Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/95 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM ~ June 2~ 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU~~ ~ FROM' ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The Holiday Inn Select grand opening has gone nicely. I understand that some of you have conflicts, but the dinner next week with Mr. Hammons and Mr. Jones should also be enjoyable. 2. The citizens in the northeast have received a copy of the enclosed letter inviting them to a follow-up meeting regarding the proposed park site. This second meeting will be held June 19th at Thorner Elementary School. 3. An update on landfill activities from the Public Works Department, and a graffiti update from Economic/Community Development are enclosed. 4. Enclosed is a follow-up memo on the Multicultural Festival and Street Faire which was held May 21st. 5. A memo is enclosed on the status of grant monies for cleanup of Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2. 6. Responses to Councilmember inquiries and referrals are enclosed regarding the Master Street Tree Plan, City contributions in the proposed 1995-96 budget, the status on the refuse automation conversion plan and the pavement on Hageman Road. 7. On June 13th at 7:00 p.m., at ~the Beale Library, CalTrans will hold a public meeting on the Bakersfield sign which crosses Union Avenue. I understand that it will cost $15,000 - $20,000 to demolish, and would cost over $40,000 to rehabilitate. The owners of the adjacent properties, who also own the sign, would put up the equivalent of demoliti.on costs for rehab. The party accepting it would also have to accept liability and pay the other $20,000. I am sure this would be a controversial statement to some, but I consider the sign to be a part of Bakersfield's past, negative image, and believe it would be better off in a museum rather than over Union Avenue - particularly in light of $20,000 in cost and long-term liability and responsibility for future repairs. 8. I continue to get reports that the community is getting closer to having a recreational ice and roller skating facility. That would be a great help to the hockey operation so they could have an in-town practice facility. ~ONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL June 2, 1995 Page -2- 9. LAFCO has proposed even worse rules on the sphere of influence than what we have had before. This would, basically, make the sphere not expandable, which means you cannot annex beyond it until a developer was ready to build and construct improvements. We have protested, along with other cities, with separate letters to LAFCO Board Members, and will pursue objection of the issue at the KCAC meeting on June 22nd. 10. It is very helpful to us if you bring forward early any ideas you have about proposing changes to the budget. The reason for that is, very often, Councilmembers will want to fund something and, if the staff has time to do research and check out possibilities, we can do a better job in identifying where the monies might come from than on the spur of the moment after the last public hearing. We have been assembling notes from Council comments during the hearing process and will put what we have gained from that, along with some technical changes, together. Please give me a call, or let us know if you believe something merits consideration in the final stages of budget adoption. The responses to Council questions from the May 31st workshop are enclosed. 11. There is a significant document enclosed. Kern COG has had a study done, which is in draft form. It recommends we go to a metropolitan-wide one- half cent sales tax election to meet transportation and street needs. This draft will be finalized and then consideration of that proposal brought forward. The legal staff needs to review whether or not the assumptions made by the consultant about the 50% vs. two-thirds majority are valid. The issue is currently being litigated, I understand, in another jurisdiction. 12. The soils report is enclosed from Sam Lynn Ballpark. This is a part of the study being done to compare costs of the Southwest site to Sam Lynn. The water is as high as four feet from the surface. The site is, therefore, not economically feasible for a bermed stadium. The cost comparison, in this case, would have to be above-ground with appropriate soil compaction for groundwater conditions. 13. The State Water Quality Control Board met on May 26th - one item on their agenda was regulation of biosolids and septage. City staff attended this meeting in Fresno; their update is enclosed. We think it will help our long-term wastewater treatment costs. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads Trudy Slater Carol Williams 26 May 1995 RE: PROPOSED NORTHEAST PARK SITE Dear Resident: We appreciated vour attendance at Councilmember Patricia Smith's neighborhood meeting on May 8, 1995 at Thorner Elementary School. This meeting was very productive due to the information exchanged between you and the City, and your candor on the issues. At the conclusion of the meeting, we indicated there would be a follow-up meeting scheduled within 2-3 weeks. After reviewing the items we needed to research further, we felt additional time was necessary. Our second meeting will be held on Monday, June 19, 1995, 5:45 p.m. at Thorner Elementary School's multi-purpose room. Park concept plans will be available for vour review. Please inform vour neighbors of this important date. Thank VOU for vour patience and we look forward to seeing you on June 19, 1995. If you need additional information, please call 326-3117. SincerelV, FRANK FABBRI Parks Superintendent cc: Pat Smith, Councilmember Alan Tandy, City Manager Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager Allen Abe, Assistant Parks Superintendent Georgina Lorenzi, Business Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director FF:pah panmtg6~9 4101 TRUXTU N AVEN U E BAKERSFIELD, CALl FORN IA 93309 (805) 326-3117 PANORAMA HILLS PARK MEETING THORNER SCHOOL MAY 8, 1995 PLEASE SIGN IN NAME ADDRESS PHONE NBR ---¢"- ~..//-.., .~ ~ , -,..-,= , .-, ./ ~ ' . ~ ... j / ~ . , . / THANK YOU! · -. PANORAMA HILLS PARK MEETING THORNER SCHOOL MAY 8, 1995 PLEASE SIGN IN NAME ,. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. THANK YOU! BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ,~/~ ~ DATE: May 26, 1995 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON LANDFILL ACTIVITIES Below is a summary of the progress made at the Bakersfield Landfill since the new consultant (Kleinfelder) began work on May 17, 1995. 1. Some of the gas probes in the bluff hillside outside various backyards were replaced with new pipes driven in by hand crews. 2. A helicopter was used to carry an infrared camera along the bluffs to detect various pathways in which gas may migrate. 3. New probes were drilled in the backyard of 3700 Panorama Drive to try and pin point migration pattern and to determine the depth of fill. 4. Six of the major landfill gas wells on the main area of the landfill near the bluffs were replaced by a large drilling rig. It was found that the old wells had become brittle and bent or caved in through the years. The new wells are expected to collect gas more effectively. 5. Ms. Karen Jost who lives in a condominium overlooking the landfill called asking what all the new activity was. Staff has made contact with Ms. Jost acknowledging her concerns and informed her the Solid Waste Division will be distributing more information regarding the landfill activitiesvia the Homeowners Association President Duncan Lowe. Other work done recently includes a fire break along the top of the bluff cut by Bureau of Land Management summer workers and erosion control on the northern slopes by spreading woody mulch across the bare soil areas to prevent storm damage next year. KPB:smp UPDALNF. MEM cc: Kevin P. Barnes, Solid Waste Director BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 25, 1995 TO: 'Jake Wager, Economic Development Director FROM: Myra McArthur, Planning Technician~'~' SUBJECT: Graffiti Up-Date The following is an update on a couple of projects that came to fruition in May after many months and countless hours of planning and preparation. Anti-Graffiti Partnership with Bakersfield City School District After more than four months of work on the Anti-Graffiti Poster and Essay Contest, (which included obtaining approval from the Bakersfield City School District Superintendent's Advisory Board, making contact with administrators from each of the thirty-seven Elementary and Jr. High schools, eliciting the cooperation of each P.T.A./Booster Club Board, making over two dozen classroom presentations, organizing numerous paint-out days, preparing media releases, etc.) the end result was very successful. The children's understanding of the City's logo "Support Your Town, Put Taggers Down" was beautifully expressed both in picture and word by 221 participants from thirteen schools. At the Awards Ceremony on May 18, 1995, all participating school were represented and only three of the 51 award recipients were unable to attend. Over 200 parents, siblings, school administrators, teachers, and P.T.A. board members were also present. At the Awards Ceremony, we were pleased to have Jake Wager as Master of Ceremonies. Mr. John Bernard, District Superintendent, presented the awards to the winners of each participating school. Vice-Mayor Pat DeMond presented the awards to the over-all contest winners: An anti-graffiti video developed in-house, and an anti-graffiti skit performed by a group of Jr. High students, were also part of the program. I have attached a copy of the program. As part of the congratulatory package, each winner received an anti-graffiti coloring book that contains some of the poster contest entries. The coloring book was a great success. The proud "authors" requested additional copies to share with families and friends. p~ECE',i ~,.? j.'.', :, ".~v 2 6 1995 In order to fund the coloring book, which was produced in-house with the help of VISTA Bob Chandler, VISTAs Louis Armitage and Traci King, and I obtained contributions from Time Warner Cable ($383), McDonald's ($383), General Office Machine Co. ($100), Association of Old Town Kern ($100), and Quality Meat Co ($100). Target Print and Mail printed 5,000 copies of the coloring book for $600. In summary, the first Anti-Graffiti Poster and Essay Contest was a great success. It established a new partnership with the Bakersfield City School District. School administrators were very pleased with the contest and have agreed it should be an annual event. I believe it made a difference in the attitudes and values of hundreds of children in regards to graffiti, and anticipate greater participation next year. TAG DAY On May 13th, the Mayor's Youth Council conducted Teens Against Graffiti II. Similar to last year's activity, students from every school in the Kern High School District were involved. This year, about 300 students and 75 adults participated. In spite of a gray and rainy day, Teens Against Graffiti painted approximately 125 city and county sites. The students present demonstrated enthusiasm and commitment to being part of such a community project. The Youth Council received food contributions from McDonald's, Pepsi, Carl's Jr., Burger King, Lampost Pizza, Smart & Final, Long John Silvers, Caesar's Deli, and Texas Tom's BBQ. Monetary donations came from Time Warner Cable ($500), the Bakersfield Californian ($500), JBM Farming Co. ($500), State Farm Insurance (1,000), and the County of Kern ($1,000). This Department gave its full support to the Youth Council. Graffiti Program staff and three VISTA Volunteers, in the role of advisors, edited all correspondence sent to businesses and agencies soliciting contributions, secured many donations, tutored Youth Council members in their public relation affairs and media presentations, helped them find suitable vandalized locations, and coordinated the obtaining and delivery of all necessary painting materials. It was a good experience having the support of the County this year. The Youth Council did a fantastic job appearing before the County Board of Supervisors to obtain assistance and cooperation from them. The media was very responsive and coverage was given to the Kick-off activity on May 5, 1995. Council member Randy Rowles was present at the activity representing the City Council. BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 23, 1995 TO: JAKE WAGER, Director of Economic D(~pment FROM: BRET J HELGREN, Fair Housing Office~ SUBJECT: MULTICULTURAL FESTIVAL AND'STREET FAIR On May 21, 1995, community development members staffed a large exhibit at the first ever Multicultural Festival and Street Fair. The display featured pamphlets, brochures, and other informative media regarding community development services which are available to Bakersfield residents. In addition, one-hundred-sixty dollars ($160.00) was collected from the sale of T-shirts for the Looking Good Neighborhood Program and several hundred free helium balloons were given away. Passers-by gave much attention to the eight by twelve feet structure erected by exhibit staffers and which contained children's art work from the recent fair housing poster and essay contest. A substantial number of festival attendees, including Mayor Price, visited the exhibit and interacted with community development staff. Visitors commented overwhelmingly that the festival was a certain success. B A K E R.S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director/~/~ DATE: May 25, 1995 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON GRANT FUNDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT #2 Attached hereto is an update regarding grant application filed on January 3, 1995 with the California Integrated Waste Management Board for Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 and the Board's notification on this matter. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM May 25, 1995 TO: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director · FROM: Fred L. Kloepper, Assistant Public Works Directo~-~" SUBJECT: Status of Grant Funds for WWTP #2 Illegal Waste Disposal Site Cleanup On December 14, 1994 the City Council approved application for AB2136 grant funds for fencing and site cleanup of a portion of Section 4, T31S, R28E, which is an uncultivated field in the wastewater farm area. This area has been accumulating trash, fires and debris for a number of years and has been identified by the Kern County Environmental Health Department as needing to be abated. The grant application was filed January 3, 1995 with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). We subsequently received notification from the CIWMB that only Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA) may file for grants under the AB2136 program. Therefore, no further action on the grant will be taken by City staff. Our Kern County LEA is the Kern County Environmental Health Department. They have picked up the ball and have filed our grant application under their name. The grant has been approved by the CIWMB. Cleanup work is expected to begin in about 8 weeks. Our related fencing contract opened May 24, 1995 with favorable bids. We had budgeted $50,000, the low bid was under $12,000 but has not been verified as being acceptable. Several other bids in the $20,000+ range were also received. BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 23, 1995 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Copy of Master Street Tree Plan for Councilmember Smith Attached is a copy of the Central City Master Street Tree Plan which Councilmember Smith requested at the last council meeting. I ! I I .I CEmTRn[ Ci-~--- I ~S~R STREET TREE PLAN i ~' MAY 1992 CENTRAL CITY MASTER STREET TREE PLAN PREPARED BY THE CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGENCY MEMBERS Herman Ruddell, Chairman Phillip Gaskill, Vice Chairman Victoria Araujo Diane Dunn William Paynter Mel Rubin Michael E. Sceales STAFF Dale Hawley, Executive Director Jake Wager, Deputy Executive Director Ed Schulz, Public Works Director Art Hartenberger, Principal Planner Don Hoggatt, Park & Landscape Designer MAY 1992 Reviewed and approved by: ard~s~ E(~ Schulz Dire~ Planningfl~ctor Public Works October,/9, 1992 October 9, 1992 ! I Table of Contents ! List of Maps/Illustrations ............................................ ii List of Trees .................................................... ,~ Introduction ................................................... 1 Master Street Tree Plan .......................................... 5 I General Tree Selection Data ....................................... 10 Master Street Tree Planting List , . .................. 11 ~j Landscape/Irrigation Plan Review Procedures ........................... 33 Design Elements & Specifications ................................... 34 Ij Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ..................................... 44 ~i' Appendix B: Street Trees Ordinance ................................. 46 ! ! ! i" ~ Lig~trum Lucidum I Glossy Privet i Jacaranda Acutifolia Jacaranda List of Maps/Illustrations Redevelopment Project Area ............................. . ............ 3 Central City Master Street Tree Plan Area .............................. 4 'Street Trees Central Area 1 27 Existing City [Phase Area] Central City Master Street Tree Plan [Phase 1 Area] 28 Existing Landscape Maintenance. With Phase 1 Master Street Tree Plan Central City ....................................... 29 Proposed Priority of Plantings ...................................... 30 Typical Planting Detail - 31 Interim Landscape Planter ......................................... 32 Typical City of Bakersfield Landscape and Irrigation Details .................33 II I, List of Trees Botanical Name Common Name Variety Pa.qe Alnus Cordata Italian Alder 12 Edobotrya Deflexa Bronze Loquat 13 Fraxinus Oxycarpa Raywood Ash 'Raywoodi' 14 Gleditsia Triacanth°s Honey Locust 'Shademaster' 15 Jacaranda Acutifolia Jacaranda 16 Koelreuteria Paniculata Golden Rain Tree 17 Ligustrum Lucidum Glossy Privet 18 Liriodendron Tulipifera Tulip Tree 19 Olea Europaea (fruitless) Olive Tree - 'Swan Hill Olive' 20 phOtinia Fraseri (no common name) 21 Pistacia Chinensis Chinese Pistache 'Keith Davey' 22 Prunus Oerasifera Purple-Leaf Plum 'Krauter Vesuvius' 23 Pyrus Kawakamii Evergreen Pear 24 Rhus Lancea African Sumac 25 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda 26 1 'l INTRODUCTION I One of the best ways to improve a community's appearance is through a conscientious street tree planting and ! .maintenance program. , "N~.~ ' J .. The absence of an attractive streetscape ~-;,~'~_ ~ Il environment detracts, from pedestrian , activity which exists in many locations in the Downtown. Where individual business I owners and government office locations ~ ~ .. have enhanced the street environment by providing their oWn landscape planters, benches and other amenities, pedestrian activity, character and image of the · . Downtown have been significantly improved. Koelreuteria Paniculata Golden Rain Tree · . Trees not only beautify the urban I but also functional. Trees the environment landscape are improve by screening undesirable views, reducing noise and wind, converting carbon dioxide into life-giving ioxygen, and filtering dust and other harmful pollutants from the air. Trees give a community a feeling of permanence and dignity. Trees play an important role in enhancing buildings and other structures by softening architectural lines and features and i adding a monetary value to real property. A recent study by the American Forestry Association cited in Newsweek Magazine shows i that for each 100 million trees planted around homes and businesses $4 billion in energy costs are defrayed because of reduced air conditioning requirements and C02 emissions are cut by 18 million tons per year. Trees cleanse the air by removing carbon dioxide I, and particulate matter (an emerging problem in central valley areas). Recognizing the advantages of this concept, the Central District Development Agency Iauthorized creation of a Master Street Tree Plan for the Central City Area indicating where street trees should occur, tree specimens for each street to coordinate an overall integrated look, and specific size and planting standards. The proposed Master Street Tree Plan is capable of expansion in all directions. The Central City Master Street Tree Plan was adopted by the Central District i Development on 3, 1992 and is to serve as a standard guide Agency February designed ' for all new development within the Downtown Redevelopment Project area boundary including, but not limited to, new construction and rehabilitation projects greater than .'~, $50,000, any new landscape improvements, and Downtown Design Competition participa, tion.. I' 1 ! The implementation of the Central City Master Street Tree Plan will occur on a project by project basis as development takes place. It is envisioned that each project's landscape maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the property owner. Should a method for a self funded maintenance program be established, the city could then consider an area- wide program of the street landscape as outlined in this plan. Establishment of the maintenance district is envisioned to be within the existing Business Improvement District (B.I.D.) boundaries; northside of Truxtun Avenue, eastside of "G" Street, southside of 23rd Street and westside of "M" Street. The six block strip between "G" and "H" Streets is outside the Redevelopment Project area. Landscape improvements located in this area will be presented to the Planning and/or Public Works Departments for review. As adopted, the Street Tree Plan will serve as a standard for future development projects in the Downtown Redevelopment Project area boundaries. Funding of an area-wide Master Tree Plan is contingent on the establishment and adoption of an area-wide maintenance district within the B.I.D. boundaries. Without the formation of a maintenance district and a provision of maintenance funding, this project cannot be implemented. However, once the maintenance district has been established, a priority installation and funding program can be developed. African Sumac Rhus Lancea I ~ Comparison of the Master Street Tree Plan Area I to the Downtown Redevelopment Area - z 0 =. o  '~ ~6th st. I 24th  Master Street Tree Plan in  the Redevelopment Project Area i CENTRAL CITY MASTER ' STREET TREE PLAN AREA (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) 23rd ~t. 22nd st. 21st st. m 20th st. 18th st. 17th st, TRUXTUN ave. MASTER STREET TREE PLAN A. Purpose The purpose of having a tree program is to insure that our community will continue to realize and appreciate the benefits from trees through proper management of the City's urban forest. It i', is the goal of the Street Tree Plan to state what is necessary for the management I and survival of our street trees and describe the measures required to fulfill the responsibilities of the City. i! Pistacia Chinensis Chinese Pistache B. Benefit of Trees 'Keith Davey' I Tree-lined streets are attractive to · existing and prospective residents and improve our quality of living. Visitors form first impressions of a city primarily established by its appearance. A city's visible aspect ,~ expresses the value and pride of its citizens. i We originally assume that trees were planted in Bakersfield to provide for shade and cooling of the living areas. This benefit has been a major consideration in tree selection for practical and energy conservation reasons through the years. 'l Street trees are an asset to any community, even though they require allocations for replacement, care, and maintenance. It should be noted that while many public I' expenditures involve capital investment in projects which deteriorate in value, investment in tree planting and maintenance .involves an investment in the community which increases in value. I . C. Existing Tree Ordinance I The Director of Public Works is responsible for carrying out this program. The - ordinance, found in Appendix B of this plan, places responsibility for planting, ! ! I maintenance, removals, and protection of public trees on the adjacent property owners. The Parks Division performs these responsibilities under the direction of the Community Services Manager via the Public Works Department for emergency and hazardous situations only. Any person objecting to the actions taken by the Director of Public Works may appeal to the City Council. I Trees How a tree prospers, and the impact it has on a community, depends on the types and location of the tree planting. Over the years a vadety of trees'have I been planted in Bakersfield. Most of the trees have done as well as can be expected in an urban setting. While each tree has limitations and there is no I completely ideal tree, certain characteristics are important in the selection of trees for the Central City Master Street Tree Plan. Olea Europaea Olive Tree I, 'Swan Hill Olive' Trees with the following characteristics are preferred: 1. Trees that are adaptable to the Central City. 2. Trees that have a 30 year life span or greater. 3. Trees that do not have a history of brittleness. 4. Trees that do not have an aggressive and/or invasive root system. 5. Trees that do not have serious pest, disease, or fruiting problems. I '~ 6. Trees that will not require a high level of maintenance. 7. Trees that have an attractive appearance (seasonal accent, fall color, i flowers etc.). E. Planting pattern for street trees in street right of way in the Central City area. The City of Bakersfield's current tree planting method attempts to deal with the issues of diversity and monocultural practice. The results of this planting method' is a semi-uniform pattern of tree planting. The practice is as follows: 1. Trees arespaced 30' to 40' (within City street dght of way) on center and are adjusted as obstacles exist, such as power poles, hydrants, sign posts. 2. Trees are kept out of the line of sight zone at intersections and near driveways. 3. An automatic watering system is required. 4. Trees are planted mostly by private property owners, new development and/or with existing site modifications. F, Tree Roots To have a healthy tree, a root system is necessary to pm¥ide support, water, and nutrients. Tree roots in an urban area are subject to many conflicts such as, but not limited to, lawns, sidewalks, curbs, sewers, and driveways. As most of a tree's root system is not visible, prevention of conflicts and monitoring of root growth is not an easy task. Under certain ~-~' ~-.-. / conditions, tree mots can be \. ~ removed or pruned without ~ ~ impacting true growth _ - ~ development. Pyrus Kawakamii Evergreen Pear l, 7 If tree roots can be safely, pruned or removed this procedUre is recommended. On a request basis the City can examine these situations. Damage that allegedly occurs to private property from tree roots must be evaluated I through normal claims procedure. The claims are evaluated by the City's Risk · Management Office. A regular system of correcting alleged root damage to private property is not in effect at present. i. All trees planted under the Central City I Master Street Tree Plan will be located in the street right of way only. t At times property owners may want to prune, spray, or provide other I maintenance to street trees as a supplement to, or in place of, City ""' ! ~, crews. Any work done to a tree planted in the public right of way by a private party requires a permit. Any permits i requesting such work must be approved by the ~ Director of Public Works. I If approved, the work performed must be agreed upon in advance I and all conditions of the permits, such as insurance, must be PhotiniaFraseri I followed. ~ All costs for work pedormed under permits are borne by the property owner or the party requesting the .permit. There is a charge associated with the permit process itself. G. Tree Removal (within City street right of way) ! . The life of a tree ends naturally with age, or it can be damaged unexpectedly by human incidents and/or with site improvements. In either case, the tree should be I replaced. The following criteria is also used to assist evaluating a tree to in when is be ! removed: A. Tree is dead, dying, or diseased. B. Tree poses, a potential safety problem. C. Tree is an undesirable species. (Fruit dropping) D. Tree is creating a hardship. (Obstructing sight distance, sign blocking, etc.) E. Construction improvements necessitate removal. The most common cause of tree damages is from vehicle accidents. Cars occasionally strike trees and other public property. Public trees are considered to have a value and an accurate assessment of tree value and/or damages to the trees can be determined. There is concern to replace a tree before it reaches its life expectancy or before a diseased tree falls and causes injury and damage. As much as we all admire trees and enjoy their comfort, there is no absolute way or method to determine when a tree's life will end. However, the success of a master tree plan is insured with the development of an inventory management maintenance. program. This concept is aimed at providing an assessment of each tree to evaluate its conditions and structural stability. The computerized inventory should include date of planting, pruning and all operations of maintenance. The results of this maintenance program will reduce and minimize City liability for damages and injury. This preservation approach is an essential element for any tree program. -Use of property can change, especially in the downtown area. When existing trees are in conflict with major improvement such as new building construction, removal is considered under permit procedures. However, if at all possible, the tree(s) should be preserved in new construction projects. If removal is the only alternative, the property owner is responsible for removal and replacement of trees. When a tree' is removed, it must be replaced by one as close to the same size as possible, within practical limits, and according to the planting plan. 9 GENERAL TREE SELECTION DATA The following list of plants are approved for the Master Street Tree Planting Plan in the Central City area of Bakersfield. It is imperative that trees must be properly located in the landsCape. By respecting a tree's individual growth requirements, soil type, moisture requirement, microclimate and design usefulness for local and specific site conditions, a positive environment will be created. It is anticipated that these trees will be kept in a safe and healthy state. With a proper maintenance program the proposed trees have a moderate to fast growth rate, are drought tolerant, and adaptable to city conditions. An automatic irrigation system is required for any and all landscape plantings in the Central City area. 5-' ! Fraxinus Oxycarpa I Raywood Ash 'Raywoodi' I CENTRAL CITY MASTER STREET TREE PLANTING LIST PLANT NAME SYMBOL LOCATION BOTANICAL COMMON VARIETY I 23rd St. Prunus CerasiferaD Purple-leaf Plum 'Krauter Vesuvius' 2 22nd St. $ophora JaponicaD Japanese Pagoda 3 21st St. Pistacia ChinensisD Chinese Pistache* 'Keith Davey' 4 20th St. Olea EuropaeaE Swan Olive Tree* 'Swan Hill Olive' 5 19th St. Pyrus KawakamiiD Evergreen Pear 6 18th St. Photinia FraseriD (no common name) 7 17th St. Liriodendron Tulip Tree TulipiferaD 8 Truxtun Ave. Alnus CordataD Italian Alder 9 M St. Rhus LanceaE Afdcan Sumac 10 L St. Ligustrum LucidumD Glossy Privet 11 K St. Fraxinus OxycarpaD Raywood Ash 'Raywoodi' 12 Chester Ave. Gleditsia Honey Locust** 'Shademaster' TriacanthosD 13 Eye St. Koelreuteda Golden Rain Tree PaniculataD 14 H St. Eriobotrya DeflexaE Bronze, Loquat 15 G St. Jacaranda AcutifoliaE Jacaranda *NonfruitJng **Thornless DDeciduous EEvergreen All trees shall be planted to north/south boundaries and east/west boundaries of each street within the plan area. All trees shall be a 24" box with a 11/2.. - 2" caliber minimum-measured 12" above finish grade of top of rootball. All trees shall be inspected and approved by the City Parks Division prior to installation in ground. All for shall not less than 72 working hOurs prior to start of plant installations. requests inspection occur The contractor shail supply a certificate from the plant broker/supplier varifying specific variety. 1 ! ~ ~ ITALIAN ALDER R/' I BOTANICAL NA~: ALNUS CORDATA I Cb=lO~ RATE: SLOW: [] MODERA~ · FAET: [] COMMON NAME:BRONZE LOOUAT "~= , R/w , .I, DENS~= LOW-MED. ~ MED.-DENSE; I D~SE= ~A~ PAGE e ~ 3 III COMMON NAME: RAYWOOD ASH 'RAYWOODI' R/W BOTANIC:AL NAME: FRAXINUS OXYCARPA DEClDOU~: · EVERGREEN: [] GROWTH RATE: SLOW: [] MODERATE: [] FAST: · HEIGHT: ,3,5' SPREAD:. 2 S' I r~t c~ .-y ~ COMMENTS: FLOWER:- [] FRAGRANCE: [] SEASONAL ACCENT: · ,Ir-r~. t DENSITY: LOW-MED. [] MED.-DENSE: · DENSE: [] -~ ~-to,c~ 8PEClRCATION FOR PLAN31NG I PAGE # ~ 4 ! I I ! I I COMMONNAME: SHADEMASTER : '-"~"'~"~'~ " BOTANICAL NAME.' GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS ~R/W DEClDOU,.~ [] EVERGFIEEN: [] '~,~. GiROWTH RATE: SLOW:FI MODERATE: [] FAS'T': [-I ~~~ ~' / ~,~,~r: ~s" ~ ~ 5' I~'- I ~ rf~ht of v~y v~ DENS/TY: LOW-MED. [] MED.-DENSE: [] DENSE: [] -_.~, -- not to ~ PAGE ~ ~ 5 I I I I I ! i · m COMMON NAME.' JACARANDA " 4'~"~--'~'~ ~ R/W I BOTANICAL NAME= JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA DEClDOUS= · EVERGREEN: [] GROWTH RATE.' SLOW= [] MODERATE= · FAST= [] HEI(:;~IT: 3 O' ~ 2 5' ,,-~t COMMENTS: FLOWER=. · FRAGRANCE: [] SEASONAL ACCENT: [] I PAGE ~ ~ e I I I J[]COMMON NAME: GOLDEN RAIN TREE = ~'~"~--'~'~ ' F~/W I BOTANICAL NAME: KOELREU'TERIA PANICU/ATA DECIDOUS: [] EVERC~EEN: [] I GROWTH RATE: SLOW: [] MODERATE: [] FAST: [] HEIGHT: 3 0' SPREAD:. 2 0' ~ ri~t of ~¥ varies [] COMME~ FLOWER:. [] FRAGRANCE: [] SEASONAL ACCENT: [] DENSITY: LOW-MED. [] MED.--DENSE: · DENSE: [] ' -- i PAGE ~ 17 'i:' , ~' ~' . :.ii' ;~";,";~. ~ GLORY PR~ ~T~~ ~ LIGUS~UM LUClDUM 35' ~ 15'. ~A~ PAGE ~ I I I I ~ ~ TULIP TREE " -"' ~'' ~ " I~3TANICAL ~, LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA ~ P~ GROWlH RATE=. SI_OW= []MODERA'r~. I FAb'"'r= [] 70' SPREAd.: 30' I I'r~--y~ -- L 8PECI=:ICATION FOR PAGE # 19 I ~-:~.. ~ '~ ?, . ... :,~,, .: ~'~ ~~ ~;~ .. ~ I ~ ~T~ ~ OLEA EU~OPAEA I ~:~'30' ~ 20' ' ' ~: LOW~. ~ ~.~ I ~ ~ ~A~ ~ ~ I PAGE ~ 2o I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMON NAME: N'C N ~/w I BOTANICAL NAME: PHOTINA FRASERI DECIDOUS= [] EVERGREEN: ~ I GROWTH RATE: SLOW: [] MODERATE: [] FAST: [] I HEIGHT: 20' SPRE~. 15' ~'% I COMMENTS: FLOWER=. [] FRAGRANCE:. [] SEASONAL ACCENT: [] DENSrrY= LOW-MED. [] MED.-DENSE: [] DENSE: [] I .PAGE ~ 21 ! ! ! ! COMMON NAME: CHINESE PISTACHE 'KEITH DAVEY' RfW BOTANICAL NAME-' PISTACIA CHINENSIS DEClDOUS: · EVERGREEN:. [] GROWTH RATE= SLOW= [] MODERATE= · FAST= [] HEIGHT.' 5 O' SPREAD:. 4 O' I } right of w&y varie~ COMMENTS: FLOWER:. [] FRAGRANCE= [] ,~'~EASONAL ACCENT.' · ~/~'-~ c~,t.=~. DENSITY: LOW-MED.-II MED;-DENSE: · DENSE: [] PAGE ~ 22 I COMMON NAME=PURPLE LEAF PLUM 'KRAUTER VESUV~ R/W I BOTANICAL NAME: PRUNUS CERASIFERA DEClDOUS~ · EVERGREEI~ [] I GROWTH RATE= SLOW= [] MODERATE= · FAST= [] I HEIGHT: 2 0' SPREAd. 1 0' I I,'~ c~ wa~ vm'iee I COMMEN'r~ FL.OWER= · FRAGRANCE: [] SEASONAL ACCENT: · DENSITY= LOW-MED. [] MED.-DENSE= · DENSE=- [] I PAGE ~ 23 i I I I I I I I I I I I ~ UAME,. EVERGREEN PEAR R/w ~ eOTAN~AL ~PYRUS KAWAKAMII S~ ~ ~OW= ~ ~~ ~ F~: ~ ~A~ ~ ~ I I I I '1 ~~ ~ JAPANESE PAGODA " *~'~-'~'~ : ~/w I T~BO' _~d. NAME:. SOPHORA JAPONICA I~m~ ~OW~ ~~. F~:~ ~,35' ~ 25' = LOW~. ~ ~.~ ~ ~A~ ~AGE e 26 , UMIT8 OF PHASE 1 '" 1~,3 ~ ~ ~ O01d~'3 ............... " ' 1 9 2 ':! ' 193 .......... ii: ..... '-;::'-----3 .............. --ll[--""--"'-'---'~' ~ ~1 nr-,- , --- ' ................ ~'~'~ET - - m 74:4--'-'-' ............ -2-_ ¢_~ '~-'-'-'~ 'i~~'---' ~.,"' " _ __~'~. ---2:-4-S- --'1 ......... ,----,- iv ! I I I__ ~'-===-'~"-'--"-' .... ~"1~'=-'-'-'-'-%-'--" .... '-- . ......... II II l / ~ ~uMrrs os ~HASE ~ ,, ,~.., .~,. · EXISTING STREET TREES ( TYPICAL ) :~ 9 9 0 EXIS'I'ING TI=lEES ARE COMPOSED OF MANY VARIETIES AND VARIABLE SIZE8 FROM NEWLY PLANTED § GALLON8 TO MATURE TI=lEE DEVELOPMENT. THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING TREE8 WITHIN THE PHASE ONE AREA ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED MAS'fER STREET TREE PLAN ~] SCALE AND ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR STREET TREE PLANTINGS. ' '"-65' LIMITS OF PHASE 1 , I I 201H R£CORDS " TRUXTUN AVE . LIMITS OF PHASE 1 ~S ~ ON ~8 ~ ~E CON~ O~Y. ~E ~ N~  ~ ~ CO~ATA , ff~ ~ D~M~ED ~N ~ ~ ~ ~P~VAL OF A ~C ~D D~D ~D~E ~ ~ d~A, d~E~ PA~A ~ ~ LU~, ~Y P~ ~ ~E ~D ~ON ~ ~ ~ WAY, ~S  ~ ~ ~R~A~ ,~ ~E '~ ~ O~ ~ ~D~ ~C~8 ,HO~ L~U~' ~~ ~ ~OM ~E ~ P~ WO~8 D~ S C A ~[ ~ ~ ~w~ ~ P~ ~ KOE~ P~TA, ~ ~ ~EE ~OR TO ~ OF ~ WO~ ~8 P~ ~ BY ~ DEa~ ~ CO~m ~ 1 "= 6 5' ~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~O~mYA D~~ L~UAT ~/~1~ for 24X56.plot et 1 = 120 ~~N ~,, ~ ~ ~ JAC~DA A~, JAC~A ' · t'7'1'U ,,,.---- ---...,,~, ~ ~';-,-,-,-,-,-;; :'; ~ -'=--== .... ----------= .... -' ......... =' '" ' Fr-rT-rT'm nTFFFr T ~-FFm--n DF r r T ~ ~ 5--,--[--,--,--,--F F; f ~ ~ ~ ~ 5-','-,-',-',-',-- F F~ ~' Illl I I I t I I I Ii I t Ill ,,Il I I I t I I t I i Ii i Il ~ II I I II I I i I I I I I II III I I II I I i I I i I I t I I I I t I I I I I  IIIIlllllllllllll I~~ ~ II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I III I I I I I IIIIIllllllltllll fill IIIIII IIIII ii i i,,rl,'~ i 151 i i i il II I I I I J/I r I~1~1 ~ I.I ~ I IIIIIIM'IFi~4111 Il I I I I'FTITI r-'l I I ~ I I I I I I r--+-I'l-i I'l I I I ~ ,..,,. ,,,,.,..-,,..,.,,.,.,,.,,, H+C~q+-}--~ '"'"""~' "' ' ' ' ' "'-~=~'~ '" "~'"'"'"~' IIIIItll II~llllt Illllllllltlll Itlllllllllll~lll Illllllllllllllll I IIII ,,.,..,,....,!,, ,,..,!,,~.1111 .,.,,.,.L, ~.. ~,,. .~.,,.,,.,,,.,~. ~ltllllllll,,,, r!¢~' ', I Qlandscape planters maintained by city ~ landscape maintained by property owner THE EXISTING LEVEL OF STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE WITHIN [~ SCALE THE PHASE ONE AREA OF THE MASTER STREET TREE PLAN 18 INCONSISTENT A8 CURREI~I_¥ MAII~AINED BY A · 1"= 6 5' VARIETY OF PROPERTY OWNERS. for 2¢X56,plot et 1 = 120 PRIORITY OF CONSTRUCTION FOR CENTRAL CITY MASTER STREET TREE PLAN STREET LIMITS 1. Chester Avenue Truxtun Ave. - 23rd Street 2. 19th Street G Street - M Street 3. 23rd Street G Street - M Street 4. Truxtun Avenue G Street - M Street 5. Eye Street Truxtun Ave. - 23rd Street 6. L Street Truxtun Ave. - 23rd Street 7. K Street Truxtun Ave. - 23rd Street 8. 21st Street G Street - M Street 9. 18th Street G Street - M Street 10. 20th Street G Street - M Street 11. 22nd Street G Street - M Street 12. 17th Street G Street - M Street 13. H Street Truxtun Ave. 23rd Street 14. G Street Truxtun Ave. 23rd Street 15. M Street Truxtun Ave. - 23rd Street NOTE: Trees are planted within existing City street right of way. A detail planting plan is required for any and all streetscape improvements occurring in City of Bakersfield street right of way. A permit from City Public Works Department shall be acquired prior to any construction and or removal operation. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed by the City Public Works Department prior to start of construction. All landscape construction improvements within the City of Bakersfield right of way shall be halted if signed landscape plans are not on project site. ,30 I I right of f,~ of ~n~ete w~(s) to e~ ~ete side w~l typical planting detail elevation F~..TFI~DATA2 Fq-OT AT I'-10HOC~ ~ R/W 24' box single trunk tree pl.nter(.) maybe round or .qu~e or a combination of round ~d square ~/~ 4' ~ _ 30'x30' ex~sed concrete a~r~ate plant~ ~pprox. 800 lbs. .. water proof lining (3M or ~u~] snd factg~jqst~l~ drsin holes sp~ce a~ uu [~ ~' on cen~er ~ , t ~ ~ ~T aha ~r specmc approv~ X I ~ e'¢ ~ TO w~ ~S) site plan conditions ~ ~ ~) To finish grade 2' below top of pl~ter- -~,. .. -z~m-~- ~-.-m- I _1~2' lay~ of I 1/2' to 3/4" cle~ rock grsve~ lypi~l inl~rim I~nd~p~ pithier ~11 planters w~br~ by m~nu~l~einoa. planters relocat~ u~n inst~lation of permanent I~ndsc~pe. DOW~OWN BAKERSFIELD MASER 8~E~ ~EE P~NQ P~N LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES i FOR STREET TREE PLANTINGS IN THE CENTRAL CITY AREA Landscaping and irrigation improvements within the Central City area of Bakersfield i street right of way (off site) or on private property (on site) shall not be installed until the Central District Development Agency Design Review Committee has reviewed, approved and signed plans for said improvements. Landscape/irrigation plans will be reviewed for I . content and consistency as follows: * Plant materials are adaptable to Kern County aesthetically, physiologically, ecologically, i and suitable for the project site planting conditions. * Landscape construction improvements meet minimum requirements as set forth in the City of Bakersfield Standard Landscape and Irrigation Details and Specifications. * Irrigation system designed properly to ensure adequate moisture in all landscape I areas in accordance with City of Bakersfield Standard Landscape and Irrigation Details/Specifications and Master Street Tree Planting Specifications and Requirements. '1 * Landscape and irrigation of a nature and quality to insure Iow maintenance ~ operations. ! i PLAN CHECK PROCEDURES i ' CONCEPT PRESENTATION A concept plan must be approved before construction plans are prepared. The concept I plan shall identify all landscaping materials and any other related-architectural amenities. i ' Concept plans with comments and/or request for revisions and/or changes, shall be resubmitted and approved by the Design Review Committee before proceeding to '-~ construction plan development. This allows a project to proceed prior to preparation of W final construction plans. I CONSTRUCTION PLANS * Three (3) sets of bluelines showing landscape/irrigation installation, and architectural ~1 amenities with specifications and cost estimates shall be submitted. One set is for the ' Economic and Community Development Department, and the other two are for the Public Works Department and the Construction Inspector. Work shall not begin until final i construction plans are approved by City staff. · * A guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all trees and i the irrigation system for one year. * ReleaSe for occupancy: an inspection of the completed'landscape/irrigation installation will be required. The inspection will include, but not be limited to: I ! ~1 1. Irrigation coverage and operation. Compliance of appr°ved,landscape plans. I 3. Condition of plant materials, including street tree plantings. 2. i 4. Compliance with special conditions attached to the project by the Planning Commission, City Council and/or Design Review Committee. i 5. Submittal of as-built record drawings. ! I DESIGN ELEMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS OF MASTER,TREE_ PLANTING PLAN I 1. Cast Iron Tree Grate (5 x 5). Tree grates shall be in accordance with ASTM ' #A48-83, class 35 or better and be handicapped approved/accessible. I 2. 24" Box Tree (1Y2 - 2" caliber at 12" above finished grade of box. 4'-6' spread head and 12' tall top of root ball to top of tree.) 3. Automatic irrigation system. ' ' ' i 4. 30" box concrete planter medium' exposed aggregate finished with 3 pre drilled drain holes at bottom. (Use and approval of concrete planters shall be approved I by Design Review Committee.) I 5. All landscaping and irrigation construction shall be in accordance with the latest City of I Bakersfield- Landscape and Irrigation ~'~' Standards. ~/'0 O~'"- ! i i Gleditsia Triacanthos I PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND sYMBOL BOTANICA'L NAME COMMON NAME sIZE QUANTITY REMARKS COM_MENTS ~ ,IRRIGATION LEG, E, ND ,I SYMi~L QUANTITY MANUFACI M0~L HEAD TYPE NOZ PATTERN RSJ. G.P.M. RAIMA "--~EMARKS ~ - ~ I'~ ....... . ,,,,, -: ..... -'--:-1 .......... ,,, , ~ ~r~ ~ IRRIGATION EQUIPMEN'I: LEGEND '/ mc) ~Z' ~z SYMBOL MANUFACT. MODEL DESCRIPTION "S'IZE QUANTITY MAIN LINE . IRRIGATION LATERAL(P.V.C.) 8" " - 18"for LARGE IRRIGATION CONTROL " AT IO' INTERVALS '~-.12"FOR SMALL I TURF HEADS ~, ""E-_ ~ AND BUBBLERS ~X~ ~ ~ATXON. ......... LANDSCAPE AND IRRIOATION FOR ~.oRE ......... PIPING ~ TRENCHING CITY OF BAK-~RSFtELD N~.~ ~ ( TYPICAL THROUGH OUT ) ' ~,zzs~ ~ ~ m,m~s=. I' ~v] -,I,.- ~ ~ . ,. .~,m'~.~,z..~u..~m~u.~=°z"'~°~ I ~ ~ ~- / I1 ~ttov~ ~. B~ ~ c~ ~. ! MI~/ ]~i I~l I11 I] JIlL ~ - "~-~- ' i. .~ul ~ .... ' ----- --~lkl ~ ~1%1C ~ ~., s%~*-~ ~ )7.?~ =~'.~ ~aLWN~Z[D ~T$.~-?' P.~C. __'~?J~ .~, ,,-~~ ,,~ o, ~ I. ~R ~ ~-~' ~'~=~,,,. = ~ ~. ~ ~ ~m= - ~_~z~z~ i DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW ~EVENTER ~ c,. ~z~. . I ~Z"~KVE [ : H~HEST ~1 P I ~ ~ ~ VARIES - . I ~~-'~ ~Lv~s ~ <'~ ~ ~ I: PRESSURE-VACU~ ~AKER I~ ~ ~ I I-a~;' .~ / * ~~~ .... .l--r · · ' t'".:" TM "' '" · ' :~" " , lC" I I ~ ~,[9~ I I ...... t ' ' I I 2"WAT~R UNE ~ ~LAE~ I I = =,, :~ M~. PRESSURE VACUUM ~AKER WITH / ........ R =~' ---' STANDA D I ' ~ ~A~ WATER PRO~N CALIFORNIA . 37 , ,,, , "~~ ~ :Iglp-'~:~. · ,. ~ kL~kE~'k _FINISH GRADE ~ :1111 ~' ~ ~' J WIRE I ~ .I I [ I . T I ~ ~ XT ~ CZ~ ~ZmL I ~ V~ ~l) ~ ~ ~ ~ V~ (FOR VALVES SIZED ~"- 2') ~3' m ~ ~ ~ z~z~ ~PHALT ~C. ~E ~ EXP~SION ~ ~ , ~, ~==~ ~ ~ I LOOP FOR ~"~ ~ ~""~ ' ~. ' CONmOL /,~ ;/,' X:J'{~CON~OLWIRE . ' ~:l~ ~ I w, RE /', sc,. o I !24'i I _ ~~ f~ FE~LE ADAP~R ~ 40 PVC 9o I F~ I I MA~~ ~ ~ ~LATE~ LINE ELL{~?)' ~ I I ZO~OO. = ' 6"SCH.~ E _ ' ~ ~H. 40 R~C.d' . I REMOTE CONTROL VALVE ~ PRE.mE UNE J '(FOR VALVES SIZED 2 I/2"AND LARGER) QUICK , C~ER - VALVE j m;~,-. LANDscAPE ~D IRRI~ATION' '"' ~2' 85 / I ~,~',~ .~ STANDARD .... I '-- ~ ~TT I I ' . FOR J~ ~QUICK C~PLER VALVES ~'b'he ,J ENGINEERING DEPA~MENT 38 14 GA. U.L. DIRECT ~ ' ~l', ~z~. s~z~ 2o o~ ~ ~ IRRIGATION C~TROL C~OCX ASPHALT 6' . ..... CONCRETE I DIL 1~ ~ ~'_~ ' SURFACE ; ~ f ~ LATERAL LINE~ SCH40 PVC. OSCILLATING HEAl) DETAIL DOU~E SWING JOINT ~TAIL ...... ' D~LE ~ING ~1~ NONE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD N~E6 39 /'' '~° ....... 1" UBB* ~ pXII'S TAI~ Off ALL T~BBrA~ JOXITS Gl AJ'J'tf~qW~ IQGAL BT 'TB~(:FIY ' m SEE NOTE NO. ? m~ '~ I/mm. lXV). ~ = ). ~ ~ 8" FOR SPRAYS 5. ~u ,m~,~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~C. ~. ~m~u~"~~~ ~ ..... -6" NI~E (T'T) ~ ~' BUBBLER OR SHRUB SPRAY HEAD ~o.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 12. I ~ m~ ~ X~TX~ M X ~' It' S~.8OPV. C. X / ~.-.[~{s )re,II{s.s.,) ...................... :~... ~ (SIDE MOUNTED) (BOTTOM MOUNTED) ~ ~ 200 ~VC. LA~ . TEE(SS~A ' OR ELL(~ , 1~ .INST~ FULL cIRCLE HEAD 3" ~ ~'"~BOVE FINISH GRADE PLAN r . 4~_ '~ (PLAN VIEW ISFOR LARGE RADIUS IRRIGATION HE,AD A] LOWER LEFT . ~.-NIPPLE 4"(T.T), THIS SHEET ) i .-ELL (S .T) ~ TEE (S-S.T) FOR ~ (SCH 40~ 'VARIOUS SPR&Y HEADS ~,i ~;L'~TERAL CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 7 LARGE RADIUS IRRIGATION HEAD CALIFORNIA (ELEVATION). ENgINeERING 40 /TYPE M /(TYPE M-I,M-2 NOT ALLOWED'X GU C~ TO 90 % . CONC~TE BLo~ WALL VARIES S~m~K t ~TER ~ COAT- I~ ~ APPROV~ ~ATERPROOFING RAISED PLANTERS AND RETAINING WALLS ~ LANDS~PE AND IRRIGATI~ .... WATER~OOFI~ ~AN~RS ~ WALL ~ RETAINING WALLS CITY OF BAKERSFIELD N~ 0 ~ ~~ CALIFORNIA m AS PER LOCAL PREVAILING WIND ]>~ · TREE SUPPORT ~ · · MIT OR EQUAL · __ SHRUB (',,,,~, '-,~'-'"' ",~jl~b,;. /W~TER BASiN 7.0' (SI . ~=~.~~p_-,---~ ~, F~INISH GRADE m ~..::...,... ! .... ~3~-..- i ....... ~, ~., .,, TREE GUARD FOR , ,;4 ,'. '. --..' m FINISH ." - 4" BERM ) ' "' ' ' DO ,' ' " :GRADE xJo: . '. , '~ (%J ~i, ',. TOP OF ROOT BALL ;"Pt't't't't't't't~"'" I F.G.(THRCUGH ,_ 2x WIDTH OF_j"" 3' PLANTING OUT) ~ r- ROOTBALL - ~ (si SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ROOTBALL { , · ~ - ~. ~w~ so,~ ~ -, ~.~ so~ a~ .... PLANT AR BLOCK I WALL ~. .u. ms ~ R .~ .~ 2- Duan'~ ¢~,ms~ ,ucflSTALL TREES : J~ FENCE ~'~u--~) ~m~ ~ ~,z,... ALONG CENTER LINE OF PLANTER AND AS ~ .m ,~ ~ ~...,~ m~c. ~o~ mum~xo..o~..zno'r~ DIRECTED BY CITY ENG. ~ m..~o..~,~ ~-...rrz.~ ~,~.*~o.s. VARIES m i ,l, L ~' 4'BERM (TYP.) ~. ~m--m~~u=~,~ I-(C.O.B. STAN~R ~ ~ REQUIRED ..... s-~ ~ s-3) ,[ , ' , , , I s. ~ ~ , zs =~z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.0 { ,.33 .331 2.0 I I I . . ' I' ~. ~~(~-~u),~.~~r~.~ , , ,~ .... ~L?h~.. ~'~ .~.,,.,:~,..F~m -' ' , . , , ~ANTING ~-~z$~. - J - · . TABLEE(S) ' ROOT B~IER ill'?,." '.. II . ' ~s.(4 ~QUIRED) ~;'-v . ~-.~ ~ ,~zrzr~z~, ~ ~ Dm~, ~ cz~ ~zn. ~ L~CA~ ~D IRRIGATION ~. ~e.~' i ,. ~.~,,,~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~,~ ,~ _s~ STANDARD ~w~ ' ~~ F 0 R ~o. m ~ ~ ~ zm~ ~ ~ ~~~ VARIOUS PLANTINGS CITY Or BAKerSfIELD m i ENGINEMING ~PA~E~ 4~ GRADE ~A~ DENSITY FOE A DEPTH OF ~A~R pR~ING ~S ~QUX~D. (SEE ~RO~D SY ~ C[~ ENCX~ER PRIOE ~ CONSTEUCTXON. STA~DS, ~[ ~TEST EDITION OF SE~[0~ 73 O~ ~ ST~D~ SPECZ~ICATIONS, ~D AS D[~C~ I"ABOVE FINISH GRADEt 9" 9" ~ MOW STRIP AT CHAIN LINK FENCE AND WOOD FENCE ] f'ABO~E · ~ FINISH GRADE , LOTX MOW STRIP AT WALL OR FENCE ~ "Y2"RAD~U,~(TYP~CAL) ...... LANDSCAPE. AND ~Rm~ATION ~ :... ~ONCRETE MOW STRIP(S) .........AND PLA~GROUD SIDE~vALK CONC OW STRI ........ C~TY oF ~K~RSF~LD ,, ~ c ..... ~., ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Accent tree - Tree whose primary purpose is for aesthetic reasons. Collector streets Streets designed to carry traffic to and from a residential neighborhood and a major street. Diverse species planting - Planting arrangement which uses a variety of tree species, usually randomly placed, on each street. Easement (planting) - Portion of a property which allows access for planting and maintaining trees by the city. Knockout - Space provided in a concrete sidewalk which provides limited room for tree planting. This space is usually 5' x 5' and is often designed for expansion. streets - Streets whose .is to move traffic across the City. Major pdmary purpose Monoculture - Type of planting arrangement which depends primarily on one tree species (Uniform Species Planting). Planter strip - Planting area located between the. curbs and the sidewalk found in some neighborhoods of the City. Residential streets (laterals) - ( Streets whose ~ primary purpose ,}- is to carry traffic ~' tO and from '"', t /' s p e c i f i c ./," businesses or ~ residences. '~,,. / Right of way - Portion of property which allows access for several functions including tree planting and Liriodendron Tulipifera mai nte n a n ce. Tulip Tree The right of way into a property begins at the face of the street curb. Semi - uniform planting - Planting arrangement which uses several different species in a neighborhood in an organized pattern. Usually only one or two species are found on each street. Shade ~tree - Tree whose primary purpose is to provide a positive impact on the environment by modifying the temperatures of the air and the physical object nearby. Species - Individual type of tree such as Modesto Ash, Silver Maple, or Honey Locust. Uniform species planting - Planting based on single or limited tree species. Variety - Improved selection of plant(s) slightly different in character than that of original ~ plant. 4s APPENDIX B . STREET TREES ORDINANCE ADOPTED JANUARY 1955 Sections: and that portion of streets ordinarily used 12.40.010 Title. for vehicular travel, or any other public 12.40.020 Definitions. area adjacent to sidewalks and streets 12.40.030 ~ Establishment of ordinarily and usually used as and for comprehensive plan. planting areas. 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control. B. "Public place" means and 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent includes streets, avenues, highways, owners to maintain, alleys, parks, parkways, sidewalks, 12.40.060 Interfering with sidewalk spaces, or any other place open planting or caring for to or for the use of the public. trees prohibited. 12.40.070 Killing or injuring C. "Sidewalk" means and trees prohibited - portion a street, other includes that of Harmful substances, than the roadway, set apart for 12.40.080 Inspection and pedestrian travel. removal. 12.40.090 Duty of private D. "Street" means and owners-Removal of hazardous trees- Charging costs of workdonebycity. ~'. ~ 12.40.100 No liability upon city. 12.40.110 Types prohibited. 12.40.120 Violation-Penalty. 12.40.010 Title, This chapter shall be known as the "tree ordinance" and may be cited as such. (Prior code § 12.36.010). 12.40.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the words set out in this section shall following meanings: have the A. "Parkway" means and Al,~ Co,',~ta includes that area between sidewalks Italian Alder 46 includes any way or place, of whatever B. T h e c i t y p I a n n i n g nature, publicly maintained and open to commission is charged with the duty of the use of the public for purposes of determining the types and varieties of vehicular or pedestrian travel, trees for planting along the streets. Such (Prior code § 12.36.020). determination shall be made by the commission after consultation with 12.40.030 E s t a b I i s h rn e n t o f competent arborists. When such cornprehensive determination has been made, the plan. commission shall report its determination ' in writing to the city council in a report to A. It is for the best interest of be designated "Official Tree Planting List, the city that a comprehensive plan for the Bakersfield, California." Said report shall planting and maintaining of trees within be placed on file in the office of the City the city should be developed and Clerk, and after such filing, the same established, and this chapter is adopted shall be the official determiqation of the for the purpose of providing for such a commission. Thereafter said commission plan, and for the purpose of establishing 'may, from time to time, file subsequent regulations relating planting reports covering the same subject, each to the. and maintaining of trees in the streets of the of which shall be complete in itself and city and other public and private places each shall also be filed in the office of therein, the city clerk. The latest of such reports so filed shall constitute the official list until supplanted by a subsequent list. C. The director of public works shall from time to time, at the request of the city council, prepare plans which ~ / shall designate, by means of a complete map of the city streets, a uniform method of street tree planting, the zoning of certain streets for certain types and varieties of trees, selecting suitable types for residential areas and special types of trees for nonresidential areas. Such plans shall show the intervals between said trees, and the place where each tree is to be planted. The director of public works shall submit such plan or plans to the city council for its approval or modification, together with the recommendation of the city planning commission. D. When the uniform plan in its $ophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda 47 original or modified form is adopted by general supervision, direction and control the city council, it shall become the tree of said director of public works. (Pdor planting plan for the streets of the city, code § 12.36.060). and shall be strictly adhered to in all future street planting projects. The 12.40.060 Interfering with planting director of public works and the city or caring for trees planning commission shall develop such prohibited. plans together. Copies of such plans shall be made and kept on file in the No person, firm or corporation office of the city clerk where they may be shall interfere with the director of public obtained by the public. (Prior code works or person acting under his §12.36.030). authority while engaged in planting, mulching, pruning, trimming, spraying, 12.40.040 Jurisdiction and control, treating or removing any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, parkway or The director of public works of the public place within the city, or in the city shall have full jurisdiction and control removing of any stone, cement or other of and substance from about the trunk of of the designation types varieties, any planting, setting out, locating and placingtree, shrub or plant in any such street, of all trees, shrubs and plants in the park, parkway or public place. (Prior § streets, parks, parkways and public 12.36.070) places of the city, and shall likewise have supervision, direction and control of the 12.40.070 Killing or injuring trees removal, relocation and replacement p r o h i b i t e d- H a r m f u I thereof; provided, however, that in substances. making such determinations and exercising such control, he shall be A. No person, firm or limited to the trees, shrubs or plants corporationshall, in any way, harm, designated on the then current official injure, destroy or kill any tree, shrub or tree planting list.(Prior code § plant growing upon any street, park, 12.36.040). parkway or public place, by any method whatsoever. 12.40.050 Duties of adjacent owners to maintain. B. No person, firm or corporation shall cause, authorize or It is made the duty of all owners, allow any brine water, oil, liquid dye or agents, tenants or other persons having any other substance deleterious to tree possession or control of real property or plant life, to lie, leak, pour, flow or drip within said city to properly cultivate, care on or into the soil about the base of any for and maintain all trees, shrubs and tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, hereafter set out or public place in the city at a plants nOW or planted or parkway within any parkway or public place point from which 'such substance may be immediately adjacent to their respective lying upon or by flowing, dripping or real properties, subject, however, to the seeping into such soil injUre, destroy or 48 kill such tree, shrub or plant, said public on any such street or public place, he may cause the same, or such C. No person, firm or parts thereof as are hazardous or corporation, without the approval of the impeditive, to be trimmed or removed so director of public works, shall place or as to remedy such hazardous or maintain any stone, cement or other impeditive condition. (Prior code § substance which might impede the free 12.36.090). access of water or air to the roots of any tree, shrub, or plant in any street, 12.40.090 Duty of private owners- parkway or public place in the city. (Prior Removal of hazardous §!2.36.080). · trees-Charging costs of 12.40.080 Inspection and removal. work done by city. A. It shall be the duty of every A. The director of public works firm or corporation having charge person, may inspect any tree, shrub or plant or control of any lot or premises, either upon any street, park, parkway or public as owner, agent, lessee, tenant or place of the city, to determine whether otherwise, to or cause trim to be the same or any part thereof constitutes trimmed, or removed or cause to be a hazard or an impediment to the removed, all trees, shrubs or plants or 'progress or vision of anyone traveling on any part or parts thereof, growing or said street or public places, standing on said property, which may constitute a hazard or an impediment to B. If the director of public the progress or vision of anyone traveling -works determines that any tree, shrub or on any street or public place. plant is hazardous to the traveling public or i pedes the progress or the vision of B. Whenever it comes to the attention of the director of public works that any tree, shrub or Plant growing or standing~ on any private property constitutes a hazard or an impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on any street or public place, he shall give notice of such hazard or impediment to the owner or occupant of said premises together with a request to remove or correct such condition. Such notice and request be given either may by personal service or by mail, to the owner or occupant or other person in charge or control of said premises, or by posting notice upon said property and /',~,~ Cer~era mailing a copy thereof to the owner or occupant. The owner or occupant of Purple-Leaf Plum 'Krauter Vesuvius said premises shall, within ten days after commonly known as the fruiting varieties the service or posting and mailing of said of mulberry tree; or any Ailanthus tree, notice, remove or cause to be removed, commonly known as tree of heaven such hazardous or impeditive condition, within said city. (Ord. 2738 § 1, 1982: prior code § 12.36.120). C. Should any person, firm or corporation fail, neglect or refuse to 12.40.120 Violation-Penalty. conform with the provisions of this chapter, the director of public works shall A. Any person, firm or have the power to carry out such corporation violatinganyoftheprovisions provisions and the cost thereof shall be of this chapter shall be guilty of a charged to and become a valid claim misdemeanor, and upon conviction of against such person, firm or corporation, any such violation such person, any firm recoverable in any court of competent or corporation shall be punishable by a jurisdiction. (Prior code§ 12.36.100). fine of not more than tree hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county 12.40.100 No liability upon city. jail for a period not exceeding ninety days, or by both such fine and Nothing contained in this chapter imprisonment. shall be deemed to impose any liability its officers B. Every such firm or upon the city, or employees, person, 'nor to relieve the owners of any private corporation shall be deemed guilty of a property from the duty to keep any tree, separate offense for each and every day shrub or plant upon his property, or during which or during any portion of under his control, in such a condition as which, any of the provisions of this to prevent it from constituting a hazard or · chapter is violated and shall be an impediment to the progress or vision punishable therefore as provided in of any traveling on any one street or subsection A of this section. (Prior code public place within the city. (Prior code §§ 12.36.130). 12.36.110). 12.40.110 Types prohibited. It is unlawful for the owner, lessee, agent, tenant or any other person having charge or control of any lot, piece or parcel of land within the city, to plant, grow or permit to be planted or grown any female Populous Fremontii Wats tree or trees commonly known as female cottonwood trees or .trees which bear seeds of a cottony, wingy or downy nature; the fruiting variety of Morus Alba and Morus Nigra tree, or trees, so BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 2, 1995 TO: GAIL E. WAITERS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM~]~/D.B. TEUBNER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CITY CONTRIBUTIONS PROPOSED IN THE FY 1995-96 BUDGET The City of Bakersfield makes several contributions to various outside agencies and organizations. Most of the contributions are to fund specific services, capital improvements or events within the community. Following is a list of the various organizations that the City makes contributions to, the types of services or events the organization provides, the amount of money the City contributes and the funding source. Organization Service Provided Source Amount Bakersfield Symphony Concerts Gen. Fund $35,160 Bakersfield Convention and Convention Bookings and Visitors Bureau Community Promotions Gen. Fund $400,000 Kern Economic Development Economic Development and Corporation Marketing Gen. Fund $60,000 Musicians Union Local #263 Summer Band Concerts Gen. Fund $14,700 Panama-Buena Vista District After School Rec. Programs Gen. Fund $ 5,000 Employer's Training Resource Training in Incentive Area CDBG $12,688 Community Services Org. Rehab. of building to be used for youth services CDBG $150,000 Homeless Center Outpatient Medical and Dental for homeless ESG $60,000 Alliance Against Family Shelter improvements and Violence building acquisition for CDBG $30,000 family services ESG $14,950 Kern County Mental Health Building improvements at Association counseling center CDBG $11,500 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ' Cl~ ~A~A~ ~ ~ ~-'- FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Directo~ DATE: May 26, 1995 SUBJECT: STATUS ON REFUSE AUTOMATION CONVERSION PLAN City Council Referral Record #14854 (Ward 7) The hauling contract established in 1991 with Kern Refuse Disposal Incorporated, (Agreement No. 91-71), includes transition to a new automated or semi-automated collection system. Private hauling contractors have been contacted for input on the process of converting both City and Contractor- served routes. Staff is continuing to coordinate with the contractors to develop the system. REF14854 KPB:smp .... BAkersfield, ..... · ~ -~. California, April 19, 1995 - Page 10 9. HEARINGS continued ACTION TAKEN a. Elise LaCivita spoke in opposition to the assessment district. A. D. Morales spoke in support of the sewer but in opposition to fees. Hearing closed at 7:56 p.m. Salvaggio requested staff respond back to Council on the public comments. 10. REPORTS a. City Manager's Oral Report No. 10-95 regarding Status On Refuse Automation Conversion Plan. Public Works Director Rojas and Solid Waste Director Barnes provided an update and slide presentation on the refuse collection system. Salvaggio urged staff to communicate with private haulers and obtain their input during this conversion process. Mayor Price announced a recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 11. DEFERRED BUSINESS a. Ordinance amending Title 17 of the ORD 3644 Bakersfield Municipal Code and Zoning Map Nos. 123-17 and 123-18 by changing the zoning of 70.99 acres, .generally located at the southwest corner of Old River Road and the extension of Campus Park Drive, from Agriculture to One Family Dwelling on 60.18 acres and Limited Multiple Family Dwelling on 10.81 acres. (ZC 5596) (Ward 4) b. Ordinance amending Section 16.28.130 of ORD 3645 the Bakersfield Municipal Code authoriz- ing Planning Director to approve street names for tentative subdivisions. c. Ordinance amending Chapter 15.80 of the ORD 3646 Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding park land requirements. CITY. COUNC.T.L REFERRAL ~:~?(~ ~¢!'~'~i MEETING OF: 04/i 9/95 g 6 1995 REFERRED TO' PUBLIC WORKS R ROJAS ~UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ITEM: RECORD¢ 14854 City Manager's Oral Report No, 10-95 regarding Status Update on Refuse Automation Conversion Plan. (Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director) ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL- SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF CONTACT PRIVATE HAULERS TO OBTAIN THEIR INPUT DURING THIS PROCESS. BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED' NO DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 04/21/95 NOTE' STATUS CHANGES ARE TO BE ENTERED FOR.EACH REFERRAL AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH EVEN IF NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN! BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -- M E M O R A N D U M TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: ~ul Rojns, ~blic Works Directo~ DA~: June 1~ I~S SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER ~QUEST ~GA~ING THE CONDITION OF PAYMENT A~A ON ~GE~N RO~ At the request of Councilmember Kevin McDermott, an inspection of the pavement areas on Hageman Road between Coffee Road and Patton Way, was performed by staff. Attached is a copy of the inspection report dated May 26, 1995 for your information. My recommendation is that we contract out this item of work to repair the severely affected areas using Sewer funds. The cause of the problem is due to inadequate compaction of the backfill material which has settled around the sewer lines. · This matter will be handled in an expeditious manner. PAVEMENT.STS Attach. , MEMORANDUM MAY .3 0 1995 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEN]' TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR -~ FROM: JOE A. LOZANO, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MARK LEAL, STREET SUPERINTENDENT DATE: MAY 26, 1995 SUBJECT: DEPRESSED PAVEMENT AREAS ON HAGEMAN BETWEEN COFFEE ROAD AND PATTON An inspection of Hageman Road between Coffee Road and Patton Way has revealed three severely depressed areas on both sides of the median island. In addition, there is a fourth location approximately 400 feet east of Patton. Ail of these areas are located around manholes on a City of Bakersfield sewer trunk line that parallels Hageman beneath the median island. The construction of this 15 foot deep sewer line took place sometime around 1989 or 1990. It is our opinion that the settling around these manholes is a result of inadequate compaction of the backfill material. Complying with proper sloping standards of OSHA regulations at that time, would have resulted in a 37 foot diameter hole on the surface. This is almost the exact diameter of the surface cracking on the roadway. The necessary repair work would involve sawcutting and removing the depressed asphalt, median planting, median curbing and replacing it with proper compaction. We would recommend this work be funded with sewer funds and performed by contract, since city crews have more maintenance work than can possibly be done during the now short paving maintenance season. Please contact either myself or Mark Leal at 3111 if you need additional information. cc: Jack LaRochelle, Design Engineer IV JAL/ML/lh D2:M-052595 Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM June 1, 1995 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct SUBJECT: Union Avenue Bridge (at California Avenue) As we have discussed, CalTrans has indicated that there are a number of structural issues associated with the Union Avenue bridge (at California Avenue). CalTrans has indicated to the City of Bakersfield that the structural issues must be addressed. The bridge is currently in court receivership. The court appointed receiver (Clifford Bressler) has indicated to me his awareness of the structural issues and is desire to address them. In discussing the sale of the Bakersfield Inn site and the Bakersfield Senior Village, potential buyer's have expressed a number of reservations to Mr. Bressler about the cost of rehabilitation, ownership, maintenance and liability. Mr. Bressler feels that these issues need to be resolved in order for the property to be sold to any prospective buyer. Mr. Bressler has indicated to me that the most practical way of resolving the issue of on-going maintenance and the liability, is the actual removal of the structure. It is estimated that this would cost $15 - 20,000. Mr. Bressler in recognizing possible interest in preserving the structure, has indicated his willingness to contribute funds equal to the cost of removal to an organization that would be willing to assume ownership. Included in the assumption of ownership would be the cost of rehabilitation (generally estimated to be in excess of $40,000) above the funds described above, as well as the permanent assumption of all maintenance costs and liabilities. In discussing the resolution of the structural issues with CalTrans, they have repeatedly recommended that an informational meeting open to the general public be held. That meeting has now been set for June 13, 1995 starting at 7:00 p.m. at the Beale Library 701 Truxtun Avenue. A representative from this department will be joined at the public meeting by Jack LaRochelle and Marion Shaw from Public Works. The purpose of the meeting will be to present the facts as they are known by CalTrans, the City of Bakersfield, and Mr. Bressler, the court appointed receiver. It is hoped that with this meeting an initial assessment can be made of any interest by a community organization to assume all ownership responsibilities. Following the meeting, a summary will be provided to you by this department's representative. dlt:jw8 unionsn.mem FY 1995/96 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES Date: May 31, 1995 Question Response Councilmember No. 1: What other items did the Police A Senior Records Clerk and Sergeant position. The Chow/McDermott Department request that are not included impact of additional workload is not known at this in the proposed budget? time. $25,000 in temporary personnel was allocated until such time that sufficient documentation is available to justify a permanent clerk position. The amount of temporary pay allocated is 75% of the amount needed to fund a permanent full-time clerk. Regarding the other position, it was felt that the seven positions recommended were a higher priority than the traffic sergeant/supervisor. No. 2: Staff should research the feasibility According to Chief Brummer, they are researching Carson/ of the City of Bakersfield taking over the the cost and feasibility of internalizing this McDermott responsibilities of booking arrestees within function. A report for the Council to consider the city limits, will be available within the next few months. No. 3: Why doesn't the City use Gas Tax The primary reason is that Gas Tax funds are a Salvaggio to pay for median island maintenance and limited resource and specific street improvement what is the functional purpose and reason have been determined to be a higher priority purpose. the City constructs these islands? The median islands are constructed for traffic control and as a safety barrier. The General Plan, approved by the City Council, calls for these medians to be landscaped. No. 4: Staff should research why the Public Works estimates that the park will be McDermott residents of Tevis Ranch will be completed in early 1996. In light of this charged a full year's assessment when the fact, the assessment will be prorated for park is not completed, six months. 2 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY DRAFT REPORT Prepared for KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Prepared by SMITH & KEMPTON May, 1995 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 1. INTRODUCTION Smith & Kempton has prepared this draft report as the compilation of a series of submittals that will result in the development of a Transportation Funding Strategy for the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). The following working paper is based on discussions with the Kern Transportation Foundation as well as elected officials and staff from the Kern Council of Governments, Kern County, the City of Bakersfield, the Golden Empire Transit District, the City of Tehachapi, California City, the City of Taft, the City of Shafter, and the City of Wasco. Purpose The primary purpose of this draft report is to provide a compilation of previous working papers on the funding strategy goals & objectives (Working Paper 1) and the evaluation of funding strategies (Working Paper 2) as well as to provide an action plan for implementation of the preferred funding strategy. Working Paper 1 documented the goals and objectives for a local funding strategy designed to finance implementation of unfunded transportation projects needed by Kern County. Working Paper 2 identified alternative funding strategies, evaluate those options, and recommend a preferred strategy. The Action Plan presented in this draft report provides a blueprint for the key legislative and political steps as well as the basic funding process elements required to carry out the preferred funding strategy. Background The primary goal of the Transportation Funding Strategy being developed for this work effort is to identify feasible local funding options, refine and evaluate those options, and define the necessary steps to implement a preferred option. The evaluation of funding strategies and the recommendation of a preferred strategy assume that a sales tax mechanism will continue to remain a viable funding option. Ongoing litigation before the California Supreme Court between Santa Clara County and the Howard Jan/is Taxpayers Association is expected to address the continued viability of sales tax programs. The key issue is whether a special sales tax for transportation projects can be implemented based on a majodty vote or it will require a 2/3 vote. A previous ruling by the California Supreme Court (the "Rider' decision) indicated that special sales taxes could be enacted with a majodty vote assuming that a number of parameters are met. A decision on the current Santa Clara County case is not expected before May, 1995. Once a decision is rendered by the State Supreme Court, Smith & Kempton will issue an addendum to the transportation funding strategy report. The Draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by the Kern COG identifies a funding-constrained list of capital projects based on revenues of $1.2 billion over a 20 year period. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 1 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Operating and maintenance (O&M) revenues over that same pedod were estimated to total $1.5 billion. An additional $5.47 billion in capital projects are identified for which funding is not identified. The RTP program of regional highway and roadway projects for the 20 .year plan horizon is estimated to cost approximately $1.05 billion. The Draft RTP also identifies a sedes of series of highway and roadway projects for which funding can not be identified based on projections of existing revenues. The cost of these projects totals approximately $2.0 billion. The unfunded highway and roadway program includes the following major projects. Crosstown Freeway: $380 M Kern Canyon Freeway: 102 M South Beltway: 115 M West Beltway: 115 M East Beltway: 115 M SR 46 from SR 33 to I-5: 41.6 M SR 119 from Taft to I-5: 41.1 M SR 46 from I-5 to Beckes: 35.4 M Misc. Bakersfield Projects: 857 M The Draft 1994 RTP also identifies approximately $142 million in programmed transit projects over the 20 year plan, with an additional $33 million in transit projects for which funding is not available. The capital transit projects include the purchase of transit buses, construction of park- and-ride lots, and construction of bus transfer sites. The estimated O&M revenues for transit services over the 20 year plan horizon is $488 million (note: this does not include the O&M costs for potential future commuter or high speed rail programs). No significant funds are available for either commuter or high speed rail projects in Kern County over the next 20 years. The Draft 1994 RTP identifies the cost of constructing a 22.1 mile commuter rail system, for which funding is not identified, as $486 million. The annual operating and maintenance cost is estimated at $18 million. The Kern COG, in its role as the Kern County Transportation Authority, has pursued altemative funding options for transportation projects since 1986. The authority placed a one-half cent sales tax proposal on the ballot in 1989 which was narrowly defeated. A subsequent attempt to place a one-half cent sales tax measure on the ballot was rejected by the County Board of Supervisors in 1991 by a three to two vote. Organization of Report This working paper includes the above introduction as well as a description of funding strategy goals and objectives in Section 2, alternative funding mechanisms in Section 3, alternative funding strategies in Section 4, the evaluation of those strategies in Section 5, the preferred strategy in SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 2 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Section 6, and the summary of the action plan in Section 7. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 3 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 2. FUNDING STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following section provides a summary of the preliminary goals and objectives for the development of a funding strategy. These are based on information in the Request for Proposals; the mission statement for the Kern Transportation Foundation; and discussions with staff from the Kern COG, Kern County, the City of Bakersfield, and transit providers. Preliminary Goals and Objectives 1. The revenue source should be sufficient to meet the long-term needs of Kern County, As noted earlier, the 1994 RTP for Kern County identifies approximately $5.5 billion worth of transportation projects for which funding is not identified. This includes $1.9 billion for highways and roadways, $34 million for transit, $504 million for commuter rail, $2.9 billion for high speed rail, and $62 million for non- motorized and aviation improvements. New sources of local revenue will be necessary to match external funding sources. 2. The revenue source should be equitable, The relative funding responsibilities should be equitably distributed among those who benefit from the improvements. 3. The revenue mechanism should meet all legal requirements, A case currently before the California Supreme Court, between Santa Clara County and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is expected to address the viability of sales tax as a revenue mechanism for transportation facilities. The key issue is whether a special sales tax for transportation projects can be implemented based on a majority vote or it will require a 2/3 vote. A previous ruling by the California Supreme Court (the "Rider" decision) indicated that special sales taxes could be enacted with a majority vote assuming that a number of parameters are met. A decision on the current Santa Clara County case is not expected before May, 1995. The legal requirements for implementation of an assessment district or additional development fees on a regional basis are well-documented. It is expected that legislation will be introduced in 1995 that would allow Councils of Governments (COGs) to sponsor a regional sales tax on fuel. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 4 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 4. The transportation program associated with the revenue source should provide the maximum air quality benefits. Kern County, which is located within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Distdct (SJVUAPCD), is considered a nonattainment area for air quality purposes. Portions of Kern County are considered nonattainment areas for the pollutants ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns, and carbon monoxide. This means that Kern COG, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Kern County, must demonstrate regular progress towards meeting attainment levels through the RTP update process. As such, future transportation improvements that are not included in the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan must either provide air quality benefits and/or include transportation control measures (TCMs) in order to be included in the RTP. 5. The revenue source should promote efficiency in its application. The delivery of transportation projects in an efficient, timely manner is a key factor in initially establishing a new revenue source as well as maintaining that source as an option for future needs. This can be accomplished in many ways including the establishment of limits on administrative costs, the development of specific expenditure plans that explicitly define what projects will be delivered with the new revenues, establishment of an aggressive process management approach that allows the managing agency to cut through government red tape, and creation of an independent oversight group to monitor project delivery activities. 6. The revenue source and associated transportation program should be politically acceptable. The revenue source and the associatecl transportation program be acceptable to both public and private sector interest groups. A coordinated public/private sector support group is essential to implementing new revenue sources for transportation infrastructure projects. This support group should work diligently to educate the public and to quickly address any concerns that adse in the affected communities. 7. There should be a transportation nexus between the revenue source and the projects being constructed. Legal precedents have established that there must be a nexus, or direct relationship, between new revenue sources and the project costs for which they will be applied. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 5 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 8. The revenue source and associated transportation program promotes the development of a modern, balanced transportation system. The development of a balanced transportation system is necessary in order to provide continued progress towards achieving air quality conformity in the Kern COG region. 9. The revenue source should be relatively stal~le over time. The implementation of a revenue source that is not stable over time will affect the ability to deliver projects in a timely manner. This will either be due to potential fluctuations in revenue if projects are implemented in a "pay-as-you-go" basis or in limitations on revenue bonding options. 10. The revenue source should have a simple, straight-forward collection method. Administrative costs for the managing agencies increase as collection methods become more difficult, or unorthodox. As such, similar collection methods allow a greater proportion of the revenues raised to be applied to project costs. 11. The revenue source and associated transportation program should be flexible in its application. A flexible program allows the managing agency to respond to changes in the economic climate and/or project characteristics. As noted earlier, however, it is important to balance this need to be flexible with mechanisms that assure delivery of projects identified in the transportation program. 12. The revenue source and associated transportation program should be easily Implemented. As with the cost of collecting new revenues, a straight-forward implementation plan for the program allows the managing agency to keep administrative costs Iow and focus on project delivery. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 6 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 3. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS The following section provides a summary of the alternative funding mechanisms that are candidate components of the funding strategies described in Section 3 and evaluated in Section 4. Alternative Funding Mechanisms 1. Regional/County-wide/Metropolitan Sales Tax As was the case in 1986, Kern County has the authority to place an initiative on the ballot for voters to authorize a sales tax specifically for transportation purposes. The sales tax program has become the preferred mechanism for local transportation funding in California; currently, 18 counties have passed sales tax measures for this purpose. All of the programs have fixed durations, ranging from 10 to 20 years. As noted in Working Paper 1, ongoing litigation before the California Supreme Court between Santa Clara County and the Howard Jan/is Taxpayers Association is expected to address the continued viability of sales tax programs. The key issue is whether a special sales tax for transportation projects can be implemented based on a majority vote or it will require a 2/3 vote. A previous ruling by the California Supreme Court (the "Rider" decision) indicated that special sales taxes could be enacted with a majority vote assuming that a number of parameters are met. A decision on the current Santa Clara County case is not expected before May, 1995. A key variable in developing a potential sales tax program for Kern County is the program's jurisdictional boundaries. Although all of the existing sales tax programs have boundaries that are coterminous with their County's boundary, this is not a requirement. An expedient approach, based on the size of the county and dispersed location of cities within the county, could therefore involve the establishment of a smaller region within Kern County where there would be strong support for a sales tax measure. It should be noted that this approach would require special legislation (note: the deadline for introducing routine legislation in the current session has passed). 2. County-wide Gas Tax California counties currently have the authority to place an initiative on the ballot for voters to authorize a local fuel tax for transportation purposes. This funding mechanism has not been successfully implemented in the State of California with SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 7 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY approval from 2/3 of the voters. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been pursuing the implementation of a sales tax on gasoline as a long-term funding strategy in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area for many years. MTC staff are anticipating that an increase in the sales tax on gasoline would require approval from a majority of the voters. The sales tax on gasoline, which is a different mechanism than the above gas tax, would be approximately 8 percent to generate similar revenues as a 1/2 cent sales tax (note: a 10 cent per gallon raise in the gas tax is approximately equivalent to an 8 percent increase in the sales tax on gasoline). It is expected that legislation will be introduced in 1995 that would allow the placement of an initiative on the ballot for voters to authorize a sales tax on gasoline specifically for transportation purposes. 3. Property Tax California cities and counties currently have the authority to place an initiative on the ballot for voters to authorize a property, or parcel, tax increase for transportation purposes with approval from 2/3 of the voters. The increase in property tax is then typically used by the jurisdiction as the security for issuing general obligation bonds. It is expected that the program would involve a series of property tax initiatives for individual communities with Kern County. These initiatives could be scheduled concurrently, in order to take advantage of a county-wide campaign effort, or over time based on the specific facility needs of individual communities. 4. Impact Fees Impact fees are currently levied on new development within the Bakersfield Metro area and in the unincorporated community of Rosemund in Kern County. The Bakersfield City Council and Kem County Board of Supervisors are currently considering an increase in the transportation impact fee for the Bakersfield Metro area to approximately $2,400 per unit. It is estimated, based on discussions with Kern COG staff, that impact fees at their current level will generate from $200-300 million dollars for transportation projects over the 20 year horizon of the Regional Transportation Plan. This funding option would involve the development of an expanded impact fee program for regional transportation projects with a uniform rate applied througt~out the county. 5. Congestion Pricing Congestion pricing encompasses a range of funding mechanisms including me SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 8 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY implementation of vehicle registration fee surcharges, daily tolls, peak hour tolls, and/or commuter fees. Vehicle registration fees, which are collected annually by the Department of Motor Vehicles, currently allows the collection of surcharges for air quality, auto theft and deterrent, abandoned vehicle, and SAFE (e.g., call boxes) programs. The level of these surcharges is set by individual counties, but generally ranges from $1 to $4 per vehicle for each program. Legislation would be required to allow Kem County to collect an additional surcharge for transportation purposes or to increase the surcharge beyond $4 for the air quality program. The air quality surcharge is currently allocated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and the Kern County Air Pollution Control District for such purposes as ddeshadng and employer-based trip reduction ordinances and programs; purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for school buses and transit operators; provision of local feeder bus or shuttle service to rail stations or airports; implementation and maintenance of the local arterial traffic management; implementation of rail-bus integration; implementation of demonstration projects in congestion pdcing of highways, bddges, and public transit; etc. The use of toll revenues generated from existing or future facilities is being discussed by several jurisdictions throughout the country as a potential funding mechanism. The implementation of tolls on existing facilities would be very difficult, as it would require conversion of one or more existing lanes on major facilities such as SR 99 or I-5 to toll lanes. The most popular approaches being discussed in jurisdictions considering this approach in California involves either building new toll facilities or applying tolls to new freeway lanes (e.g. typically HOV lanes). An example of the former approach would involve implementation of tolls on new beltway facilities planned in Kern County. The latter approach, being implemented in San Diego on I-15, allows the use of new underutilized HOV lanes by single-occupant vehicles that would pay a toll. Special legislation would be required to allow the tolling of facilities in Kern County. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 9 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 4. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES The following section provides a description of the alternative funding strategies developed by Smith & Kempton in response to input provided at meetings with pdvate sector representatives, local elected officials and agency staff in Kern County. Two short-term and four long-term altematives are described with program terms of 7' years and 20 years, respectively. The short-term funding strategies are suggested in response to concems about the feasibility of implementing a long-term solution in the current economic and political climate. In addition, the short-term strategies provide the opportunity to establish a new program and allow it to demonstrate its effectiveness by implementing a somewhat limited series of new transportation projects. The following funding strategies are summarized in Table 1. Alternative I (Short-term: Metro Sales Tax, Impact Fees) This funding strategy would involve the implementation of an additional 1/2 cent sales tax within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as well as an expanded impact fee to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. The implementation of a sales tax, over a seven year pedod, would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions as well as a public vote. The boundary of the sales tax area would include the City of Bakersfield as well as portions of the outlying area in Kern County. Several boundary alternatives are possible, including use of the City's current sphere of influence limits. The implementation of an expanded impact fee, which would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions, would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Since revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms originate exclusively from the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, the seven year program would be comprised of transportation projects in the City of Bakersfield and Kem County within that boundary. The 1/2 cent sales tax is estimated to yield revenues of $104 million over seven years, while the expanded impact fee would yield revenues of $6 million. Alternative 1 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $110 million over seven years. Alternative 2 (Short-term: Blend) This funding strategy would involve the implementation of a county-wide parcel tax, an expanded county-wide impact fee, and a county-wide vehicle registration surcharge dedicated to regional transportation projects. Each of these mechanisms could be implemented administratively by votes of the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions. The vehicle registration surcharge would also require legislation to allow Kern County to collect an additional surcharge for transportation purposes or to increase the air quality surcharge beyond $4 per vehicle. SMITH & KEMPTON PAQE 10 BLE 1 RN COG FUNDING STRATEGY: SHORT-TERM (7 YEAR) AND LONG-TERM (20 YEAR) STRATEGIES ALT. 1 (S-T) ALT. 2 (S-T) ALT. 3 (L-T) ALT. 4 (L-T) ALT. 5 (L-T) ALT. 6 (L-T) IECHANISM (Metro S.T.) (Blend) (Courtly S.T.) (Metro S.T.) (Gas Tax) (Blend) I I IIIII I II I I I I I I :ounty Sales Tax - 1/2 cent > $525M letro Sales Tax 1/2 cent 1/2 cent - 1/4 cent $104M > $300M > $150M ounty Gax Tax - $.05-.10/Year 1 to 5, $.10 after > $490M arcel Tax $25/parcel $20/parcel > $74M > $170M lpact Fees $400/2,000DU $400/4,000DU $400/4,000DU $400/4,000DU $400/4,000DU -$400/4,000DU > $6M > $11M > $32M > $32M · $32M · $32M ongestion Pricing: $5/400,000 Average: $7.5/ Average: $7.5/ ~ehicle Reg. Surcharge vehicles 600,000 vehicles~ 600,000 vehicles~ · $14 · $ 90M >$ 90M I I I I ~OGRAM TERM 7 7 20 20 20 20 ::{OGRAM REVENUE $110M $100M $557M $420M $520M $440M es: 1. Assumes surcharge increases with inflation from $5 in Year 1 to $10 in Year 20, average of $7.50. Also assumes increase in number ol non-motorized vehicles from 400,000 in Year 1 to 800,000 in Year 20, average of 600,000. 11 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Alternative 2 (Short-term: Blend) - continued The implementation of a $25 per parcel tax throughout the county would be similar in format to the solid waste parcel tax. The implementation of an expanded impact fee would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development throughout Kern County. The vehicle registration surcharge would involve the collection of $5 per motorized vehicle, which would be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated directly to Kern County. Since revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms originate from throughout Kern County, the seven year program would include a blend of transportation projects throughout the area. The parcel tax is estimated to yield $74 million, expanded county-wide impact fee would yield revenues of $6 million, and a vehicle registration surcharge would yield revenues of approximately $14 million. Alternative 2 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $100 million over seven years. Alternative 3 (Long-term: County-wide Sales Tax, Impact Fees) This funding strategy would involve the implementation of an additional 1/2 cent sales tax throughout Kern County and an expanded county-wide impact fee to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. The implementation of a sales tax, over a 20 year pedod, would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions as well as a public vote. The boundary of the sales tax area would be concurrent with the county limits. The implementation of an expanded impact fee, which would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions, would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development throughout Kern County. 'One of the primary obstacles to implementing a county-wide sales tax program is the opposition that is expected from many of the communities outside of the Metro Bakersfield area, which represent more than 40 percent of the County's population. Many of these communities did not support the 1988 county-wide sales tax and, based on meetings with numerous elected officials and staff, can not be expect to support future sales tax programs without a substantial effort. As such, a longer period of time should be anticipated to develop an expenditure plan for a county-wide effort than for an effort focused on the Metro Bakersfield area. Since revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms originate from throughout Kern County, the 20 year program would include a blend of transportation projects throughout the area. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 12 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY The 1/2 cent sales tax is estimated to yield revenues of $525 million and the expanded county-wide impact fee is estimated to yield revenues of $32 million over 20 years. Alternative 3 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $557 million. Alternative 4 (Long-term: Metro Sales Tax, Impact Fees, Vehicle Registration Surcharge) This option would involve the implementation of an additional 1/2 cent sales tax within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, an expanded county-wide impact fee, and a county-wide vehicle registration surcharge to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. The implementation of a sales tax, over a 20 year period, would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions as well as a public vote. The boundary of the sales tax area would include the City of Bakersfield as well as portions of the outlying area in Kern County. Several boundary altematives are possible, including use of the City's current sphere of influence limits. The implementation of an expanded impact fee, which would require a vote of both the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions, would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development throughout Kern County. The implementation of a vehicle registration surcharge would require a vote of the Kem County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from the local jurisdictions as well as legislation to allow Kern County to collect an additional surcharge for transportation purposes or to increase the air quality surcharge beyond $4 per vehicle. The vehicle registration surcharge would involve the collection of an annual fee ranging from $5 in Year 1 to $10 in Year 20 for each motorized vehicle, which would be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated directly to Kern County. Revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms would pdmadly originate from the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, with somewhat less contributions from other portions of Kern County. As such, the 20 year program would be somewhat more focused on the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, with a shorter list of transportation projects in other areas of Kern County than Alternative 3. The 1/2 cent sales tax is estimated to yield revenues of $300 million, expanded impact fees would yield revenues of $32 million, and the vehicle registration surcharge would yield revenues of $90 over 20 years. Altemative 4 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $420 million over 20 years. Alternative 5 (Long-term: County-wide Gas Tax, Impact Fees) This funding strategy would involve the implementation of a county-wide gas tax as well as an expanded county-wide impact fee to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. The county-wide gas tax, which would be increased from five cents per gallon in year 1 to 10 cents per gallon in year 5 and maintained at that level for the balance of SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 13 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY the 20 year program, would require a public vote with a 2/3 approval level. The implementation of an expanded impact fee, which would require a vote of both the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions, would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development throughout Kern County. Since revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms originate from throughout Kern County, the 20 year program would include a blend of transportation projects throughout the area. The gas tax is estimated to yield revenues of $490 million, while expanded impact fees would yield revenues of $32 million. Alternative 5 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $520 million over 20 years. Alternative 6 (Long-term: Blend) This funding strategy would involve the implementation of an additional 1/4 cent sales tax within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, a county-wide parcel tax, an expanded county- wide impact fee, and a county-wide vehicle registration surcharge to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. The implementation of a sales tax, over a 20 year period, would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions as well as a public vote. The boundary of the sales tax area would include the City of Bakersfield as well as portions of the outlying area in Kern County. Several boundary alternatives are possible, including use of the City's current sphere of influence limits. The implementation of a $20 per parcel tax throughout the county, which would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, would be similar in format to the solid waste parcel tax. The implementation of an expanded impact fee, which would require a vote of both the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions, would involve the assessment of a $400 per unit on all development throughout Kern County. The implementation of a vehicle registration surcharge would require a vote of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and City Councils from all of the local jurisdictions as well as legislation to allow Kern County to collect an additional surcharge for transportation purposes or to increase the air quality surcharge beyond $4 per vehicle. The vehicle registration surcharge would involve the collection of an annual fee ranging from $5 in Year 1 to $10 in Year 20 for each motorized vehicle, which would be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated directly to Kern County. Revenues generated by the above funding mechanisms would be balanced between those originating from the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and those originating from other portions of Kern County. As such, the 20 year program would include a blend of transportation projects throughout the area. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 14 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY The 1/4 cent sales tax is estimated to yield revenues of $150 million, a new parcel tax would yield $170 million, expanded impact fees would yield revenues of $32 million, and the vehicle registration surcharge would yield revenues of $90 over 20 years. Alternative 6 would therefore yield a total revenue of approximately $440 million over 20 years. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 15 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 5. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES The following section provides an evaluation of the alternative funding strategies described above. Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria are used to assess the alternative funding strategies based on the goals and objectives as described in Working Paper 1. Sufficiency - To what extent is the revenue source sufficient to meet the long-term needs of Kern County? Equity - Are relative funding responsibilities equitably distributed among those who benefit from the improvements? Legal Adequacy - To what extent are individual funding mechanisms relatively free from potential legal challenges? Efficiency - Will the new revenue source allow for the delivery of projects in an efficient, timely manner? Community Acceptance - Based on interviews with community leaders and stakeholders, what level of support can be expected from Kern County residents? Political Viability - Based on interviews with elected officials, what level of support can be expected from the Kern County Board of Supervisors as well as City Councils from the local jurisdictions? Transportation Nexus - Is there a direct relationsi~ip between the revenue source and the transportation projects for which they will be applied? Stable - Is the funding mechanism projected to generate stable revenues over time, allowing for bonding of revenues? Simple Collection Method - Is collection of the revenues generated by the funding mechanism simple and straight-forward? Ease of Implementation - Is initiation of revenue collection for the existing or new authority that will administer the revenues simple and straight-forward? SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 16 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Evaluation of Alternatives The six funding strategy alternatives are evaluated comparatively against the above 10 cdteda to determine the extent to which each option can effectively provide the desired outcome. Each of the alternatives will therefore be rated as either having a Iow, medium, or high level of effectiveness with respect to each criteria. The evaluation of alternatives is summarized in Table 2. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 17 I, BLE 2 fALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES ALT. A1 (S-T) ALT. A2 (S-T) ALT. B1 (L-T) ALT. B2 (L-T) ALT. B3 (L-T) ALT. 84 (L-T) 3RITERIA (Metro S.T.) (Blend) (County S.T.) (Metro S.T.) (Gas Tax) (Blend) I I I I I I I I '~ufficiency LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIU~ -_-quity MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH _egal Adequacy MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM ~fficiency HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM .~ommunity Acceptance MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW ~olitical Viability MEDIUM LOW LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW ~'ransportation Nexus HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH :~table MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW HIGH ~imple Collection Method HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM :ase of Implementation HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM 18 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 6. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The following section identifies the preferred alternative and the rationale for that evaluation. Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 (short-term) is the preferred alternative based on the evaluation of alternative funding strategies. This funding strategy would involve the implementation of an additional 1/2 cent sales tax within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as well as an expanded impact fee to be dedicated to regional transportation projects. This alternative was determined to be the most preferable for the following reasons. The current public attitude towards the establishment of new taxes makes the implementation of a new, long-term funding source very problematic at this time. A short-term alternative allows for the establishment of a limited program, with fight management controls, that can be closely monitored by the public in terms of project delivery. The success of a limited program increases the feasibility of implementing a long-term program at a later date. Although it requires a public vote, the establishment of an additional sales tax in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is probably the least difficult mechanism to implement. This is due to a generally greater awareness of the need for transportation improvements in the urbanized area as well as the high level of support for the previous sales tax ballot measure. The establishment of additional impact fees dedicated to regional improvements, in conjunction with the additional sales tax, will provide an indication to voters that new development will also fund their fair share of the cost for implementing the regional transportation projects. The evaluation of funding strategies and the recommendation of a preferred strategy assume that a sales tax mechanism will continue to remain a viable funding option. As discussed previously, ongoing litigation before the California Supreme Court between Santa Clara County and the Howard Jan/is Taxpayers Association is expected to address the continued viability of sales tax programs. Once a decision is rendered by the State Supreme Court, Smith & Kempton will Issue an addendum to the transportation funding strategy report. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 19 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Alternative 2 (short-term) also provides a viable option for implementation, although less desirable than the preferred option. This is due to the difficulty with implementing a parcel tax, additional impact fees, and a vehicle registration surcharge all within a time frame necessary to support a focused seven year program. Viable long-term options include the implementation of Alternatives 3 (county-wide 1/2 cent sales tax) and 4 (Metropolitan Bakersfield 1/2 cent sales tax, impact fees, vehicle registration surcharge). Implementation of a gas tax, or a sales tax on gasoline, is expected to be.very difficult in Kern County. As such, Long-range Alternative 5 is not recommended for further action. Long-range Alternative 6 is also not recommended due to the difficulty of implementing the four identified mechanisms for a long-term program. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 20 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY 7. ACTION PLAN The following section provides a summary of an action plan for the preferred alternative: the implementation of a short-term Metro sales tax. The action plan is broken into three distinct phases: an initial exploration of public opinion and legislative options, the subsequent development of an expenditure plan, and the final phase associated with an election campaign. Summary tables illustrating the activity by month described in the following action plan is provided for both a Metro sales tax and a County-wide sales tax in Attachment A. Phase 1: Initial Assessment The two key work elements involved in the initial assessment are the completion of a public opinion survey and an initial review of legislative options with the Kern County legislative delegation. Based on experience in other areas, voters are more likely to increase their taxes if four cdteria are present: 1. They perceive a need for the measure. 2. The projects or services of the proposed measure are what voters really want, 3. The method or amount of taxation is reasonable and appropriate for the proposed projects or services. 4. What is promised in the measure will be delivered by those administering the funds. To determine whether or not these criteria exist, a "baseline" public opinion survey of likely voters would be developed and conducted throughout Kern County. The survey would provide both geographic and demographic stratification of results with respect to the above criteria, The following types of questions would be developed and posed to voters in telephone surveys. How does transportation rank among other issues of importance to voters? What are the voter's predisposition in supporting a transportation measure? Which projects do voters consider important enough to be part of the plan? What safeguards are required to assure voters that projects and services will be delivered? Which arguments best support a campaign for passage of the measure? Who is likely to support - or oppose - the measure? SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 21 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Which election - Special, primary, General - best increases the likelihood of passage? What are the demographic profiles of potential supporters and opponents? Based on the results of the public opinion survey as well as the outcome of ongoing'litigation before the Califomia Supreme Court between Santa Clara County and the. Howard.Jan/is Taxpayers Association, an initial decision should be made whether to pursue a now funding program in 1996. The following questions should be addressed in that decision. Will the voters support a sales tax program or, if not, one of the other funding options? Should the program be county-wide or focused (e.g., such as' the Metro Bakersfield area)? What projects or programs must be included for voters to support the program? Special legislation would be required in order to put a Metro sales tax measure on the ballot in Kern County, since a special district would be created for the program. Current law only allows for a county-wide sales tax program to be put to the voters. If a decision is made to put a Metro sales tax measure on the ballot in 1996, urgency legislation would be required. The election will most likely have to occur in November. In this initial assessment stage, legislators from the Kern County delegation should be contacted to identify an author who would sponsor such urgency legislation. Phase 2: Development of Preliminary Expenditure Plan The second phase of the action plan would involve the development of a preliminary expenditure plan and draft urgency legislation. The preliminary expenditure plan would serve as: an input to help shape the draft urgency legislation. The preliminary expenditure plan would include the following elements. Program term, Revenue projections for that program term, List of projects and programs (including costs} that can be completed within the project term, and Summary of program safeguards. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 22 KERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY The preliminary expenditure plan should be reviewed with both staff and elected officials from all agencies located within the program boundaries. A clear relationship between the elements of the preliminary plan and the direction provided by the baseline public opinion survey should be established. It may be desirable to conduct a "spot" poll (e.g., more limited sample than the initial baseline poll) after completion of the preliminary expenditure plan to test the program with voters. Upon completion of the preliminary expenditure plan, draft language for urgency legislation that might be required (e.g., if a Metro sales tax program is pursued) should be prepared. This will involve an initial review of the program parameters that will be described in the legislation. The draft legislation should be reviewed with both staff and elected officials from all agencies located within the program boundaries as well as the legislative staff for the perspective bill author. Phase 3: Election Campaiqn The final phase of the action plan involves conducting an election campaign for the program. The initial work tasks involve coalition building, fundraJsing, and retention of a campaign consultant. The task of coalition building involves identifying opponents as well as proponents of the measure. The identification of measure proponents will assist both in the early fundraising efforts and the subsequent public information campaign efforts. Upon completion of these initial campaign efforts, a campaign committee should be established. This committee would be charged with developing a public information campaign for the program. Once this public information plan is completed, it should be initiated as soon as possible. After a period of approximately two to three months of conducting the public information campaign, a draft expenditure plan should be developed. This updated expenditure plan would incorporate additional input that has been gathered by the campaign committee dudng the public information campaign and other efforts. It is desirable to conduct a "spot" poll after completion of the draft expenditure plan to provide a final test of the program with voters. The poll results will provide the information necessary to make a final decision, approximately five months before the election, on whether to proceed with putting the measure on the ballot. The final campaign efforts involve the preparation of a final expenditure plan and a formal election plan. Campaign staff would be retained approximately four months before the election to carry out the election plan. An absentee voter program would be developed and initiated approximately three months before the election. Finally, the campaign proper would be initiated two months before the election. A final smaller "spot" poll may be conducted approximately one month before the election to determine the necessary focus for the final campaign efforts. SMITH & KEMPTON PAGE 23 ATTACHMENT A ACTION PLAN SUMMARY TABLES OPTION A: METRO SALES TAX PROGRAM I IMPLEMENTATION STEPS MONTH JUNE (1995) 1. Establish funding soume for poll, 2, Identify Author for Urgency Legislation JULY 1. Develop questionnaire for poll · Ust of projects List of opponents/proponents 2. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #1 3. Analyze survey data AUGUST --> DECISION POINT #1 SEPTEMBER 1. Develop and Complete Preliminary Expenditure Plan OCTOBER 1. Identify Program Parameters for Legislation NOVEMBER 1. Prepare Draft Urgency Legislation DECEMBER JANUARY 1. Introduce Urgency Legislation (1996) 2. Begin Campaign Phase Coalition Building Fundraising · Retain Campaign Consultant FEBRUARY 1. Establish Campaign Committee 2, Develop Public Information Campaign Plan MARCH 1. Initiate Public Information Campaign APRIL MAY 1, Governor signs Urgency Bill 2. Prepare Draft Expencliture Plan JUNE 1. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #2 --> DECISION POINT 8'2 1. Prepare Expenditure Plan JULY 1. Develop Election Plan 2. Retain Campaign Staff AUGUST 1. Develop Absentee Voter Program SEPTEMBER 1. Initiate Campaign Proper (Mailouts) OCTOBER 1. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #3 NOVEMBER 1. Election OPTION B: COUNTY SALES TAX PROGRAM I IMPLEMENTATION STEPS MONTH JUNE (1995) 1. Establish funding source for poll, JULY 1. Develop questionnaire for poll List of projects Ust of opponents/proponents 2. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #1 3. Analyze survey data AUGUST --> DECISION POINT #1 SEPTEMBER 1. Develop Draft Expenditure Plan OCTOBER 1. Complete Draft Expenditure Plan NOVEMBER 1. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #2 --> DECISION POINT ~2 DECEMBER 1. Prepare Expenditure Plan JANUARY 1. Begin Campaign Phase (1996) · Coalition Building · Fundraising Retain Campaign Consultant FEBRUARY 1. Establish Campaign Committee 2. Develop Public Information Campaign Plan MARCH 1. Initiate Public Information Campaign APRIL MAY JUNE 1. Develop Election Plan JULY 1. Retain Campaign Staff AUGUST 1. Develop Absentee Voter Program SEPTEMBER 1. Initiate Campaign Proper (Mailouts) OCTOBER 1. Conduct Public Opinion Survey #3 NOVEMBER 1. Election I . i'tjiy--$1--9$ MED 15:$9 KR~ZI:IN & ~SSOC~TES 2~9 348 2162++++++ P.~2 C~ MANAGES'$ 0~-,'~ ~y 31, 1~ ~j~ ~o. Arnold Ramming City of Bakersfield Public Works Deparuneat 1501 Tmxmn Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Soils Feasibility Study Proposed Sam Lynn Ball Park Bakersfield, California C, cnd~n: In accordance with your request, we have performed a Soils Feasibility Study for tho Proposed Sam Lynn Ball Park in Bakersfield. California. It is undcrstood thai the proposed bail park would bc constructed below thc existing grade. The purpose of thc soil feasibility investigation is ye cvaluam the foundation materials and subsurface conditions of the site. Methods of analysis included a site mconnaissancc, examination of adjaccnt properS, exploratory soil borings and sampling, laboratory testing of selected soil samples, a literature search, and an engineering evaluation of resulting data. Conclusions and mcommcndalions concerning thc soil and foundation engineering aspects of thc site are lm:n4ded in this report. Presendy, the proposed site is occupied by softball and baseball fields. Structures consisting of concession stands and smragc buildings are located within thc proposed site. The Kern River and an iniga~ion canal are lccaied north of thc proposed sim. The proposed site is relatively level with no major changes in gra~. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling four borings to depths of 25 to 38 feet. The upper soils consisted of 6 inches of very loose, sandy silt or silty sand. 134 E. Nmis l~,~,a; Bakerafiald. CA 93308 (805} 399.-4490 · PAX (g0S) 393-0989 Below the surface soil~, 3 to ,i feet of silty sand or sandy silt was encountered. Within Boring No. :2, thr~ feet of silty sand f'fll was encountered. Below 3 to 4 feet, predomina~ly a silty sand or a sand was found. C. wavel and cobbles were associated with this laycr. These mils extended to the tcrmi~tion ck:pth of our borings. Omundwatcr was encountered at depth of 4 to 9 fcct below grade. This shallowest gnmmiwatcr elevation was encountered in the borings placed near thc north property line, adjaccnt m thc Kern Rive~. Thc g~undwam' elevation a~ the sit~, ~clusiv¢ of any external pumping, is closely r~lated to the ~ elevations of the ne~-by Ke~n Riv~'. During high wat~ flows within the fiver, it is l~a~bl~ that the groundwater within the sit~ will be at or near the g~und surface. Based on our findings, it apl:~a~ that groundwater will infiu~nc~ thc construction of the si~- TI~ construction of a subten'ane~ bas~ st~r~ is likely not to be economically f~a~ible du~ u~ the shallow groundwater conditions. For the consu'uction of a subterranean stadium, the g~undwat~r within thc vicinity would have t~ b~ lowc'~:l, which would r~iui~ extensive pumping of the g~undwat~. In our opinion, the sit~ is suitable to SUl~O~ a stadium ¢onsu'ucted above g~und. Removal or re. cornt~ction of thc loosely plac~d fill soil~ and loose upper soils is ~:ommended. Thr~ fe~t of loosely placed fills was encount~l in ~oring No. 2 placed within the proposed Af~ thc loosely placed £dl and loos~ surface soils have been ~moved and/or recompacted, the p~r~ stm~ can be designed u~l~g an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psi for dead plus live loads. Footings should have a minimum ~n~ent of 18 ~nches. This value may inc~ase 1/3 fo~ short du~tion loads such as wind or seismic. Foundation and earthwork constru~on is ch~ by the p~nc¢ of a calculated risk ~ s~il and groundwat~' conditions have be~n fully ~vealed by the original foundation inv~ti~tion. This risk is d~rived f~m the l~actical ner. cssit~ of ba.~ng int~pr¢~ations and d~sign co~¢lu~ on limit~ sampl~n~ of u~ earth. Th~ recommendations made in this ~port a~ based 134 a. Non'is Road. Bakea.xfield. CA 93308 (805) 392-4490 · PAX (805') 393-0989 Of'fleet Serving tkt Wtsttnt United States 348 2162++++++ P.04 San Lynn Ball Park BakcrsfigM, California Page No. 1 on the assumption that soil conditions do not var,/signi~antly from those disclosed during our Held investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that supplemental rccommcnd~_ons can I~ If ther~ ar~ any questions or if we can bo of further assistance,, pleas~ do not hesitate to contact our office at (805) 392-4490 or (800) S00-0711. Respectfully submitted, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Oeoteehnical Engineer RGE No. 002051/RGE No. 34274 DA/mac 134 E. N~ris Road, Bakei'sfield, CA (805) 392-4490 . FAX (805) 393-0989 O,f]lcms Serving thru TVe~t#ra United State~ ' DRILL HOLE LO0 ItORIlqG lqO.: BI PROJECT: SAM LYNN PROJECT NO.: 22-95128 CLIENT: CITY OF BKSFLD, PUBLIC WRKS DEPT DATE: 5/12195 LOCATION: CHESTER & W. COLUMBUS AVE. ELEVATION: 38 FEET DRILLER: BRETT HUNTER LOGGED BY: B.H. DRILL RIG: SIMCO DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: 9 FEET AT COMPLETION: PEN~ ~RATION TEST ELEVATION/1 WELL SOIL SYMBOLS, Wate~ Dry -- SAMPLERS Description Content Density / C U R V E DEPTH DETAIL AND TEST DATA % ;~f DEPTH N 10 30 50 '- (ML); Medium Brown, damp, drills .. $/$ easy. 2-3.$ 8 , $/~ Loose below 6 inches. 35 -.- . 5/6 Loose, fine to medium slightly --s :;:: :: 3/6 SILTY SAND (SP); Grey Brown, 6.6.s 7 " ' ..... ~/6 Slightly moist with CLAYEY SAND -- . .... below 6 feet. 30-- " ~' Saturated ~ 1/6 - " 216 --~5 :::::: i !-~0 ,. .... -- ::::: ~s -- ~::::: Medium to dense below 23 feet - -- ::::: still drills easy. ::::: ....................................................... ' -~ :::: :' Loose, fine to coarse SAND (SP); " ::::: Grey Brown, saturated, drills easy. ::::: 10 ....... ,::::: I1 - -30 .... ::::: I1 ::::: " :!iii! With COBBLES below 32 feet. I I This lhfor~atlofl pertaln~ only co chis boring ami should ~t be interprete4 as being' indiGitlve of the site. , Krazan and Associates MAY--S1--95 WEll 13:42 KRAZAN & I:1550CI~TE$ 2B9 348 2162++++++ P. g~ DRILL HOLE LOG ~R~G NO.: BI PROJECT; SAM LYNN PROJECT NO.: 22-9~128 CLIENT: Ci~ OF BKSFLD. PUBLIC WRKS DEPT DATE: 5/12/9S LOCATION: CHESTER & W. COLUMBUS AVE. ELEVATION: 38 FEET DRILLER: BRE~ HUNTER LOGGED BY: B.H, DRILL RIG: SIMCO DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: 9 FE~ AT COMPLETION: , PENE ~RATION TEST ELEVATION/ W~L SOIL SYMBOLS, Water O~ SAM~ERS Description Content Density C U R V E DE~ D~AIL AND T~T DATA % 3=f DE~H N 10 30 60 -- 0- ~- i ~om 38 feet: auger refusal. · - Bottom of ~ring -15 - - --SS -~0 - - · -60 -~S -- '-65 This infor~tl~ ~rtal~ ~ty to this ~ri~ a~ shoutd ~t ~ Inter~et~ as ~t~ I~tcitive of the site. , Krazan and Associates I'11:1Y-3].-~ I,IE]~ 13:43 KRAZAH & A$$OCTATE$ ~0~ 348 2162++++++ P. 05 DRILL HOLE LOG BORING NO.: ]32 PROJECT: SAM LYNN PROJECT NO.: 22-95128 CLIENT: CiTY OF BKSFLD, PUBLIC WRKS DEPT DATE: 5/12/95 LOCATION: CHESTER & W. COLUMBUS AVE. ELEVATION; 30 FEET DRILLER: BRETT HUNTER LOGGED BY: B.H. DRILL RIG: SIMCO DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: 8 FEET AT COMPLETION: , , PENETRATION TEST IELEVATiON/i WELL[ SOiLSYMBOLS. I CURVF. SAMPLERS Description DEPTH DEPTH I DETAIL I AND TEST DATA . 30 SO io /"' ! ($M}= Medium Brown, damp, drills / easy. ' ..... debns brick, 2-3.6 q Loose w~m =,,,oil ' ( ' '~ charcoal,,~tre piece) below 6 inches, ~ 4.6.6 25 -i,-$ Firm to slightly SILTY SAND ( Medium Grey Brown, slightly moist, drills easy, With coarse SAND= Tan Grey below 4 feet. .-- Saturated. -2O -25 With COBBLES below 26 feet. 0 $0 Bottom of Boring This information pertains only to this I~rtng ard sheutd net be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. Krazan and Associates ' 1~1~¥--3].--95 bl£~] ].3 ~43 KR~Z~H O ILL MOLE LOO go~O NO.: B3 PROJECT: SAM LYNN PROJECT NO.: 22-95128 CLIENT: CI~ OF BKSFLD, PUBLIC WRKS DEPT DATE: 5/12/95 LOCATION: CHESTER & W. COLUMBUS AVE. ELEVATION: 25 FEET DRILLER: BR~ HUNTER LOGGED BY: B.H. DRILL RIG: SIMCO DEPTH TO WATER~ INITIAL: ~ FEET AT COMPLETION:  PENETRATION TEST E~A~ONII · WELL SOIL SYMBOLS, C U R V SAM~ERS Description DEPTH I ' with G~V~[; M~dium l~/& Medium dense, fine to coerse ~ '.. SAND (SP} trace of GRAVE~ ~o~s ~ ~.~ [~ ,~g~[y, ,~ ,~i~..~V.,... s-e.s s~6 No GRAVEL below 3 1/2 feet. 7/6 Saturated below 4 feet. Loose, fine to coarse GRAVEL ~/6 SAND (S~; Light Grey, 9-10.6 ~/6 saturated, drills easy. -10 :::::, ~/6 .... ~ No GRAVEL (SP) below 12 feet, "~ · - .~ ~th GRAVEL below 19 feet. -~o ~th COBBLES below 25 feet. BoSom of Boring -3O KrBzan and Associates -/,1~_1:1Y-$1--95 14ED 15:4.4 KRI:IZI:IN & I:ISSOClI:ITES 209 :548 :2162++++++ P. ' ' ..... DRILL HOLE BOPJNG NO.: B4 PROJECT: SAM LYNN PROJECT NO.: 22-95128 CLIENT: CITY OF BKSFLD, PUBLIC WRKS DEPT DATE: 5/12/95 LOCATION: CHESTER & W. COLUMBUS AVE. ELEVATION: 25 FEET DRILLER: BRETT HUNTER LOGGED BY: B.H. DRILL RIG: SIMCO DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: 4 FEET AT COMPLETION: PENETRATION TEST ELEVATION/ WELL SOIL SYMBOLS, Water Dry , SAMPLERS Description Conten~ Density C U R V E DEPTH DE'I'AIL AND TEST DATA % poi OEPTH N 10 30 50 25 -0 _ Very loose, fine SANDY SILT · (ML); Medium Brown, damp, drills 4/~ :.Loose, fine SILTY SAND (SM); 20--5 ~/6 Loose, fine to coarse SAND (SP): .. 2/6 Grey, moist, drills easy. 8/6 Saturated With GRAVEL below 18 feet. COBBLES below 23 feet. . Bottom of Boring -~- I - _ Krazan and Associates JUN - I I B A K E R. S F I E L D ~ffYMANAGEg'~©FF~:/: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ........... --~ ....... MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Directo~ DATE: May 26, 1995 SUBJECT: UPDATE REGARDING REGULATION OF BIOSOLIDS & SEPTAGE Enclosed for your information is an update relating to the State Water Quality Control Board's meeting' held in Fresno on May 26th on Regulation of Biosolids and Septage. The Board approved and adopted the General Waste Discharge Requirements for reuse of biosolids and septage on farm land. Also, attached is a copy of our letter delivered to the Board in support of their resolution of the biosolid disposal matter. BIOSOLID.MEM Attach. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM May 30, 1995 TO: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director FROM: Fred L. Kioepper, Assistant Public Works Director~, SUBJECT: Water Quality Control Board Regulation of Biosolids and Septage The Central Valley Regional WQCB met in Fresno on May 26, 1995 to address their regular monthly agenda. Item 9 concerned regulation of biosolids and septage. Staff was recommending approval and adoption of general waste discharge requirements for reuse of biosolids and septage on agricultural, forest and reclamation lands. After much testimony, both in favor and against (against was mainly water districts in the delta area) the Board adopted the staff recommended regulations. This should make it much quicker and easier to obtain approval of our sludge disposal plan. WQCB staff was also recommefiding a "waiver" process that would apply to disposal of "exceptional quality" biosolids. Exceptional quality sludge is that sludge that meets the EPA "low metals" and class "A" disinfection standards. Under the waiver process we may dispose of the Plant 3 sludge with little oversight by the state. The Board also adopted the waiver resolution. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (~05) 326-3724 RAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER May 25, 1995 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 3614 East Ashlan Fresno, CA 93726 RE: REGULATION OF BIOSOLIDS AND SEPTAGE Dear Members of the Board: The City of Bakersfield operates two wastewater treatment plants which, after planned process changes are completed, will generate about four thousand tons of biosolids annually. The accumulation of these materials soon becomes a problem at the plants if an efficient disposal/reuse process is not available. The obvious, advantageous method of disposal is land application which makes use of available nutrients, is low in cost, and does not reduce available sanitary landfill capacity. The City of Bakersfield owns more than 5000 acres of active farmland on which to dispose biosolids and reclaimed water. City of Bakersfield Public Works staff enthusiastically endorses the adoption of General Waste Discharge Requirements and a "waiver policy for Exceptional Quality" biosolids as proposed by staff except that we feel there is no need to be more restrictive than EPA regulations. Your Board and staff are to be commended for pursuing resolution of this biosolid disposal matter. Very truly yours, Public Works Director Fays A. Nebon, E~q. Kmart Corporal~ Direcfo~ Infernational Heaclquorten G<~.ernmen~ Affair~ 3100 West Big Beavm Road Tray Mi 48084-3163 810 643 1623 .Tune 1, O~C5 ', RECE? ,...~ the Compuy's d~i/o~. Plea~ feel flee to call mc or, in my absence, ~ Vi:st (81(Y-643-2701) or Leslie Kota (slo-643-sx)g) wio~ any qumio~. On'en Knauer Investor Relations 810 643 1040 KMART ANNOUNCES 72 STORE CLOBING$ TROY, Mich.--Kmart Corporation today announced it will close 72 of its U.S. discount stores which do not meet the company's sales, profit and return on investment requirements. The store~ will close beginning in late August with all stores expected to be closed by the end of the fiscal year. "As we focus on improving our core discount store business, management has identified these additional store~ that do not meet Kmart's return on investment requirements," maid Donald W. Keeble, executive vice president, store operations. "As we continue to strengthen Kmargs core business, we will insist that our store~ fully meet these invea~-nent ~tandard8." The closing costs for these 72 stores have already been provided for in the $1.348 billion store mslmcturing provision recorded in the fourth quarter of 1993. The U.S. .Kmart store modernization program i$ on schedule with aor~roximate~u 1 ~ ,,, ,~,.~ · · r r - '1 !new ~, expansions and_- refurblshments) planned for 1995, including 22 new Super ~mart Centers and 43 new Kmart discount stores. As a result of these store closings, the jobs of 5,800 Kmart associates will be - w,,,p~,y u r:mployl~e Pi~81~snc~ Program as well as lu ..,~.., v......._.,, .._ ......... :. m.. s .... ~._~ ......... ,.,,,.,in .,., .,,,,~ urn. u-~ ac~um c~oslng oats. ~itore managers whose jobs will be eliminated :Sutap~eac~e Itmenof.the .om..closi _rigs will receive severance packages, certain benefits and [ counseling. Other management positions affected may be eligible for a store closing incentive bonus plan. "We appreciate our management, store associates and our customers for their support over the yearn," added Keeble. Faye A. Nelson, Esq. Kmart Corporation STATECA ,TO' (galifarnia v tate v enate COMM,TTEES: SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (916) 445-9600 GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION  (VICE CHAIRMAN) HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATIVE ETHICS 2503 WEST SHAW AVENUE, # 101 ' REVENUE AND TAXATION FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711 JOINT COMMITTEES: (209) 445-5567 ARTS FAI RS ALLOCATION AND CLASSIFICATION 841 MOHAWK STREET, #190 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 ~ (VICE CHAirman) (805) 324-6188 i overSIGHT Of THE KENNETH L. MADDY STATE librarY SELECT COMMITTEES: SENATOR, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPUBLICAN FLOOR LEADER CALIFORNIA'S WINE INDUSTRY May 30, 1995 ......... i RECEIVED - Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager . ~ dtjN = ~) ~ ~ City of Bakersfield 1501 Tmxtun Avenue C~ ¥ MANAGER'S OFFICE Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: Thanks for writing to express your opposition to AB 318 (Katz) regarding municipal water and power agencies. The bill is currently awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. I appreciate having the benefit of your input on this bill and will consider your opposition if and when I have the opportunity to vote on it. Sinc~~.. / yNNETH L. I~ADDY KLM:jds