biolggical and physical con~ituen~ ~lement~ essential for the conservation of the southwestern willgw flycatcher. The only area that is used by willow flycatchers within Isabella Reservoir is near where the South Fork Kern River enters the lake. However, the current vegetation is principally a result of the r~7.ent and historic 1986-92 California drought and with continued fulfillment of flood control and water conservation storage purposes of Isabella Reservoir, there is sic~nificant doubt ~hat this area on a lon_~-term basis is breeding habitat for southw;stern willow flycatcher. Review of Isabella Reservoir records on storage capacity from 1955 through 1993, indicate that the Reservoir level exceeded the 2,600 elevation line during 196/, 1969, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1986, for a significant duration of _rime in each of these years." (Emphasis added.) Recent comments from Entrix biologists support the conclusions of the Research Center when they conclude, "[R]outine operation of Isabella Reservoir consistent with historic practices and the authorized purposes of flood control and conservation stcyrage is not capable of ~l~taining long-term, s~able breeding habitat for the ~guthwe~tern willOW flycatcher in ~ Sou~ Fork Delta." (Emphasis added.) (Entrix, April 25, 1995, attached as Exhibit "B") Nor can the Secretary conclude, based on the best scientific data available and presented to the Service for review, that inclusion of Isabella Reservoir is "essential for the conservation of the specie~." Virtually all scientific comments submitted in 1993, stated that Isabella Reservoir was not essential habitat for the willow flycatcher. (See, Southern California Edison comments dated September 9, 1993, SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants comments dated November 1993, Entrix, Inc., comments dated November 19, 1993.) The most cun'ent scientific opinions further support this conclusion. The Research Center and Entrix respectively conclude their supplemental comments by stating: "At this time, we would suggest to the Service that i~ i~ nQt e~ntial )9 the cQns~rvation 9f the southwestern willow flycatcher for the Service to designate any portion of Isabella Reservoir as Critical habitat. Until we have had an opportunity to conclude three or four more years of the cowbird trapping program, work on the development of riparian habitat on the Bloomfield Ranch and the coordination of a regional or ecosystem-wide management plan for the Kern River Valley, we would suggest that the Service not designate any portion of the Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat unless, upon further Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Page 4 April 26, 1995" review, it i~ ~}~ablished that it is essential t0 th~ ¢0nservafi0n of th~ willgw flyga~¢h~." (Emphasis added.) "[W]e recommend that Isabella Reservoir, including the South Fork Delta, ~ exclufled from the critical habitat desi~ation currently under consideration bv the U.S. Fisl~ ~d Wildlife Service. This recommendation is based on our independent review of this matter and is supported by the letter from Dr. Laymon and Ms. Whitfield (cited above) concluding that the designation of Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat is not essential tn the conservation of the southwestern willow flycatcher." (E~nphasis added.) In light of this evidence, it would be arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to ESA, for the Service to continue tn include Isabella Reservoir in the critical habitat rule. 5 U.S.C. 551, et. seq. B. The Service is required to conduct a thorough impact analysis. The Service is required when considering the designation of critical habitat tn confider "the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat." 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2). The Service's regulations ins~'uct that: "The Secretary shall identL~y any significant activities that would either affect an area . considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing desi~afion of such an area, 9on~ider the probable economic impacts of the desi~ation upon proposed or ongoing activities." 50 CFR 424.19 (Emphasis added.) As established in our earlier comments and those submitted by hundreds of residents of the Kern River and San Joaquin Valleys, the adverse economic consequences of including Isabella Reservoir as part of the willow flycatcher critical habitat designation arc catastrophic. Restriction of the conservation storage function of Isabella Reservoir will result in an annual net increase of 78,425 acre-fe~t of groundwater pumping in the already significantly overdrafted basin underlying the southern San loaquin Valley. This additional pumping in mm causes an annual increase in district and on-farm pumping costs of $4.3 million dollars, $2.3 million dollars in new wells, and $0.5 million dollars in new operation and maintenance expenses. The value of water lost from surplus imported water is $1.6 million dollars annually. An additional $3.4 million dollars annually is lost due tn Kern River water not being beneficially used in Kern County. The annual regional economic loss is estimated at $12.2 million dollars Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND v~.r~LIFE SERVICE Page 5 April 26, 1995" and 400 permanent jobs. The total annual economic impact of designating Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat is estimated at $26.2 million dollars or $617.8 million dollars present value over time. (See, Northwest Economics Associates, report dated November 22, 1993.) Since the Service first announced its intentions to consider the designation of Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat, this office on behalf of those dependant upon the Kern River and Isabella Reservoir requested that the Service as part of its statutory duty to consider economic and other relevant impacts contact the local representatives in Kern County to meet, discuss and review economic and other relevant impact analysis data associated with the proposed rule. (See. correspondence dated Sanuary 25, 1994, and March 2, 1995, attached as Exhibit "C.") Despite the Service's repeated assurances to provide notice and local public participation as part of the review process prior to the finalization of the critical habitat rule, the Service has made no contact with any of the individuals knowledgeable about the probable impacts of the proposed rule on Kern County. Earlier comments objected to the Service deferring the required economic and other relevant impact analysis until after the 1993, public hearings and the November 30, 1993, written comment deadline. Regardless of these objections the Service has compounded the problem by continuing to delay the impact analysis process for an additional seventeen (17) months until the supplemental comment public comment period has likewise expired. The Service's deliberate policy and decision to delay the impact analysis violates the due process rights of the affected local public agencies, landowners and water users dependant upon the Kern River and Isabella Reservoir by foreclosing any reasonable opportunity to participate in the decision making process by ms~ng timely, effective and meaningful written comments. The Service has effectively withheld and secreted from the public the Service's impact analysis which deprives these interested parties of due process of law by eliminating their opportunity to provide evidence in rebuttal or support of the Service's conclusions. In addition, the Service is required to assess the economic impacts of a rule proposing to designate Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et. seq., the Paperwork Reduction Acts, and Executive Order 12866. (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1982); accord, S.Rep. No. 418, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1982)). To date no such analysis has been conducted or made available to the public for review. Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Page 6 April 26, 1995" C. The benefits of exclusion outweigh designating Isabella Reservoir. The Secretary has explicit authority to exclude any area from critical habitat if the conditions warrant. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2). The Service regulations on this point provide: "The Secretary_ may exclude any portion of such an area from the critical habitat if ~enefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of _specifying the area as pan of 9'l'itical habitat." 50 CFR 424.19 (Emphasis added.) As explained previously, the benefits of exclusion substantially outweigh the benefits of speci~ng Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat. First, as explained above, the scientific data indicates that Isabella Reservoir could at best provide only short-term and intermittent breeding habitat for the willow flycatcher in hydrologic years when the flood control and conservation storage purposes of the project did not necessitate inundation of the entire reservoir. For example, the above average precipitation and mn-off in 1994-95 is further evidence that this area is an unstable breeding habitat for willow flycatchers. It has been forecast that Isabella Reservoir will fill to an elevation of 2605.5 for an extended period of time beginning approximately in July. (Entrix, April 25, 1995.) On six (6) occasions since the 1954 commencement of operations of Isabella Reservoir this elevation was reached and maintained for significant periods of time. The inundation of the entire reservoir submerges all vegetation existing in the South Fork Delta for an extended period of time which flooding will either kill or reduce the canopy of the surviving trees. (Entrix, April 25, 1995.) Second, recent developments substantiate that the willow flycatcher population in the Kern River Valley is being protected and enhanced without designation of critical habitat. The most current scientific data reveals that in the Kern River Valley the willow flycatcher populations are not limited by habitat but rather by cowbird paratisism. (Entrix, April 25, 1995.) The expanded cowbird trapping program initiated by the Research Center in 1994, indicates that "the removal of cowbirds has halted the decline of the willow flycatcher population and the population appears to have stabilized." (Research Center, March 18, 1995.) In 1995, the Research Center is once again expanding its program and further progress in reducing predation and increasing willow flycatcher populations is expected. (Brown-headed Cowbird Control Program for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on The South Fork Kern Riven 1995, Exhibit '~D" attached.) In January 1993, the California Department of Fish and Game purchased the Bloomfield Ranch located upstream of Isabella Reservoir and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service South Fork Wildlife Area and Nature Conservancy Kern River Preserve. This ranch comprises approximately 1,400 acres including Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLI~ SERVICE Page 7 April 26, 1995 ~' 400 acres of existing riparian habitat. Researchers at the Research Center located two (2) pairs of willow flycatchers on the property in 1994, which they conclude are an indication that a portion of the ranch is suitable habitat for willow flycatchers. The Department of Fish and Game is evaluating the property to develop the appropriate conservation management plan and preliminary indications are that an additional 300 acres could be developed to riparian habitat by employing the management techniques successfully implemented by the Nature Conservancy. Additionally, discussions amongst state, local public agencies, conservation organizations, and local residents have begun for the purposes of developing a regional or ecosystem-wide management plan to assist the recovery of several listed species and ideally prevent the necessity of listing altogether. It is expected that if there is a heavy-handed federal regulation of the Isabella Reservoir causing significant adverse economic and associated impacts, this delicate community consensus process will fail. (Research Center, March 28, 1995; Entrix, Ala'il 25, 1995.) Third, as detailed above, it is probable that a designation including any portion of Isabella Reservoir shall cause substantial economic losses to the several public agencies and their residents or landowners, severe disruption of the daily and long-mm management practices of Kern River water resources throughout the Southern San Joaqttin Valley, and significant direct and indirect adverse environmental impacts. In sum, the Secretary has substantial evidence presented to him to support the exclusion of Isabella Reservoir from the designation. The benefits of deletion are far greater than if there is a critical habitat designation of this area. D. The Service is required to pay just compensation- To the extent the Service includes any portion of Isabella Reservoir in a role designating critical habitat it is required to compensate the above-public agencies for any change or adverse impact on present storage and release operations of Isabella Reservoir, the vested appropriafive rights to the reasonable and beneficial use of Kern River water, and all vested contract rights to conservation storage and use of Kern River water. First, as a matter of federal process, the Service is required prior to the adoption of the proposed role to conduct a takings analysis in compliance with Executive Order 12630 and the Attorney General's current guidelines. The express purpose of this procedure is to "ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well- reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the objections of the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment." (Executive Order 12630.) "Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND Wn~r)LIFE SERVICE Page 8 April 26, 1995' invasion or occupation of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property." (Executive Order 12630.) Second, ESA provides that the Secretary is authorized to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property and instead acquire by purchase 'qancls or waters, or interest therein" appropriate to carryout the conservation of endangered species. 16 U.$.C. 1534(a)(2). Third, any action which confiscates or otherwise deprives the affected public agencies or their landowners and water users of their right to property shall constitute a violation of the due process and takings clauses of the United States and California Constitutions and subjects the Service to legal action. HI. Conclusion Based on the above and prior written comments, public comments made at the November 15, 1993, hearing the Kern River Watermaster and those agencies, landowners and residents dependant upon the continued conservation storage of Kern River water in Isabella Reservoir, respectfully request that the Service immediately suspend any further actions to adopt the proposed nde to designate as critical habitat any portion of Isabella Reservoir and the South Fork of the Kem River. Very truly yours, C. H. WIIi~IAMS, Kern River Watermaster Enclosures cc: Congressman Calvin M. Doolcy Congressman Richard W. Pombo Congressman William M. Thomas Congressman Don Young Secretary Bruce Babbitt Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer Kern County Board of Supervisors City of Bakersfield, City Council Mr. Sam F. Spiller Ecological Services State Office U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Page 9 April 26, 1995" cc cont.: Buena Vista Water Storage District, Board of Directors Cawelo Water District, Board of Directors Hacienda Water District, Board of Directors Henry Miller Water District, Board of Directors Kern Delta Water District, Board of Directors Kern Tulare Water District, Board of Directors North Kern Water Storage District Olcese Water District, Board of Directors Rag Gulch Water Di~strict, Board of Directors Rosedale-Rio Bravo Improvement District, Board of Directors Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Board of Directors Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Districts, Board of Directors Scott K. Kuney, Esq. c:\wp60~Xcorresp~spillerl .Itr. sP.k~fif FY 1995/96 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES Date: .May 17, 1995 Question Response Councilmember No. 1: What is being done with the fencing Staff will have to investigate the options further. A DeMond around the City's Corporation Yard? preliminary review of the project suggested that trees, shrubs, fencing and irrigation would be needed. However, there may be a need to make improvements to the canal bank to accommodate the fencing, as well as an assessment of additional sidewalk. No. 2: What was the personnel Some fluctuations resulted from streamlining efforts, as Salvaggio complement for each department prior to well as general reorganizations. Several departments are the budget cuts of 1993/947 currently below the 92/93 level, due to budget cuts (instead of streamlining efforts). However, because of gains and losses citywide, the proposed total complement for 1995/96 is only seven below that of 1992/93. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Personnel by Division i i:: i ::iI i:ili:i ::ii: ::i: ::. ':::.?' :: .'::.Adthlori~ed: .::A~thoriZ~d ::, .:..?:i:, Mayo r 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 General Government 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 City Manager 7.95 7.95 7.95 6.33 6.28 6.28 City Clerk 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Human Resources 7.00 7.00 8.00 7.33 8.33 9.33 Risk Management 5.00 6.00 5.00 4.34 4.34 3.34 Data Processing 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 Executive 32.95 34.95 34.95 32.00 33.95 33.95 Finance 28.00 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Administration 3.00 3.00 4.00 Accounting and Reporting 13.00 14.00 14.00 Treasury 7.00 7.00 8.00 Purchasing 3.00 3.00 3.00 Financial Services 28.00 28.00 28.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 Legal Counsel 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 City Attorney 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 Administrative Services 52.00 55.00 55.00 58.00 15.00 15.00 Operations 216.00 221.00 222.00 215.00 223.00 229.00 Investigations 56.00 57.00 57.00 60.00 61.00 62.00 Support Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 46.00 Police Services 324.00 333.00 334.00 333,00 345.00 352.00 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Personnel by Division ..: :::.'. : ':::.::.::'i' '... ' ' : :. · . i~ ::: ':: :. :: :~: i :: :: ;:::i:?: AUth~fiZed. AUthO'rized · ' .' :P:i;o~r~ms :'. · i::~:~0~91: '"199i~'~ ~!~'~:~93 ' Administrative Services 10.05 10,05 10.05 8,00 8,00 8,00 Suppression Services 169.00 170,00 170.00 166,00 165,00 171,00 Safety Services 13.95 13.95 13,95 13,00 13.00 12,00 Support Services 10.00 10,00 10,00 9,00 9.00 9,00 Fire Services 203.00 204,00 204,00 196,00 195.00 200,00 Engineering Services 49.60 50.60 51,60 50,52 52.52 52,52 General Services 52.39 53,39 53.39 48,96 50,25 50,25 Streets 57,25 57,25 57,25 55,33 52,44 53,44 Equipment 49,25 49,25 49.25 46.30 46,25 46,25 Wastewate r 27,51 27,51 27.51 27.56 27,54 27.54 Solid Waste 59.34 59,34 59,34 58,33 53.10 53.10 Public Works 295,34 297,34 298.34 287,00 282.10 283,10 Agricultural Water 18.13 18,13 18,13 16,44 16,45 16,45 Domestic Water 2.53 2.53 2,53 2,23 2,45 2,45 Water Resources 20.66 20,66 20,66 18.67 18,90 18,90 Parks 62,66 62,66 62,66 58,67 59,67 61,67 Recreation 8,67 9,67 9,67 9,67 9,67 9,67 Convention Center 18.67 19.67 19,67 17,67 17,67 17,66 Community Services 90,00 92,00 92,00 86,01 87.00 89,00 Planning 21,00 21,00 21,00 19,50 19,50 19,00 Building 30,00 32,00 32,00 30,50 31,50 34,00 Planning/Building 51,00 53,00 53,00 50,00 51,00 53,00 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Personnel by Division Community Development 9.60 9.60 9.60 8.60 9.60 9.60 Economic Development 7.45 7.45 7.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 Community/Economic Dev. 17.05 17.05 17.05 15.05 16.05 16.05 Total Employees 1,077.00 1,096.00 1,099.00 1,060.73 1,073.00 1,092.00 M E M O R A N D U M NiANAGER'S May 1~, I995~'- TO: ALhN ThNDY, CITY MgaNAGER FROM: LELAND J. ANDERSEN, COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER.~~ SUBJECT: PANORAMA HILLS PARK MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 As you know, a meeting was held Monday, May 8, at Thorner School, regarding the development of Panorama Hills Park and the establishment of a park maintenance district. As expected by some of those who attended, there were several negative comments. Following is a recap of their concerns: 1 People were upset over having to pay another "tax". They don't want to pay money toward some other park. Why can't Destec pay for the maintenance? 2 Why wasn't the maintenance district fee part of the agreement with Destec? 3 There were concerns about security, vandalism and the potential for gangs due to the "seclusion" of the park site. 4 There were several comments on moving the site to another location within the zone. 5 One individual wanted to have a vote. as opposed to sending in a protest card. 6 Another individual wanted to know if there were kits or information available to help understand the process. 7 There was discussion regarding the Southern California Edison easement. They wanted to know what the limitations were as to what could be developed within that easement. 8 There was a question regarding the environmental species agreement. How will this impact the site? 9 Some people understood the $500,000 from Destec was to be spent, only at Panorama Hills Park. During the course of the meeting staff made every attempt to respond to all questions in a positive manner. I personally feel that some of those people were not interested in anything we had to say. Rather it was an opportunity for them to vent their frustration regarding Destec. On the other hand I feel there were Alan Tandy May 11, 1995 Page Two several people present who were in support of the park site and were trying to look in a more positive direction. We will be scheduling a second meeting within the next three to four weeks. They have asked for a cOnceptual plan showing equipment, location, and costs for the site. In addition we indicated to the group that staff is available to answer any questions they might have or meet with any community group that would like to sit down and discuss this issue. Interestingly enough, nobody came forward regarding our invitation. We will see what happens. All in all it was a worthwhile meeting. The word is out as to our intentions and the community does indeed care about what happens. I will keep you posted as we progress. Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. LJA/lg cc: Frank Fabbri Georgina Lorenzi Allen Abe Marian Shaw MEMORANDUM DATE: HAY 15, 1995 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY HANAGER FROM: MICHAEL R. KELLY, FIRE CHIEF~ SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT FAMILIARIZATION PRESENTATION - HAY 13, 1995 Fire Department personnel conducted an Employment Familiarization Presentation for potential new employees at the Olive Drive Fire Training Facility on Saturday, May 13, 1995. The program included an overview of basic job requirements and specific information and examples regarding the examination and selection process. There was also a mock oral demonstration in addition to demonstrations on the physical agility course and at the Burn Building. The presentation was attended by 108 potential employment candidates. Of the 108 total, 10 were female, 21 were Hispanic, and 20 were Afro American. There were some excellent questions asked at the conclusion of the presentation and the interest level seemed to be very high. I feel the day's activities were very productive and we will build off this start with more presentations in the future. Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 15, 1995 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: George Gonzales, Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Request from Irma Carson - Status of Mercy Charities Housing California Housing Project At the May 3, 1995, City Council meeting Councilmember Irma Carson requested a status report on the Mercy Charities Housing California Housing Project previously approved for development assistance through the City HOME Program at the April 5, 1995, City Council meeting. As mentioned in the April 5, 1995, administrative report, Mercy submitted a tax credit application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) for a portion of their total financial package for their project. Because the use of tax credit assistance is very much in demand throughout the state, competition is intense. Projects with a firm financial commitment from the jurisdiction in which the project is located is critical. When Mercy originally submitted their application to CDLAC in March 15, 1995, the City had yet to complete the environmental review needed to obligate the HUD - HOME funds, nor completed "appropriate determination" of funds requested. Without the City's firm financial commitment, Mercy was not approved for the April 15, 1995, award. Mercy feels that their application will have a much better chance to be awarded tax credit allocation in CDLAC's second application rounds scheduled for December 1995. Mercy's request to amend their April 5, 1995, agreement with the City is scheduled for Council action on June 14, 1995. Mercy will be requesting City assistance to acquire the 4.7 acre site ($110,000) and closing costs $12,000 and reducing the proposed office site improvement originally approved in the April 5, 1995, agreement. Total assistance by the City of Bakersfield will remain constant at $550,000. The annexation of the Mercy project site will be completed August 1995. If Mercy's application for credit is approved by CDLAO, construction of the 56 family units will begin February 1996. .==~ -. - lin:COl 2/'rANDY.MEM ,i CI Y: MANAGER'S OFFtC? BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, CityManager s/j~~ ..' FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Work DATE: May 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Council request regarding HOMEOWNER PETITION FOR RESURFACING OF LITTLER COURT Councilmember Pat Smith requested Public Works staff review the attached petition, dated April 25, 1995, regarding resurfacing in the northeast area of Littler Court. In fiscal year 1995-96 there is an item in the Capital Improvement Program for chip slurry seal of streets. This resurfacing program will begin soon after July 1, 1995. This is a new program for Bakersfield; we believe that it will extend the service life of local streets without the expense of capping the street. Littler Court will be a candidate for chip slurry seal resurfacing. ;!TY ~ :: C1094:xLrrlT,ER.MEM RMR:mps xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APRIL 25, 1995 Re: Request~ for RESURFACE OF STREET O~ LITTLER COURT in the northeast portion of BAKERSFIELD, CA., 93306. ~;~E THE BEL0~'i LISTED HOME04NERS PETITION FOR INSPECTI0~ A~D REPAIR ON THE ABOVE i~AMED STREET (Address) (Name) BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ~'~ DATE: May 17, 1995 SUBJECT: UPDATE REGARDING PURCHASE OF STREET LIGHTS Please find attached an update prepared by our General Services Division regarding street lights purchase and the installation of new lights due to annexations. ANNEXLI~.HT$ Attach. ,! v,~¥ 1 8 1995 ~CITY MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM May 15, 1995 TO: ~~1 Rojas, Director of Public Works From: ~a~y C. Jamison, General Services Superintendent : STREET LIGHT PURCHASE INFORMATION Subject {~_~2/GENERAL Just to let you know where we are on the purchase of street lights and new light installations within the city due to annexations. Completion of the purchase of the 18 street lights for the Akers #4 annexation is pending your approval and signature on the letter of acceptance to PG&E. Funding for this Ward #6 project is in current year money. We are still working with PG&E on the value of the lights in Brundage #4, Sunset-Mayflower, Municipal Farms, Ming #7 and Panama #11 annexations. These 14 lights will be purchased as soon as we have a firm figure from PG&E and if my request for a $20,000 carryover is approved. These are in Wards #1 & #7 I also have a $75,000 CIP project in the 95-96 budget for the purchase of 133 +/- street lights in the Union #10 annexation. Also, in the Union #10 annexation we are in the process of installing 39 new.lights which are being funded from current year's money. This is a Ward #1 .project. In the Lowell Park / Carnation Tract in Ward #1, we are proceeding with the installation of 14 new lights which are being funded from current year money. In the Ward #2 area we are proceeding with the installation of 10 new street lights which are also funded from current year's money. , 'nn- ,v,' Associat on of. Cities Inc. ARVIN May 15, 1995 MC FAALAN[D TO: KERN COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF CITIES R,~CREST FROM: PAUL ~CKE~, PRESIDE~ SUBJECT: NOTICE OF POSTPON~ ~-~ ....... ~=~ CO~Y- A~OC~AT~O~--OF-C~T~-ES 5~"~-5/'95' · EH~C~, , MEETIN~ WASCO The KCAC Dinner Meeting scheduled for Thursday May, 25, 1995 in McFarland has been postponed until Thursday, June 22, 1995 because of a conflict with the League of California Cities South San Joaquin Valley Division General Me~ership Meeting hosted by Delano scheduled for the same date. It was not our intention to compete with this other -meeting, and Gary Johnson most graciously agreed to host the KCAC meeting next month. ?-:'~'-- ": '" ":.~'? .... Y'ou are encouraged-'to attend .the Lea~e.of California .... '-:' ':'- -: :"::.. '-':~ '~'~- :::-.- :'"Ci-ties. meeting in .:Delano,- a~d 'we :.will hope" to -see:-'you ~.::~;: in McFarland at the end of June.- " ._ . Paul_.Ackermann ..... · ........................... .._ President Cox Cable Bakersfield A Subsidiary of 820 22nd Street Cox Communications, Inc. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Cox Cable Bakersfield May 11, 1995 Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 ........... Dear Alan: I am writing to give you an update on our operation. First, I am pleased to let you know that we. have been offering our "On Time" Guarantee program for two months now and the response from our customers has been great. We have only missed three scheduled appointment time frames since we began the program! In addition, we continue to exceed all of the National Cable Television Association Customer Service standards in the areas of telephone response time, service repair and installation. Second, we plan to begin an upgrade of our cable plant this summer. The upgrade:*;will ,allow..us *to:.offer.:an additional 24 channels of service to our customers. We will also infuse more fiber optic cable into the system which will further increase picture clarity and reliability. The upgrade is expected to take 18 months to complete. We expect little disruption to our customers' service as.most of the work is performed at night. I'll keep you posted as we progress. Third, in concert with C-Span, Bakersfield High, Centennial High and South High, we are bringing the C-Span bus to our community May 25th. Students from these high schools will have an opportunity to tour the bus. We will also hold a journalism workshop with local media and journalism students. We will send you an invitation to thi~ event soon. We. plan to launch HBO II (multiplexing) to add value to our pay packages at no extra charge. We will also be swapping KNBC for America's Talking, a new basic programming service. Look for these exciting changes on June 19th. As alWays, if you have any questions regarding our system, please don't hesitate to call. ,If you are ever in the neighborhood and would like a tour of our facility, We-wouldrb.e' delighted to.have you come visit. Sincerely, Vice Prr2idenU General Manager