HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/99 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
October 29, 1999
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /~-L,W,
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. We will bring forward to Council several grant applications and authorized requests
for highway beautification projects, including expansion of the downtown streetscape,
streetscape improvements on California, Chester to Union, streetscapes of the
property donated by Cooper's Nursery on Stockdale, entry signs for north and south
Highway 99 and replacement of some of the deteriorated green asphalt in the
northeast. KernCOG will have about $3.5 million for such projects next year.
2. The majority of the Personnel Committee went along with doing some wage
comparison surveys for those employees who desired it. The committee minutes will
provide details.
3. Enclosed is a letter from Time Warner Cable informing us of changes in their rates
for the upcoming year.
4. The Southeast Bakersfield PAC met on October 21st. A meeting summary is
enclosed for your information.
5. The latest progress report for the Wastewater Treatment Plan #2 expansion project
is enclosed.
6. The Vision 2020 has announced dates and locations for their upcoming community
meetings. The information is enclosed.
7. Several businesses on California Avenue have expressed concern about the Pacific
Bell construction project that has caused the closure of one lane in the area of
California Avenue and Real Road. Attached is our correspondence to Pacific Bell
informing them that the project must be done by Thanksgiving, in order to
accommodate increased holiday traffic, or their construction permit will be revoked.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 29, 1999
Page 2
8. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: · Report on the issue of fluoridating the public water system;
· Address on-going code enforcement problems at Auburn Heights Apartments;
· Resolve alley flooding problem at residence on Cardinal Avenue and contact
resident;
· Contact citizen due to inquiry about increasing time limits for parking spaces near
place of business;
· Progress report on weed abatement along railroad right-of-way in south
Bakersfield;
· Replacement of dead trees at Taco Bell on 24th Street;
· Compile information concerning proposed freeway alignment and provide to
citizen;
· Status of request for correspondence supplies;
· Status of providing new precinct lists;
· Prepare second letter to PG&E re landscaping at Coffee Road facility;
· Status of providing additional compensation regarding purchase of property at 615
16th Street;
· Inquiry re waiver of fees for vesting Tentative Tract 5964;
· Additional information regarding owner requirements related to proposed Sonic
Drive In;
· Status of City's position on Public Works Initiative Measure B;
· -Request for attendance at various City meetings;
· Respond to citizen regarding rider on property deed concerning sewer hook up;
· Respond to citizen regarding lighting at McDonalds on Coffee Road;
· Public Works Director to provide update on Shellabarger Road cul-de-sac issue.
9. Ogden will make a big push to get the Lakers back. The situation may be dictated by
economics, but all that can be done will be.
AT: rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
3600 North Sillect Avenue C.W. Grinstead
BakersfieM, CA 93308 President
Tel 661-634-2200 Bakersfield Division
Fax661-634-2245
CABLE
October 21, 1999
Alan Tandy
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Mr. Tandy:
Beginning in.late November some of your constituents will receive notice of a change in their cable rates; These notices will continue
into December depending on the customer's billing date. The rate change for 2000 reflects an overall increase for the basic service
and the satellite programming tier of 5.49%, however, the individual rate changes vary from a $3.66 increase to a $9.64/month
decrease depending on the levels of service that a customer subscribes to:
Rate* % of Customer
Service Level Current Proposed Chanae Base Effected
Limited Basic Service $ 6.92 $ 7.90 $ .98 6.4
Expanded Basic Service $23.31 $23.99 $ .68 N/A
Advantage Service (Incl. Limited Basic
and Expanded Service) $30.23 $31.89 $1.66 50.9
Advantage Plus Service (Incl. Advantage
Service & Home Terminal) $33.48 $35.84 $2.36 22.2
with 2 Digital Tiers $41.18 $44.84 $3.66 0.8
Advantage Plus with i Pay $45.47 $47.83 $2.36 6.7
and 2 Digital Tiers $53.17 $56.83 $3.66 0.1
Advantage Plus with 2 Pays $52.47 $52.83 $0.36 3.6
and 2 Digital Tiers $60.17 $61.83 $1.66 0.4
Advantage Plus with 3 Pays $59.47 $58.83 - $0.64 1.1
and 2 Digital Tiers $67.17 $67.83 $0.66
Advantage Plus with 4 Pays $66.47 $59.83 - $6.64 4.9
and 2 Digital Tiers $74.17 $68.83 - $5.34 .8
Advantage Plus with 5 Pays $72.47 $62.83 - $9.64 1.4
and 2 Digital Tiers $80.17 $71.83 - $8.34 .7
* Rates do notinclude taxes & fees.
The adjustments include increases for Basic Ser¢ice ($.98), the non-scrambled satellite programming tier ($0.68), ti~e [wo digital
tiers ($1.30), and the equipment charge for the home terminal ($0.70) as well as decreases in premium package prices ranging from
$2.00 for a two pay package to $12.00 for a five pay package. A la carte premium service and the Explorer Pac rates remain
unchanged.
During 1999, Time Warner Cable added digital services to the cable system and we now offer our customers two new digital tiers -
The Variety Pac and The Movie Pac. Later this year, we plan to provide our customers access to ESPN College and NBA Basketball
Pay-Per-View games. Current plans also include adding RoadRunner - a high-speed internet service - during the second quarter of
2000.
Time Warner Cable is very pleased to be a part of the communities we serve. Not only do we provide a technologically advanced
system that is second to none, but the men and women of Time Warner are active participants in the communities in which they
live.
I've enclosed a draft of the letter that our customers will receive. If you have any questions or need additional information, please
call me.
Division President
A Time Warner Entertainment-Adwmce/Newhouse Company
BAK
TIME WARNER IMPORTANT 30 DAY NOTICE
Bakersfield's ~ Cable Company
www.twcbak.com
October 25, 1999
Dear Valued Customer:
In order for us to continue providing the excellent choice of quality programming, superior customer service, and the benefits
of leading-edge technology, like our new Digital Cable service, Time Warner Cable will introduce new prices as stated below
beginning December 2, 1999 or thereafter, depending on the billing dates reflected on your monthly billing statement.
Service Level Current Rate* New Rate* +/- ChQ.
H~ Limited Basic Service $ 6.92 $ 7.90 + .98
HBOPlu$ Expanded Basic Service $ 23.31 $ 23.99 + .68
HBO$ig~ature Advantage Service (formerly Expanded Basic) $ 30.23 $ 31.89 + 1.66
HBOFamily
HSOCor~e~y Advanced Home Terminal (conveder) $ 3.25 $ 3.95 + .70
HBOZone
New Premium Service Packages
Two-Pay Premium Package $18.99 $16.99 (-2.00)
Three-Pay Premium Package $ 25.99 $ 22.99 (-3.00)
cine( ' MVP 4-Pay Premium Package $ 32.99 $ 23.99 (-9.00)
ViP 5-Pay Premium Package $ 38.99 $ 26.99 (-12.00)
MoreMAX * Rates do not include taxes and fees.
ActionMAX
ThillerMAX Even after this nominal 5.5% rate adjustment, Advantage Service featuring over 55 channels remains a tremendous value at
about $1.00 a day. Please note that all other rates not listed will remain the same.
In addition to new lower package rates, our Premium Service customers now have the ability to receive up to 22 Premium
channels when they upgrade their services to Digital Cable for only $3.00 more per month. Plus, with Digital Cable you can
now enjoy the convenience of ordering movies on over 35 pay-per-view channels. Aisc, coming later this year Time Warner
,' eWTIME. Digital Cable services will feature hundreds of ESPN Full Court college and NBA League Pass basketball pay-per-view games.
Showtime2 Digital Cable also offers two new Digital tiers, the Variety Pac and Movie Pac, featuring seven commercial-free Encore thematic
Showtime3 channels, like Love Stories, Westerns, Mystery, Action, True Stories, plus exciting new channels, like the Golf Channel,
Showtime Extreme Speedvision, Outdoor Channel, BET on Jazz, Game Show Network, CMT, Discovery Kids/People/Science/Wings, and much
Showtime Beyond more. With our Total Digital Pac (Variety & Movie Pacs), you and your family will enjoy over 20 new channels for only $12.95
more per month. Aisc, included with the new Digital Cable Pacs at no extra charge are 40 commercial-free CD quality music
-channels featuring everything from classical-to.country to Top 40 music.
With Digital Cable you get more of what you want through the cable you already have - Over 180 video and audio channels, no
~(~) equipment to purchase, local news, weather and sports, Iow cost additional TV service, and guaranteed local customer
service. Aisc worth noting is our plan to launch Time Warner Cable's new high-speed cable modem service, Road Runner,
The Movie Channel 2which will allow internet users to access the world wide web 100 times faster than traditional telephone hook-ups, as early as
mid-year 2000.
We at Time Warner Cable value your patronage, and we're working to ensure that our service is of great satisfaction and value
to you. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the best in home entertainment, education and information services.
Sincerely, /,~ ~..~.
------~ C.W. Grinstead
STARZ! 2 Division President
Bet STARZ!
STARZ] Family Time Warner Cable, Bakersfield Division · 3600 Nodh Sillect Avenue · Bakersfield, CA 93308
STARZ! Cinema Tel: 661-327-9671 · Outlying Areas 1-8OO-734-4615 · A Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Company
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
October 22, 1999
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager 5 [~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directd~ -~/
SUBJECT: Update of October 21, 1999 Southeast Bake'~ffeld PAC meeting
The Southeast Bakersfield Project Area Committee (PAC) met on October 21. (As a reminder, the Old
Town Kern-Pioneer PAC is not meeting, at their request. Their last meeting was held on April 27th.)
The Southeast PAC agenda covered the following items:
Presentations:
· Presentation by Mr. Dave Cross on a potential commercial project at Q Street and California
Avenue.
· Staff presentations on a recent Redevelopment Housing conference (deferred from the
previous meeting due to time constraints)
· Staff report on the Owner Participation process (deferred from the previous meeting due to
time constraints)
· Staff report on the GRC Downtown Economic Development study.
Old Business:
· Coordination and staffing of booth at Good Neighbor Festival
New Business:
· Street lighting projects in Southeast Bakersfield.
Chairman Art Powell called the meeting to order at 6:35PM. Nine PAC members were present, plus
the two alternates.
Mr. Powell congratulated Mr. Gil Anthony on being appointed to the CDDA.
Vice Chair Stephanie Campbell asked that a letter be sent to Mayor Price thanking him for his
consideration of the PAC's request for appointments to the CDDA and, specifically, for appointing Mr.
Gil Anthony to the Agency.
Mr. Dave Cross provided an overview of his conceptual ideas for development at Q Street and
California Avenue, He said he was looking to the PAC for their input as community leaders. He asked
two questions:
1. Is a supermarket needed to serve south central and southeast Bakersfield? if yes,
2. Would a large marketplace help revitalize the community?
OCT 2 5 1999
S:\REDVAREA~PAC meeting 10-22 memo.wpd ~ ......... -
Alan Tandy
October 22, 1999
Page 2
He passed out a copy of a July 20 article from the Bakersfield Californian titled "Incentives Suggested
to Lure Market," as well as a map from the GRC study showing the location of existing markets.
Mr. Cross asked PAC members if they had provided input into the GRC study, and if not why hadn't
they been involved.
PACmember Isaiah Crompton asked, "what would we get from your project besides giving you
money?" Mr. Cross responded that 400 jobs would accrue in the first and second phases of the project.
He added that an incubator would be a possibility. He has met with Bakersfield College five times at
their request regarding the proposal, and has talked with George Gonzales from Community
Development regarding the formation of a maintenance district to help improve the surrounding area.
Mr. Cross added that his project is in the early stages of development. He envisions a multi-cultural
project with housing within the development, but he needs all parties input and community
involvement.
Ms. Campbell asked Mr. Cross how this would benefit the southeast redevelopment project. Mr. Cross
replied that he is requesting that a committee be developed on an informal basis to provide input so
everyone works together. Southeast Bakersfield should get together and decide what they want, rather
than him dropping something on the table for consideration.
Marvin Dean stated that "if we're not involved in the process, things will happen without us." He
would prefer that the project would be closer to the PAC meeting site (MLK Center). He proposed a
committee meet with Mr. Cross to come back to the PAC with recommendations. "We're very seldom
included in the initial stage," said Mr. Dean. "This way, we can identify tradeoffs we would like to
see." Mr. Dean then made a motion to refer the concept proposed by Mr. Cross to the Business
Subcommittee, which Mr. Dean chairs, and meet with Mr. Cross to see if this is something the
committee wants to bring back to the PAC at a later date. The motion was approved.
For the Business Subcommittee report, Mr. Dean had no report but said in the future he will give
reports on an in-fill housing project and a neighborhood retail/commercial center he is developing with
various parties and consultants.
There were no reports from either the CommUnity Organization or Community Relations
subcommittees.
Donna Barnes gave a staff report on the recent redevelopment housing conference she attended and
provided an overview of redevelopment housing projects in three cities. She emphasized how involved
and complicated it is to use a variety of funding sources for such projects. She also discussed the city's
existing housing programs. Mr. Dean asked for the dollar amount in the city's Home Access program
and the program's eligibility requirements to be provided in the next agenda packet..
S:\REDVAREA\PAC meeting 10-22 memo.wpd
Alan Tandy
October 22, 1999
Page 3
Charles Webb gave a staff report on the ownership participation process, which was deferred from the
September meeting due to time constraints.
Mr. Webb also gave a staff presentation on the GRC downtown economic development study. Mr.
Dean continued to ask what the city was going to do with this proposal. Staff emphasized that the
report was not a proposal; instead, it provides valuable information to be used for future proposed
.developments. Mr. Dean continued in asking if all projects will be brought before the PAC for their
input and recommendations. Mr. Dean stated that because projects such as those proposed in the GRC
study could be taking $8 Million of their tax increment funds, and that may affect the bonding capacity
for projects they may want to see happen. Mr. Dean said developers, like Mr. Cross should be
supported when they come to the PAC for input. Staff indicated that when projects are formalized
beyond the discussion stage, the PAC will be informed of the projects.
Under Old Business, members discussed who would staffthe PAC booth at the Good Neighborhood
Festival. There appeared to be very little interest in staffing the booth, even though the PAC had voted
last month to have the city pay the $40 booth charge, make a sign and copies of handout information.
When it appeared that there was not sufficient interest, Mr. Dean suggested that perhaps city staff
could hand out the information, since it would be located next to the PAC booth. Mr. Powell reminded
the PAC that members had wanted such a booth and it would up to them to have it staffed. Ultimately,
five PAC members agreed to work one hour each in the booth.
Under New Business, a staff presentation from Public Works regarding street lighting projects in
southeast Bakersfield was deferred to the November meeting due to time constraints. Mr. Powell
indicated with the new proposed lighting and landscape project on Union Avenue from Brundage to
the Fairgrounds, the same thing needs to be done from Brundage to California. Staff indicated that a
landscaping project was done in 1992 to that segment that cost approximately $2 Million. Mr. Powell
said that all the boarded up and run down motels need to be addressed or tom down in order to beautify
the street.
Under PAC statements, Ricky Peterson requested that the Business Subcommittee report to the PAC
as soon as possible on their discussions with Mr. Cross.
Ms. Campbell asked that an update on the incubator project be placed on the next agenda. She also
asked if a flier from her business could be placed at the PAC booth. This request was later changed to
a sign up sheet for those people interested in an incubator. After discussion, it was decided that only
material related to the PAC or redevelopment would be available.
Mr. Powell said he had met with Mr. Archie Barefield who had the following comments:
1. if there is discussion on improving Lakeview, address the tin buildings north of Brundage
Lane.
2. if businesses aren't attracted to the area because of the way the community looks, we should
discuss ways to clean up dirty lots.
S:\REDVAREA\PAC meeting 10-22 memo.wpd
Alan Tandy
October 22, 1999
Page 4
Mr. Webb discussed a possible funding source from PG&E for an incubator and asked ifPAC
members would be interested in working with staff and contact the Mt. Elgon non profit group that is
currently working on an incubator plan to develop a grant proposal; the deadline is November 30. A
motion was made to refer this to the Business Subcommittee for review and possible application, and
to determine if the PAC desires to work with the Mt. Elgon group.
Ms. Campbell asked that on the next agenda, we need to clarify the purpose of the incubator vote in
September.
Adjournment followed at 9:47PM.
cc: Central District Development Agency
S:\REDVAREA~PAC meeting 10-22 memo.wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, Public Works Director ~~
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1999
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT#2
Attached are eleven copies of Progress Report No. 19 (September 1999), of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2 - Expansion Project, prepared by Black & Veatch.
Attachments
G:\GROUPDA~Memo\1999\wwtp2report 19.wpd
Eakerff idd Wa.~tcWatcr ~rmtmmt
?lam ?~a. 2 - £~#an$ian
/~,TR~STEEL'CORPORATION Sachs Electric
JNCOI~O~^I I~J)
$iterack
~4 Partnered Pta/crt
September 1999 Pret~ared b!/ ~l~k k lqatch
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS SUMMARY NUMBER NINETEEN
September 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
I. Kiewit Pacific Co. performed the following:
Site: Continued paving at Primary Clarifiers, Digesters 1
through 4 and between Operations Building and
Digester Control Building.
Headworks: All mechanical and Logic testing complete. Fully
operable fi-om Supervisory Control Station and field,
with the exception of Sample Station.
Operations Building: Completed piping on Raw Wastewater Pumps. ~
....... Checking instrumentation systems.
Primary Clarifiers: All Logic at Clarifiers complete. Brown Automation
finalizing Logic to Supervisory Control Station.
Digester Control
Building: Completed piping to overflow boxes of Digester Nos.
3 and 4. Performed operation test on various system
pumps. Working on system piping, insulation, and
roofing.
Digester #1' All instruments installed. Started installing pipe spools
to Mix Flow Pumps.
Page !
SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
· Raw Sewage Pump Station has been tested to operating requirements
successfully.
AREAS OF CONCERN
· The need to have the Boilers in operation for Phase 1, 2, and 3 Start-up.
Replacemem Burner for Boiler #3
CHANGE ORDERS
· Change Order 1 - ($92,342.61)
· Change Order 2 ~ ($362,133.82)
· Change Order 3 - · $25,812.87.
· Change Order 4 - $109,382.45
· Change Order 5 - $45,294.03
· Open Change Order Items
Electrical Cost (credit) of deleting Generator for by-pass pumping.
· Modifications of I/O to Accommodate Airflow Status
· Boiler Control Revisions
· Modifications to Propane Gas Line ~ Existing Operations Building
· Demolition & Reconnection of MOV's 15P-6 & 15P-7
· Raceway and Conductor Rewiring ~ Digester Control Building
Associated with Flare Panel Revisions in RFI 159
· Roofing Terminations ~ Digester Control Building
Page 2
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION · 167 RFI's have been received/processed as of September 30, 1999.
· 6 Days on average turn around.
SHOP DRAWINGS
· 387 Shop Drawings have been received/processed as of September 30, 1999.
11 Days on average turn around.
Sample Sink and Piping ~ Digester #4
PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR OCTOBER 1999
Site: Complete Public Address System. Complete asphalt
concrete paving and roads, complete siterock.
Headworks: Complete permanent sidewalks, screen wall, and
install permanent water lines and Hose Bibbs. Place
system into service.
Raw Wastewater
Pump Station: Complete painting, turnover new pumps for City of
Bakersfield operation.
Grit Chambers: Establish automatic control system for Motor
Operated Valves and place the Grit Removal System
into service.
Page 3
Primar3, Clarifiers: Place Primary Clarifier #3 into service. Begin
renovation work on Scum Well #1.
Primary Sludge
Pumping Station: Place pumps #1 and #2 into operation and install #3
& #4 pumps and piping.
Operations
TraNing: Complete training on Supervisor3' Control Station, ..
Programmable Logic Controller training and Field
Instrument training.
Installation of Irrigation System
Page 4
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS sUMMARY
DESCRIPTION STATUS'
Notice to Proceed Dated February 9, 1998
Contract Time, Calendar Days 730
Original Completion Date February 8, 2000
Substantial Completion Date May 7, 1999
Time Extensions Approved 69 Days
Revised Completion Date May 12, 2000
Original Contract Amount $29,239,800.00
Change Orders Appi'oved (273,987.08)
Revised Contract Amount $28,965,812.92
.aanoum Earned This Period $28,216,313.97
'Arnoum Earned to Date $28,302,901.45
Percent Complete, $ 97.71
Calendar Days Used 599
Percent Complete, Calendar Days 78.92
Installation of irrigation System North side of Headworks
99405
Page 5
o
October 27, 1999
Alan Tandy, city Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
Dear Alan:
Thank you, once again, for your commitment to Greater Bakersfield, and especially
through the city' s financial support of Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020, Inc.
Enclosed is a flyer announcing the dates and locations for the large community meetings
with the focus on our strengths and "opportunities for improvement". We would really
appreciate it if you could assist in publicizing these meetings and encouraging your staff,
as well as the general public to attend, in whatever manner would be appropriate.
You will note that the first meeting is next Tuesday, November 2nd, which is a very short
time frame. Each of the meetings is being co-hosted by a supervisor and a city
councilmember (which is part of the reason for the short time frame), as follows:
November 4th Councilmember Mike Maggard, Supervisor Barbara Patrick
November 8th Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, Supervisor Pete Parra
November 9th Councilmember David Couch, Supervisor Barbara Patrick
November 10th Supervisor Barbara Patrick
November 11~ Councilmembers Mark Salvaggio, Randy Rowles, Jacquie
Sullivan, Supervisor Ken Peterson
November 15th Councilmember Pat DeMond, Supe~wisor Pete Parra
December 13th Councilmember Irma Carson, Supervisor Pete Parra
Alan, we really appreciate your efforts so far, and certainly would appreciate whatever
assistance you are able to provide in encouraging attendance and participation.
~h,~~Very truly Y° rs' ~
· What are ~reater Bakersfield's strengths and weaknesses?
· What is our vision of what we want this area to be in the year
2020? '
· How do we achieve this vision?
These are the questions we will be asking ourselves as we launch a process to
create a comprehensive Vision for the Greater Bakersfield area in the year 2020
and set in motion efforts to realize this Vision. This process starts now with a
series of community forums to address the first question about Greater
Bakersfield's strengths and weaknesses. This will be followed next spring with
another series of meetings ,where we'll use our shared understanding of our
strengths' and weaknesses to develop a vision for the future.
Make plans now to participate in these forums
and bring your friends, neighbors, and co-workers!
Vision 2020 Community Forums
All meetings 6:30 - 9:00 p.m. except November 11
Date: Location:
~Jovember 2 Highland High School
November 8 Beale Library
November 9 Centennial High School
fember 10 North High School
*November 11 Stockdale High School
7:00-9:30 p.m.
November 15 Boys & Girls Club
December 13 Bakersfield Senior Center
For information or to volunteer call 324-2020 or visit the web site at
www. bakersfieldvision2020.com. Most importantly, participate in the process!
]:f not now, when? zf not you, who?
®ea~er 8okersFretrJ
VISION I)]
VlSlON2020
Our Future...Our Responsibility
In 20 years the Class of 2000 will be in mid-career, raising children of their own.
What's in store them.., and for us as a community? What do we want Greater
Bakersfield of 2020 to be? What kind of jobs will drive the economy of the
future? How do we prepare our children -- and their children -- for these jobs?
What Will the metropolitan area look like? Where will people live? Where will
they work? How will they get there? What will we do in our free time? What
quality of life would we like for all residents to enjoy?
Answering these kinds of questions -- and more -- about our city is what Vision
2020 is all about. By taking a look at the future and creating a vision of what we
would like our city and surrounding area to be, we can then determine what it will
take to make it happen. This is something we must do now, and it is something
we must all do together.
What is Vision 2020?
Vision 2020 is a broad-based community effort to create a comprehensive,
integrated Vision for the Greater Bakersfield area 20 years from now and set in
motion efforts to realize this Vision.
How will we do this?
The Vision and resulting action plans will be developed through a broad-based,
collaborative, consensus-based process, involving all segments of the
community, including our youth. It will take about 18 months to create the Vision
and develop action plans. The action plans will be recommended for
implementation by the city, the county, business and industry, the non-profit
sector, and individuals.
How do I get involved?
The Vision will be created by and for the residents of Greater Bakersfield.
Watch for information in the next weeks and months about community forums
where you will be able to express your views on what's good about Greater
Bakersfield, what's not so good, and what our community could be. For updated
information or to volunteer, call 324-2020 or visit the Vision 2020 web page at
wvwv. bakersfieldvision2020, com
If not now, when? If not you, who?
Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020, Inc.
P.O. Box 12020
Bakersfield, CA 93389
(661) 324-2020
www.bakersfieldvision2020.com
BAKERS'FIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(661) 326-3'/24
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIREC'rOR * crl'Y ENGINEER
October 28, 1999
Pacific Bell
Attention: Vic Bolton
Subject: Street Permit No. 17552
Vault Replacement at California Avenue and Real Road
Dear Vic;
As you are aware, Pacific Bell is currently replacing an existing vault located in California Avenue just
east of Real Road. Due to the location of the vault, one lane of California Avenue is closed for the
duration of the construction project. Recently, the City has been receiving numerous calls from the
businesses along California who are concerned about the effects of the lane closure qn traffic and on access
to their businesses. Although many of them realize that the inconvenience is necessary for safety to the
traveling public during the duration of your project, they have expressed concern about the length of time
that the job will take.
My staff has been informed that your contractor does not expect to be finished until the end of November.
I am informing you that this project needs to be complete by Thanksgiving, because of the expected
increase in traffic due to the start of the Christmas shopping season. This is a very serious public relations
problem for both Pacific Bell and the City. If completion by Thanksgiving cannot be attained, then the
City will have to consider revocation of the permit.
Please call me as soon as possi!~le at 326z3596.
Very truly yours,
Public Works Director
G :\GROUPDATLLet~ers\ 1999LPacBellVault.wpd
OCT
bc: City Manager Alan Tandy
Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV - Subdivisions
MEMORANDUM
October 28, 1999
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - FLUORIDA'gION
At the September 22, 1999, City Council meeting Councilmember David Couch referred the item of
water fluoridation to the Water Board for review and discussion. Councilmember Couch requested that Dr.
Robert Reed, DDS, be invited to speak on the issue of fluoridation to the Water Board. Following review
and discussion, the Board asked staff to prepare a"Pro and Con" report summarizing the issue of fluoridating
a public water system and the cost associated with implementing such a program in the Bakersfield area. The
BOard requested that this report be forwarded to the City Council for their information and a copy also be sent
to Dr. Reed when it was completed (report attached).
.MEMORANDUM
October 26, 1999
TO: GENE B. OGA~pJ~,~W/~To,ER RESOURCES MANAGER
FROM: FLORN CORE, WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: WATER BOARD REQUEST FROM OCTOBER 13, 1999 MEETING -
FLUORIDATION OF CITY WATER
The City of Bakersfield Water Board, at its October 13, 1999 board meeting, heard comments
from Dr. Robert Reed, DDS concerning the fluoridation of Bakersfield public water supplies.
Dr. Reed is affiliated with the California Dental Association (CDA), an organization that is an
active supporter of fluoridation of public water systems. Dr. Reed spoke of the continuing.
efforts of the CDA and local Kern County Dental Society in encouraging fluoridation of
Bakersfield's water and the possibility of "Proposition 10" (Tobacco Initiative) funding
available to do so. The Water Board requested staff to forward cOst estimates to fluoridate the
City water supply and to provide a brief comparison of the advantages/disadvantages of
fluoridating public drinking water.
The issue of fluoridation of public water supplies is not new. In 1995, the CDA supported
legislation and urged approval of Assembly Bill 733 (Spier-1995) that had the California
Department of Health Services (DOHS) adopt regulations to require fluoridation of public
water systems that serve over 10,000 connections. The legislation passed and the rules were
issued in 1997. The standards required each potentially affected water system to compile costs
and expenses of installing appropriate' equipment to fluoridate its supplies. However, AB 733
provided that a public water system is not required to comply with fluoridation until funds
sufficient to pay the capital costs have become available from any source other than
ratepayers, shareholders, local taxpayers or bondholders. There has been little funding
available to apply to fluoridating water systems since then.
Whether mandated by state law or not, fluoridation of public water supplies is a controversial
subject. The CDA and American Dental Association have been proponents and have years of
scientific studies to prove that fluoridation has reduced the incidence of dental caries (cavities)
in children. The opponents to fluoridation have gathered evidenCe that fluoride is a possible
· threat to health and that it should be left to the individual's choice to provide or administer
fluoride treatment for their children.
FLUORIDATION OF CITY WATER
October 26, 1999
page - 2 -
Advantages of Fluoridation of Public Water Supply: ·
· Scientifically and medically proven to reduce dental caries (cavities) in children in
studies of fluoridated water systems versus non-fluoridated public water supplies.
· Proper dosages have no generally known and documented health risks.
· Minimal monthly costs to be added to water bill (after capital costs on equipment).
Disadvantages of Fluoridation of Public Water Supply:
· Potential for fluorosis (a discloration of teeth and removal of tooth enamel) at higher
than recommended dosages. Fluoride is prevalent in many products that were not in
general use and available to consumers in the past, such as fluoride toothpastes,
fluoridated bottled water, fluoride supplements & soft drinks. Addition to ingested
water may place individual over optimal standard limits.
· No choice, removes parental decision on whether to use or not.
· Unknown future health risks with water purveyor "at risk".
· High capital cost to install equipment for fluoride handling and injection to water
supply.
Staff has estimated capital costs to fluoridate City residents water supply and the costs have
been verified by the DOHS. As the entire City is served by several water purveyors, these costs
are based on the two largest servers, California Water Service Co. and the City Domestic
Water System (Ashe Water Co.). The two cover over 90% of the City residents receiving a
public water supply. The combined capital cost to construct, install and initiate fluoridation
for City residents would be approximately $7,810,000. Additional monthly material, handling
and operating costs are estimated at about $0.40 per customer.
S:\1999 MEMOS~FLUORIDEWATERBOARD
MEMORANDUM
October 28, 1999
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: ~_.~-Stanley Grady, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Council Referral - WF0018282 - Auburn Heights Apartments
All items that can be addressed by city ordinance have been corrected except possibly a few trees in
the sump area. Jim Eggert will be following up on the trees to make sure it complies with the site
plan.
RF:km
cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~OR~
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DI
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1999
SUBJECT: ALLEY FLOODING PROBLEM: 3500 CARDINAL AVENUE
3504 CARDINAL AVENUE
Attached is a copy of our response to Mr. Bowman's correspondence directed to
Councilmember Mike Maggard regarding a drainage problem on 3500 & 3504 Cardinal
Avenue.
' OCT 2 6 I§~ I
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals\maggard\CardinalAvenueDrainage.wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(661) 326-3?24
PAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR * CITY ENGINEER
October 26, 1999
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Bowman
3500 Cardinal Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bowman:
Staff reviewed the survey that was performed on the alley behind your property and
determined that regrading the last ninety feet would not solve the problem of water entering
your property. The survey shows that digging out and regrading ninety feet of the entrance
to the alley would only make matters worse.
Mr. Steven Murray's property was also surveyed and found to be lower then the alley with
the driveway grade flowing toward his garage instead of the alley.
After obtaining permission from Mr. Murray, a Street Maintenance crew installed an asphalt
border on Mr. Murray's driveway to keep the water from entering his property and draining
onto your property. This work was completed October 14, 1999.
At this point, I understand that you have met with Mike Conner, Street Supervisor and you
are satisfied with the solution. However, I have directed staff to review the work
periodically to assure that the solution to your problem haS been solved. If the problem
continues to exist during a rain storm, do not hesitate to call the Street Division immediately
at 326-3111 or the Street Maintenance Superintendent's direct line at 326-3108.
Sincerely,
Public Works Director
Councilmember Mike Maggard
Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager
Mr. Steven Murray - 3504 Cardinal Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93306
G:\GROUPDAT~STREETSLRoger Bowman Letter. Response wpcl
00T-25-99 MON 15:48 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FAX NO, 6613241850 P, O1
MR, MIKE MAGGARD
COUNCILMAN WARD #'FHREE
Dear Sir,
WE NEED HELP TO RESOLVE A LONGSTANDING PROBLEM IN THE CONDITION OF THE
ALLY BEHIND OUR HOMES. DURING RAINSTORMS WATER DRAiNiNG IX:ANN THE ALLY
FLOODS BOTH OF OUR BACKYARDS WITH A R~VF..R OF WA'T-eR FOUR TO SIX INCHES DEEP.
THIS HAS CAUSED SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE TO STEVEN MURRAYS HOME IN THE
PAST AND WILL CAUSE DAMAGE AGAIN. WATER OBVIOUSLY CONTAINING HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS EKE CHLORINE, ACID, PAINT, AND OTHER UNKNOWNS ARE ALSO WASHED
DOWN THE ALLY. THE WATER AT TIMES HAS ENTERED ROGER'S PATIO; WHICH IS THE
SAME LEVEL AS THE HOUSE. ST:EVEN MURRAY HAS HAD WATER IN HIS GARAGE AND
FAMILY ROOM NUMEROUS TIMES. STEVEN'S INSURANCE DEDUCTABLE HAS BEEN RAISED
TO FOUR TIMES ITS PRIOR LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE HAZAROUS. CONDITIONS EX/STING
AND CAUSING RISK. THEY W11..L NOT PAY FOR ANY WATER DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE ALLY.
WE HAVE CONTACTED MIKE CONNOR (ALLY SUPERVISOR) NUMEROUS TIMES
OVER THE PAST TWO AND' ONE-HALF YEARS TO GET, THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM SOLVED.
MIKE SUGGESTED THAT HE COULD ADD THREE INCHES TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ALLY
TO HELP DRAINAGE.THE ALLY IS ALREADy THREE INCHES ABOVE THE LEVEL OF STEVE
MURRAY'S GARAGE FLOOR. THIS WOULD CREATE A SIX-INCH DROP. THIS IS NOT A
LOGICAL SOLUTION. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THIS PROSLEM.
THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO REGRADE THE END OF THE ALLY. THIS
W(:AJLD ONLY BE THE LAST NINTY FEET OF THE ALLY BE. HIND 3500 AND 3504 CARDINAL
AVE. ROGER BOWMAN CONTACTED MR. PERALEZ ( STREET SUPERINTENDANT) AND HE
AGREED THAT REGRADING THE LAST NINTY FEET OF THE ALLY WAS THE SOLUTION TO
THE PROBLEM, MR. PERALF-.Z NEEDS THE CITY SURVEYERS TO FIRST SURVEY BEFORE HE
CAN GET THE ALLy REGRADED. THE CITY SURVEYERS ARE NOT IN HIS DEPARTMENT AND
TIED UP ON OTHER PROJECTS. HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO CONTROL OVER THEM AND THERE
SEEMS TO BE NO COOPERATION OR TEAMWORK BE~VEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT. THIS WAS VERIFIED BY ROGER BOWMAN WHO
CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ALSO MR. PERALEZ..
WE ARE NOW AT A DEAD.END IN GETTING THIS PROBLEM INVOLVING HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS AND PROPER'Pr DAMAGE AFFECTING OUR HOMES SOLVED. WE[ TRUST THAT
YOU CAN GET SOME RESULTS FOR US. ALL WE WANT I$ TO GET NINTY FEET OF ALLY
SURVEYED AND REGRADED. WE HAVE BEEN PATIENT FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS.
SINCERELY,
ROGER BOWMAN STEVEN MURRAY
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
October 27, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager/4/~
SUBJECT: Response to Referral from Councilmember Demond on Parking near
Centennial Center (Federal Building)
Councilmember Pat Demond asked that staff contact a Mr. Ganong regarding parking time
limits for parking spaces near his place of business. Mr. Ganong was contacted by Jake
Wager, Economic Development Director, and informed that if he was interested in
increasing time limits for parking spaces used by his business, the Traffic Engineering
department is available to assist him.
cc Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
AC
· ,.. _...-_ ,...~. '_..:, ,, '.
OCT 2 8 1999
October 28, 1999
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer ~
SUBJECT: Council Referral WF0018280 - Weed Abatement along Railroad Right-of-Way
The McKittrick Branch railroad right-of-way through south Bakersfield is owned by Union Pacific
Railroad. They lease the line and 50' of each side to San Joaquin Valley Railroad. In some areas the
right-of-way exceeds that 100' strip. Both companies have employed contractors to abate their
portions of the right-of-way and the work is currently 80% completed. The areas referred by
Councilmember Salvaggio near the Holiday Inn on Hughes Lane and behind Teal Street are 100%
completed.
I will continue working with San Joaquin Valley Railroad until they complete abatement of the
tumbleweeds and along occupied property lines.
MT:km
cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
.:, ,i" OCT 2 8 1999' .i
MEMORANDUM '~"?~' ~'*' '.~', ~': - '~ .... .....
October 28, 1999
TO: A1an Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Council Referral WF0018281 - Dead Trees at Taco Bell
A notice was given to the manager of Taco Bell and they replaced the trees per site plan and Planning
Department requirements.
RF:km
cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1999
SUBJECT: FREEWAY ALIGNMENT CORRESPONDENCE
Council Referral Record ftWFO018292 / O01
Councilmember Rowles requested Jack LaRochelle contact him regarding correspondence
from dulie Trigueiro concerning the freeway alignment.
On Wednesday, October 27, 1999, Councilmember Rowles was contacted by Jack
LaRochelle concerning Mrs. Trigueiro's correspondence. Based on that conversation,
Mr. LaRochelle will compile information concerning the planned freeway alignment near
Mrs. Trigueiro's home including proposed horizontal alignment and elevation. This
information will then be sent to Mrs. Trigueiro with a follow-up phone call to address any
other concerns she may have.
G:\GROUPOA~Referrals\Rowles\Freeway alignment corresondence.wpd
· ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018292 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10~27~99
REQUEST DATE: 10/20/99
CREW: TIME PRINTED: , 9:06:26
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: ~'rA/iT: ±0~20~99
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 11/01/99
GEN. LOC: WARD5 FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: ROWLES ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: FREEWAY ALIGNMENT CORRESPONDENCE
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO JACK LAROCHELLE***
ROWLES REQUESTED JACK LAROCHELL CONTACT HIM
REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE FROM JULIE TRIGUEIRO
CONCERNING THE FREEWAY ALIGNMENT. COPY OF
CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED TO PUBLIC WORKS.
Job Order Description: FREEWAY ALIGNMENT CORRESPONDENCE
at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE /__/__
· .~ .'
OCT ~ 5 1999
Dear Randy, ?UBL~C WORKS DEPARTMENT
I enclosed this article, because I realize many people have this viewpoint. It
hurts when people make these blanket statements about someone, when they don't
bother to understand the facts. The truth is my husband and I did ask about the
freeway. We were building our dream home. This was. an extremely important
decision because we knew that we would be raising a family. I have had people
directly tell me when I express my worries, "Well you knew it was going to be there."
There are several of us in the Rio Vista Estates area who were led to believe other
things. New homeowners in the area are still being told "half truths". We were told that
it would be like a Truxtun extension and "they" are just calling it a freeway and that it
would be 20 years away. Allignments were not set, they were just being discussed'. I
guess I am just naive.
I also hear people say over and over, "the only people who ever oppose
freeways are the people affected by it." It is so easy to turn the other cheek and say
statements like that when people only think about themselves and not the "faceless"
people whose lives will be affected by it. I hope that these people will remember that
when they use this freeway that some unknown people have sacrificed their homes
and dreams.
It doesn't pay to wonder what we could have done differently. I thought we were
careful. I guess I'm old fashioned. Instead of compassion in people's eyes, I see
dollar signs and greed. I think the simple Dr. Seuss book and video, The Lorax sums it
up best. Some days I feel like the Lorax.
Julie Trigueiro
Distributed to:
Mayor
Council
City Atty, L..-"
5her '-.~'-
By City Clerk
Date I ~).-'~'--~
Julie Trigueiro
14415 Via Contento
Bakersfield, CA 93312
589-0343
Dear Randy,
My name is Julie Trigueiro. We spoke after the KCOG meeting on Thursday,
September 16, 1999. I was very impressed how attentive the board was to every
speaker. I genuinely believe that every person on that board took the position to make
their community a better place and to be available to hear the voices of the citizens in
their community. I know it wasn't for the love of six hour meetings, time away from
family, and dealing with, let's just say unhappy people. I also left knowing the
struggles of making decisions that affect everyone. I used to think that the KCOG
board just made decisions and didn't care if anyone was affected by it'. After staying, I
realized that they are very much concerned with helping and listening to the public. I
also never expected anyone on the board to speak to an ordinary citizen like me. I
appreciate you taking your time to help answer questions along with "Mr. Tehachapi".
(I'm sorry I forgot his name)
I live on "Lot 17" at the end of Via Contento. My home backs up to Renfro. i
have to admit I was shocked when'l looked at the map and saw that an overpass might
be directly behind or possibly in my backyard. We were told the freeway was going to
be depressed at a meeting I attended at a Rosedale school. It seems like people
driving on it would be able to look in my backyard. I just don't want people to get car
sick if they have to see me in my bikini.
I'm a Bakersfield girl and I don't want Bakersfield to be on an episode of
"Fleecing of America" about a freeway whose ultimate purpose was to connect two
freeways, but never did. It takes strength and courage to admit it may not work,
especially on a project that everyone has worked so hard on. However, if it is going to
be built, could you at least consider making it as painless as possible for me and my
family when the time comes. Just,remember Julie, Lot 17.
Thank you,
--dulie Trigueiro '
Kern myer rreeway
desperately needed
! am responding to some recent let-
ters opposing the Kern River Freeway,
most of which have been based on rnis-
leading and inaccurate hnfonnalion.
Under state law, the new freeway
cannot fulfill the hysterical predictions
of its opponents, such as damaging
grotmdwater, po[luting the air for
nearby residents, polluting the river
~th chemical spills or destroying the
area's-natural habitat_ This is because
under the California Environmental
Quality .act (CEQA),~all of the free-
ways impacts on the area and its resi-
dents must be 100 percent miti~,uted
or other se solved)
treeway cannot be bufl~ ' - ' '
Of course, construction of a m,~r,
new roadway will have an impact on
the surrounding areas. But the sigr~
cant benefits of the Kern R/ver ~
absolutely outwe/gh the neg,/yes.
No other possible freeway ~gn~
merit will reduce traf~c congestion in
our'eity's n~or growth area, western
metropolitan Bakersfield.
Additionally, the K~rn River
Freeway w-~ take large trucks off our
deteriora~qg local streets as they travel
bet~veen lnte~mte 5 and Highway 99.
The freeway opponents mounted
an llth-hour opposition t6 this long-
plaru~.ed and desperately needed tmrts-
portation corridor. They'live near it,
don'~ 'like it, but failed to investi~e
what v~as planned near theft nelgh~r-
hoods before they moved there ·
N
· 9w they want the rest of us to satis-
fY their whim by altering our adopted
;]0~0 General PI,an, thro~g away yea~
of long-term u-,msportat/on planning
As a taxpayer and local motorist, I
refuse to pay the price for their irre-
sponsibility
KELLY M. GARCIA
Bakersfield
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
October 29, 1999
TO: Councilmember Couch
f--~-.
FROM: ,~John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Referrals dated 10/20/99
The following are staff responses to the referrals made by you on 10/20/99.
#1 Question: "Request of Pam McCarthy: Please provide Council cards and
envelopes."
Response: Two rolls of stamps, stationary and note cards were provided to you
on Wednesday, October 6th.
#2 Question: "Please provide new precinct lists when available."
Response: Lists have been copied and are available. However, you must sign for
the documents, per State law. The Clerk's office has placed a note
in your mail box to advise you of this.
#3 Question: "Did Ms. Quinones-Vaughn ever respond? I didn't hear from her. I'd
like to send a second letter."
Response: A second draft letter to Ms. Quinones-Vaughn was faxed to you on
10/27 for your review. A hard copy is attached. Please note:
Ms. Quinones-Vaughn has been very cooperative with the City in the
past. PG&E is a very large organization, however. Even with
cooperation, it can take months for a request to be processed through
the bureaucracy.
#-4 Question: 'Td like to help this woman if at all possible. Please let me know if
there is anything we can do."
Councilmember Couch
October 29, 1999
Page 2
Response: The first appraisal we contracted for on the property was for $35,000.
After several months, we had another one done, and it appraised at
$70,000. We eventually approved a settlement agreement of
$105,660.
While there were special circumstances that led to the above contract,
it is the greatest percentage variance from appraised value that we
can recall. Further adjustments, after the contract was executed,
could set precedents that could negatively impact the City in the
future. Would we not be encouraging others to ask for more after the
fact? A memo from the City Attorney is being sent to you under
separate cover.
Technically, at the request of a Councilmember, the item could be
agendized and some kind of additional compensation could be paid
by overruling the staff recommendation.
#5 Question: "Mr. Robertson makes a good case. What would be required to
accommodate his request? This situation may occur again and
again."
Response: A memo is attached from Development Services that explains the
procedure for granting Mr. Robertson's request.
#6 Question: "How many years will Mr. McMillan be required to maintain his letter
of credit? Is it until upon completion of the new sump only?"
Response: A memo from Public Works is enclosed which explains the time frame
and circumstances for requiring the letter of credit.
#7 Question: "Is staff going to recommend that Council take a position on Public
Works Initiative Measure B?"
Response: The initiative will not appear on the ballot for March, but will most
likely be on the next one in November 2000. While the City has not
taken a position on this matter, it can be referred to the Legislative
and Litigation Committee for discussion.
Councilmember Couch
October 29, 1999
Page 3
#8 Question: "To avoid any confusion and to keep up to speed, I'd like to attend
any meetings of City employees and/or agents of the City and
CaITrans, the Equilon Refinery, any Water entities, .Citizens, Citizen
Groups, etc. I'd also like a bi-monthly, or weekly, if you prefer, status
report on the Kern River Freeway/58 project. Thanks."
Response: We do regular status reports for the Urban Development Committee
which are issued to City Council with the minutes. Copies of the last
two years' reports are attached. We can, however, put them in
writing and issue them bi-monthly as a part of "General Information".
They are likely to be pretty brief. Since a freeway takes 20 to 30
years, very little happens in the average two week period of time.
Certainly, there is no problem with meetings of the City Council,
Urban Development Committee, KernCOG, the groups working on the
water agency's issues and other public meetings. The request seems
extremely broad and all encompassing, however. "All" meetings
between City staff and CalTrans? Any meeting between City staff
and citizens? We have detail people who meet with CalTrans
frequently. We handle citizen inquiries and requests for information.
We get calls, we attend public meetings where freeway questions are
raised as a side issue. People approach us at social events with
questions. To promise councilmember inclusion in every contact
would be a practical impossibility.
#9 Question: "Could staff look into these constituent calls and respond to the citizen
with a short update to me. Thank you."
A) Phone Call: Russell Fox regarding rider on property deed indicating sewer hook
up within 180 days.
Response: Per the enclosed memo from Pubic Works, staff has contacted
Mr. Fox, and his concern has been addressed.
B) Phone Call: Mr. Lomax regarding lighting at McDonalds at Hageman and Coffee
Road. (From Councilmember Couch: "P.S. I agree with this. The
lights are probably too high, at wrong angle, etc. This needs to be
addressed.")
Councilmember Couch
October 29, 1999
Page 4
Response: Per the enclosed memo from Public Works, McDonald's has made
adjustments to the lighting. Mr. Lomax has requested additional
adjustments, so staff will work with McDonalds and keep Mr. Lomax
apprised.
#10 Question: "Re: Shellabarger. Please have Mr. Rojas call me # 327-9141."
Response: Mr. Rojas contacted you on 10/27/99 and faxed information to you
regarding the cul-de-sac issue. A memo with hard copies is enclosed.
JWS:RS
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director~
DATE: October 28, '1999
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON COFFEE ROAD
Council Referral No. }YF0018286 / 001 (October 20, 1999)
Councilmember Couch referred to the 9/3/99 letter to Ms. Linda Quinones-Vaughn of which he did not
receive a response. He requested staff prepare a second letter regarding landscapihg at the Coffee Road
and Stockdale Highway (PG&E facility) for his signature.
Attached is a copy of the draft letter transmitted to Councilmember Couch on 10/27/99 via
facsimile for his review and comments.
Attachment
G;\GROUPDAT~Referrals\Couch\LndscplmprvmtsCoffeeRoad_WF0018286.wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018286 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10~22~99
REQUEST DATE: 10/20/99
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 13:28:32
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1 /99
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PG & E FACILITY COFFEE RD.
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
COUCH REFERRED TO THE 9/3/99 LETTER TO LINDA
QUINONES-VAUGHN OF WHICH HE DID NOT RECEIVE A
RESPONSE. HE REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A SECOND
LETTER REGARDING LANDSCAPING AT THE COFFEE RD.
PG & E FACILITY FOR HIS SIGNATURE.
Job Order-~Description:' LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS COFFEE RD.
at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE
B A K E R S F I'E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE'
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(661) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
October 28, 1999
Linda Quinones-Vaughn
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
1918 "H" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
....... Subject: - Coffee Road Facility
Dear Ms. Quinones-Vaughn:
We recently sent you a letter regarding landscaping of Coffee Road, in the vicinity of your facility
at Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway. Coffee Road is an extremely important transportation link
in the City of Bakersfield, and the intersection with Rosedale Highway is one of the most used
intersections within the City. Because of the high public profile of this intersection, we feel that the
aesthetic appearance of this area is very important.
We are still interested in PG&E participating in the visual upgrading of this intersection. PG&E's
construction of landscaping of the Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road frontage of your facility
would greatly improve the appearance of this intersection and would increase the value of PG&E's
property in anticipation of a possible future sale of the property.
The other half of the upgrading process would be to insure the ongoing maintenance of the
landscaping. The commercial property on the east side of Coffee and the north side of Rosedale
are responsible for the cost of the maintenance of the streetscape and for one half of the median
landscaping through their participation in the Consolidated Maintenance District. Your property is
also in the Consolidated Maintenance District, but as a public entity, any payment for maintenance
costs is handled through an agreement, rather than through the property tax bill as is typical. The
City would be happy to discuss entering into a contract directly with PG&E for the cost of the
maintenance of the other half of the medians in Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway.
We would welcome a discussion with you on this matter. Please contact the 'Public Works
Department at (661) 326-3596 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a meeting.
Sincerely,
DAVID COUCH RAUL ROJAS
Councilmember, Ward 4 Public Works Director
C: City Manager Alan Tandy
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
m.p.s. G:~GROUPDAT~Letters~1999~PGECoffee10_27.wpd
CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTED
M E M O FI A N I) U M BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGES
October 26, 1999
TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager . ~/,,~.
FROM: MICHAEL G. ALLFORD, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: MARTHA S. KNIGHT
City began eminent domain proceedings to acquire the "Knight" property located at
615 16th Street for the Amtrak Station Project. During negotiations, both Martha S. Knight
and John L. Knight (as Trustees of the Knight Revocable Living Trust) agreed to swap their
parcel for a City surplus parcel located at 1601 13th Street and funds were provided to
construct a warehouse for storage of props, costumes, etc. used by the Bakersfield Ballet
Theatre.
When construction began, it was discovered that the new property was not serviced
by either sewer or water utilities. Ms. Knight requests the City reimburse her slightly in
excess of $12,000 for costs she has incurred in bringing these utility services to the
property.
For the following reasons, her request should be denied:
1. At the time of the property "swap," the City was not aware the property is not
serviced by water and/or sewer utilities. During the approximate nine-year period the City
has owned this property, it was always vacant (undeveloped). As a reasonable and
prudent business person, Mrs. Knight had an obligation to adequately investigate the
property to assure that it met her needs prior to agreeing to the swap;
2. The parties entered into Agreement No. 99-13 dated January 13, 1999
wherein the Knights agreed all claims, causes of action and entitlements arising from this
transaction are resolved. This is a binding contract, negotiated in good faith;
3. There is an absence of "consideration" (benefit to the City) for payment of
additional funds to the Knights, particularly in light of the negotiated agreement. Absent
adequate "consideration" for this payment, the City is subject to both criticism and potential
~iability for improper use of public funds;
ALAN TANDY, City Manager CONFIDENTIAL
October 26, 1999
Parle 2
4. Mrs. Knight states in her October 16, 1999 correspondence to Councilperson
Demond that the City was obligated to disclose the absence of these utilities by virtue of
"section 1102 of the Real Estate Disclosure Law of 1989." However, her citation does not
support her argument. The law to which Ms. Knight refers (actually Civil Code section
1102) pertains to residential property only.
(a) This was a commercial transaction.
(b) Civil Code section 1102.2 specifically exempts from the disclosure
requirement transfers by eminent domain (1102.2(b)) and transfers or
exchanges to or from a governmental entity (1102.2(j)).
(c) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1102.4, liability for errors or omissions
arises for failure to disclose known conditions. As stated above, no
agent or employee of City was aware that the property was not
serviced by these utilities;
5. In consideration for acquiring the Knight property, the City paid $75,660
(negotiated figure) and transferred the City property which had an appraised value of
$30,000. The property acquired from the Knights in this exchange was purchased by them
in September of 1997 for $25,000 (including the storage structure thereon). This
transaction placed the Knights in a much better position. Two years ago, they paid
$25,000 for a building and land (3,812 square feet) worth approximately $35,000. They
obtained a larger parcel (7,623 square feet in a superior location) and $30,000 to construct
a new storage facility, both now worth a conservative $75,000 to $100,000. The old
structure had limited utility due to its 7 foot ceilings, asphalt floor and small wood doors
whereas the new structure has 14+ foot ceilings, concrete floors, roll up doors,
curb/gutter/sidewalk, etc.;
6. Don Anderson confirms that Mrs. Knight had her attorney (identify unknown)
review the purchase agreement on her behalf.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or comments
regarding the above.
MGA:Isc
cc: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney
Donald M. Anderson, Senior Real Property Agent
S:\MGA\Memos~ATreKnight.wpd
MEMORANDUM
October 28, 1999
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ,'%.
SUBJECT: REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL MEMBER COUCH REGARDING HAROLD
ROBERTSON'S CORRESPONDENCE ON VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5964
(REFERRAL WF00182871001).
In response to correspondence from Harold Robertson dated October 11,1999, (attached) the
above was referred to staff with a request that staff look into what would be required to
accommodate Mr. Robertson's request. Mr Robertson's request is to have the City Council
waive fees and initiate the appropriate General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at City
expense on a triangular shaped lot which was intended for an offramp from the Kern River
Freeway, but is no longer needed. He reasons that because zoning for the offramp was done
in cooperation with the City as a part of a previous annexation and because the City/Caltrans
changed their mind, that his client should not have to pay to change the land use and zoning so
that the property can be included in a proposed subdivision.
In order to accommodate Mr Robertson's request at the next available council meeting
Councilman Couch could agendize the item and with council approval waive the fees and
initiate a concurrent General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for this property to eliminate
existing A (Agricultural) zoning and General Plan designations on the former freeway ramp
alignment and replace it with zoning compatible with the subdivision development proposal.
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be processed for Mr. Robertson at no
cost to the landowner. They would be considered at the December 16, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting and February 9, 2000, City Council meeting.
cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
Stanley Grady, Planning Director
JM:pas
S:~patVnemo,JM,oct27.wpd "'
0C1]-Z7-99 WED 09:08 CITY ~GER'S OFFICE F~X NO. 8813241850 P, 02
· WORK REQUEST
~/JO~ WF0018287 / 001 PR~CT~ DA~ PRI~= 10~22~99
~ ~O~ST DATE: 10120199
~W: S~ULE ~ATES. .
~TION = ZIP CODE: C~PLETION: 10/28/99
~TION ID: pACILI~ NODES
FAC~ITY ID: ~F ~R:
REQ~ST ~S ...........
~si~e~ Deparnmenu: - D~~' SE~S
0CT-27-99 PED 09:09 CITY I'IP,~GER'S OFFICE FRX NO, 6813241850 P. 03
OFITEFt · R BE T ON
~~ ENGINEERING & "'~rJRV~"¥iNG' INC.
October 11, 1999 96-1200
Council Member David Couch
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
RE: Tentative Tract 5964
Dear David:
This letter is in response to a memorandum dated September 22, 1999 from Jack
Hardisty, Development Services Director, to you regarding the Planning Departments
requirement that the current property owner make application and pay the fees for a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to process vesting Tentative Tract 5964.
This memorandum was in response to my letter to you dated September 10, 1999 in
which i outlined the zoning history of the property since it was annexed to the City of
Bakersfield on April 24, 1991.
The Planning Department is requiring a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
because a portion of the property is designated agriculture due to the elimination of a
south bound on ramp from Renfro Road to the freeway. (See attached map). The
elimination of the on ramp occurred after the annexation and zone change.
The intent of my letter was to have the City waive fees for the General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change due to the elimination of the area required for a south bound ramp
from Renfro Road to l~e freeway.
When the original owners (JTM Company) applied for annexation and zoning on this
property, they did so in cooperaUon with the City to provide for future alignment of the
freeway and ramps. The annexation and zone changes were approved on April 24,
1991. it is clear that the intent of the original application was to have residential zoning
on ali the property excepting the freeway alignment. If the governing agency chooses to
alter the freeway alignment or eliminate ramps, it shOUld not be the responsibility of the
property owner to make application and pay fees to correct zoning discrepancies
caused by the changes. In May of t994, Lot Line Adjustment 353 was completed by
1200 - 2fiSt STREET o BAKER$1;IELD, CA 93301 * 6611327-0362 ' FAX 66113Z7-1065 I
.003'-'27-99 WF.D 09:09 OITY I1P, I~IaGF. R'$ OFFIOE F~ NO, 6613241850 P, 04
Council Member David Couch
October 1 t, lggg
Page Two
Cuesta Engineering which showed that the south bound on-ramp had been eliminated
creating two ~,oning classifications on one property. No request was made by the City
tO solve the problem of two zone classifications, on one property at that time.
We therefore request that the City Council initiate the appropriate General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change at City expense.
Thank you for your assistance in resolving this issue.
Sincerely,
HWPJbjc
00]'-27-99 PIED 09:10 CITY ilI~IRGEE'$ OFFICE FAX NO, 881324.1850 P. 05
ZONE CHANGE
P99-0087
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager
Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director
FROM:
DATE: October 27, 1999
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SONIC DRIVE IN ROSEDALE HIGHWAY
City Council Referral # WF00'18288 / 001
In accordance with City Council Agreement No. 98-126 (attached), Consumer Science
Corporation (dba Sonic Burger) is responsible for all repair and maintenance costs for the
drainage facility improvement (these include storm drain, catch basins and a reconfigured
sump) until such time as Rosedale Highway is relinquished to the City from the State of
California. After this relinquishment, the City will assume the obligation of repair and
maintenance of all of the improvements. The relinquishment may not occur for 10 years
or more (as stated in --Page 2 of 12 Pages--, Paragraph 1. Parcel Development of the
agreement), lhe completion of the sump does not relieve Sonic of their responsibility to
pay for the repair and maintenance of the drainage improvements.
If Rosedale Highway is not relinquished to the City in 10 years, then the agreement must
be extended.
G:\sub\SHARED~COUNCIL\COUNCIL.REF~O018288.wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018288 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10~27~99
REQUEST DATE: 10/20/99
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:07:21
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: $'ra~'l': 10~20~99
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 10/28/99
FACILITY NODES
GEN. LOC: FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED SONIC DRIVE IN. ROSEDALE HWY.
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
COUCH REQUESTED STAFF RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS CONCERNING MR. SCOTT MCMILLIAN AND THE
PROPOSED SONIC DRIVE-IN ON ROSEDALE HIGHWAY:
1) HOW 'MANY YEARS WILL MR. MCMILLAN BE REQUIRED
TO MAINTAIN HIS LETTER OF CREDIT? 2) IS IT
UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE NEW SUMP ONLY? STAFF TO
PREPARE A MEMO TO COUCH IN RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE.
Job Order Description: PRopOsED SONIC DRIVE IN. ROSEDALE HWY. Cat~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE
.o.
AGREEMENT TO PAY ALL COSTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on JtlN ! e 1~ , by and
between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a Charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY"
herein) and CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION dba SONIC BURGER, a
cal~.~:o~:r~£a corporation ("SONIC" herein).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the State of California Currently owns a parcel of land used as a storm
water retention facility hereafter referred to as the "Existing Parcel"; and
WHEREAS, the State of California is represented by Caltrans, a division of the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, SONIC desires to acquire a portion (approximately 45,000 square feet)
of the Existing Parcel for development of a commercial project hereafter referred to as the
"Sonic Parcel"; and
WHEREAS, California State Law requires that before considering conveyances of
any state owned right-of-way parcel, the parcel must be "decertified" and declared excess
land; and
WHEREAS, the Sonic Parcel cannot be declared excess land until the storm water
retention facility currently on the "Existing Parcel" has been replaced with a storm water
retention facility constructed on the land parcel remaining after the Sonic Parcel has been
excluded from the Existing Parcel (the land parcel containing the storm water retention
facility is hereinafter referred to as the "New Sump Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, State desires CITY to construct the replacement storm water facilities
and to take over ownership and maintenance of the replacement facility; and
WHEREAS, State has agreed to be responsible for all aspects of right-of-way
decertification; and
WHEREAS, the CITY is under no duty or obligation to enter into any such
agreement with Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, the CITY is willing to undertake and assist SONIC but has informed
SONIC that CITY will bear no cost or expense of any kind for this assistance; and
WHEREAS, SONIC understands and agrees CITY will bear no cost for said
assistance; and
-- Page 1 of 12 Pages -- ~°~ %~'~
OR~GII',!~!
WHEREAS, SONIC is willing to construct and temporarily assume responsibility for
the cost of maintaining the replacement storm water facility; and
WHEREAS, CITY Water DePartment is currently responsible for the maintenance
of Sumps and will initially be responsible for the tracking of the maintenance costs on the
New Sump Parcel; and
WHEREAS, SONIC has requested the CITY enter into a cooperative agreement
and memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the State of California (Caltrans) to
provide the replacement storm water facility; and
WHEREAS, CITY and Caltrans will enter into a cooperative agreement and MOU
to assist SONIC and said agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully
set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and SONIC
mutually agree as follows:
1. PARCEL DEVELOPMENT. CITY agrees to enter into a Memorandum of'
Understanding ("MOU") and a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to allow the
development of a current sump into a commercial parcel and improved sump. The MOU,
and cooperative agreement are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. The
sump parcel is described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference. SONIC agrees to design .and construct the new sump and associated drainage
facilities ("Improvements" herein) and dedicate the Improvements to CITY upon
completion. As more fully described below, SONIC agrees to pay for the maintenance of
said improvements until the State of California relinquishes Rosedale Highway to the
CITY. SONIC understands the State of California may not relinquish Rosedale Highway
to the CITY for ten (10) years or more and SONIC, or SONIC's successor's in interest,
must pay the maintenance costs during this period of time. SONIC further agrees to fully
inform any successor in interest of these facts and to give this Agreement to any successor
in interest for review and agreement prior to any transfer by SONIC of any right or
obligation hereunder.
2. SONIC'S OBLIGATIONS:
2.1Comply with all CITY and State requirements for development of the
New Sump Parcel at SONIC's sole expense;
2.2 Not to interrupt or interfere with the operation of the existing State-
owned drainage basin serving State Route 58 until such time as
permanent service can be provided by CITY-owned basin;
2.3 Pay upon demand any and all documented CITY cost or expense
arising from or related to this Agreement or the construction of the
Improvements;
2.4 Design and construct a new sump and associated drainage facilities
(Improvements) that conform to CITY and Caltrans specifications at
SONIC's sole cost and expense and obtain an encroachment permit
from the State of California and submit plans for review and approval
of CITY Engineer and the State of California prior to commencing
construction said construction shall not commence until CITY has
informed SONIC in writing of the approval of the California
Transportation Commission of the cooperative agreement;
2.5 Dedicate additional right-of-way as required for a standard expanded
intersection on the frontage of the Sonic Parcel;
2.6 Relocate all utilities as required by CITY for construction of the
Improvements to both the New Sump Parcel and the Sonic Parcel at
SONIC's sole cost and expense;
2.7 soNIC shall pay all repair and maintenance costs on the
Improvements until such time as Rosedale Highway is relinquished
to the CITY from the State of California. After the relinquishment of
Rosedale Highway to CITY, CITY shall assume the obligation of
repair and maintenance on the Improvements.
2.8 SONIC shall, upon completion of the Improvements, dedicate the
same to CITY;
2.9 Bond for all construction and maintenance required of SONIC with
companies and in a form acceptable to CITY. SONIC shall obtain
CITY's written acceptance of the bonds prior to commencing any
construction on the Improvements.
2.10 SONIC shall comply with any and all Caltrans or State of California
orders or requirements to CITY relating to or arising from this
Agreement.
2.11 SONIC shall cause to be recorded at the Kern County Hall of Records
a covenant disclosing the existence of this Agreement in a form
acceptable to the CITY. Said covenant shall be recorded within thirty
(30) days of the 'execution of this Agreement.
,~,greement ToPayAIICosts
$:~PUBWORK$~.GR$~SoaicAgr.d~2.wlxIC°nsumerS~e~=eC°l'P°rationDBAS°~ici~urger ~ ~
Page 3 of 12 Pages --
-~dl 10, 1~ -' ~
ORIGINAL
2.12 SONIC shall provide a $10,000 Letter of Credit to secure payment of
the maintenance on the improved sump and drainage facilities in a
form and amount acceptable to the CITY's Finance Director. Said
Letter of Credit shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the
execution of this Agreement. SONIC shall annually pay the
documented maintenance cost of the sump and Improvements.
Failure to pay within thirty (30) days will cause the CITY to collect
against the Letter of Credit.
2.13 SONIC shall, at its own sole expense, provide all soil reports and all
environmental documentation.
3. NO CO,iT TO CITY. SONIC understands and agrees CITY shall bear no
cost of any type or kind relating to or growing out of this Agreement with the sole exception
of future maintenance cost on the sump. All fees, costs, taxes, and charges of every type,
kind and nature, except maintenance of the sump after the relinquishment of Rosedale
Highway, shall be born solely by SONIC.
4. MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION. The Improvements shall be installed and
constructed in accordance with all of the following:
4.1 Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
4.2 The California Subdivision Map Act.
4.3 Approved plans and specifications.
4.4 Adopted City Standards,
4.5 All Caltrans requirements.
4.6 Good engineering practices and workmanlike manner.
5. TIME FOR COMPLETION. All of said Improvements shall be completed in
full in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and to the satisfaction of the CITY
Engineer within one (1) year from the date of approval of this Agreement or any extension
of said completion date granted by the CITY Engineer.
6. INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.
6.1 All Improvements shall be subject to inspection by the CITY Engineer
or his designee and shall be completed to his satisfaction.
6.2 When all of the required Improvements have been satisfactorily
completed, upon written application of SONIC, the CITY Engineer or his designee shall
inspect and approve the same within a reasonable time and shall file his certificate
showing the date of inspection and approval and he shall make his order accepting or
approving the Improvements.
Agreement ToPayAIICosts
ConsumerSclenceCol3)matl~lDJ~.Sonl~rger 4 of 12
S :'~PUBWOIRKS ~ R$~kT, Agt',d r2 .wlxl
-~,~ ~0, ~ -- Page Pages --
I.- rn
ORIGINAL
6.3 Such order of acceptance or approval made by the CITY Engineer
shall be deemed operative from the time of the CITY Engineer's or his designee's approval
of improvements as shown in his said certificate.
6.4 Except as otherwise provided, SONIC and its surety shall be deemed
released from liability for damage or injury to such work as accepted by CITY from and
after the time said order is operative. However, the foregoing provision shall not relieve
SONIC or its surety from any damage or injury to such improvements or any maintenance
required therefor arising from any work undertaken by SONIC or its surety, or as may
necessarily be done by the CITY in the performance of any part of the required
Improvements as a result of any default in the performance of this Agreement by SONIC
or its surety or arising from any willful act or negligent act or omission of SONIC or its
surety or their contractors, agents or employees, or arising from defective work or labor
done or defective materials furnished in the performance of this Agreement.
7. GUARANTEE AGAINST DEFECTS. SONIC hereby guarantees all features
of the Improvements for a period of one (1) year following recordation of a notice of
completion on public Improvements, against defective work or labor done, or defective
material furnished, in the performance of this Agreement'; and SONIC agrees to correct,
repair or replace promptly when demanded by the CITY, all such defective work or labor
done, or defective materials furnished, as may be discovered within such one (1) year
period and reported to the CITY Engineer. SONIC shall also pay for all repair and
maintenance of the Improvements until the State of California relinquishes Rosedale
Highway to the City of Bakersfield;
8. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY.
8.1 This Agreement shall be secured by good and sufficient security,
which shall be filed with the CITY prior to approval of improvement plans by the CITY
Engineer. This improvement security does not include the Letter of Credit guaranteeing
payment of sump maintenance expenses. The payment of sump maintenance expenses
is to be handled separate from the improvement security. Such improvement security shall
consist-of either (1) a corporate surety's faithful performance bond and bond for the
security of laborers and material men or (2) a deposit of cash or negotiable bonds, or (3)
an irrevocable instrument of credit; each of which is subject to the requirements of Section
16.32.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. The form of all documents relating to such
security shall be subject to approval by the CITY Attorney. The corporate surety bonds
shall conform substantially with the form set forth in Sections 66499.1 and 66499.2 of the
Map Act. The estimated cost of the various features of improvements, as shown on the
attached Engineer's Bond estimate, Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated as
though fully set forth herein, shall be used, if applicable, as the basis for the reduction of
security in connection with the CITY Engineer's acceptance or approval of any portion of
the Improvements, or any unit thereof.
Consurne~cienceC, orporatlon~nicBu~'g~ ~
S:'~=UBWOf~KS~GRS~Sonic~r.dr2.wIxl I--- rn
..~,, lo. ~e~ -- Page 5 of 12 Pages --. ;3 ~
ORIGINAL
8.2 Said improvement security shall be in the amount of one hundred
percent (100%) of the total estimated cost of the Improvements, conditioned upon the
faithful performance of the Agreement for the full and timely completion of the
Improvements in accordance with this Agreement.
8.3 Except as provided in Section 16.32.040 B. of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code, additional improvement security shall also be provided in an amount of
fifty percent (50%) of the total ~estimated cost of the Improvements, securing payment to
the contractor, his subcontractors and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or
materials to them for the work.
8.4 Additional improvement security shall' also be provided in an amount
of ten percent (10%) of the total estimated cost of the Improvements, to be provided prior
to CITY acceptance of the Improvements, guaranteeing and warranting for a period of one
(1) year following recordation of a notice of completion on public improvements, all
improvements against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished.
9. REDUCTION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY.
9.1 Improvement security may be reduced on order of the CITY Engineer
upon completion of a phase of work which is operational and usable as a public
improvement.
9.2 Improvement security for payment to the contractor, or any of his
subcontractors or any person renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them
for the improvements may, sixty (60) days after recordation of a notice of comPletion, be
reduced to an amount not less than the total of all claims on which an actiOn or stop notice
has been filed and notice thereof given in writing to the CITY, and if no such action or stop
notice is filed, such improvement security may be released in full.
9.3 The secudty identified in section 8, Improvement Security shall
be finally released to the SONIC one (1) year following the recordation of a Notice of
Completion and Acceptance by the CITY, provided that no defective work or labor done
or defective materials furnished in the performance of the work has been discovered within
such one (1) year period and reported in writing to CITY, and further provided that no
damage has been done to the Improvement work after its approval by any other work
undertaken by the SONIC.
9.4 In the event defective work, labor or materials has been discovered
or damage to the Improvements has resulted from SONIC's other work, the security shall
be released upon satisfactory repair or replacement of the defective or damaged
Improvements, as determined by CITY, or after expiration of the one (1) year specified
above, whichever occurs later.
Agreement ToPayAIICosts
ConsumerSciem=eCorporaflonOaA~onk:Burger
$ :~=UBWORK$~AGRS~S~nic, Ag r ,dr2 .wlxl
-~,~ lo. ~ -- Page 6 of 12 Pages --
0RIG~NAL
10. COMPLETION OF SURETY OR CITY.
10.1 If the CITY Engineer, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion,
determines:
10.1.1 That SONIC has failed to properly and fully complete all
of the work of Improvement in accordance with this
Agreement, and within the time, or any extension of
time, provided herein; or
10.1.2 That SONIC has failed or neglected to begin the work,
or any feature of the work, within a time which will
reasonably allow its completion within the time, or any
extension of time, provided in this Agreement; or
10.1.3 That SONIC has abandoned any of the work; or
10.1.4 THAT SONIC, if he shall be an individual, has been
declared incompetent or placed under the care of a
guardian or conservator, or has disappeared; or
10.1.5 That SONIC has filed a petition in bankruptcy or has
been declared bankrupt;
then the CITY Engineer may give SONIC and its surety fourteen (14) days written notice
to proceed with the work, without prejudice to any other remedy the CITY may have in law
or equity.
10.2 If the surety shall proceed with the work, the surety shall be subject
to all of the provisions of this Agreement as in the case of SONIC.
10.3 If SONIC or its surety shall fail or neglect to proceed with the work
diligently and in good faith in accordance with this Agreement after such notice has been
given, within seven (7) days after such notice has been given the CITY may, at its sole
option and without prejudice to any other remedy, provide the necessary supervision,
equipment, materials and labor as it may determine necessary to undertake and complete
the work of improvement or any part thereof in the manner required by this Agreement, by
independent contract or by CITY forces, all for the account and at the expense of SONIC,
and SONIC and its surety shall be liable to the CITY and shall pay the CITY, on demand,
any expenses incurred by the CITY in the course thereof.
11. NO GUARANTEE. CITY does not guarantee Caltrans will perform any act
or transfer any property as a result of this Agreement, or any agreement mentioned in this
contract. CITY is not required and does not agree to Undertake any steps to cause
,~greement ToPayAllCosts
ConsumerSelenceCorp~l~onl::~A~onic~rger ..~ %~ J(~'~13
S:~UBWORKS~,GR$~Sonic~r.d~2.w~l ~ -,~
-~ ~o. 1~ -- Page 7 of 12 Pages --
OR~GI~L
Caltrans to perform any act or to take any actions whatsoever as a result of this Agreement
or any agreement mentioned in this contract. In the event Caltrans fails to transfer the
Existing Parcel and Improvements as contemplated within this Agreement, this Agreement
shall never become operational and no duties or obligations will be imposed upon either
CITY or SONIC.
12, INSPECTION OF PROPERTY. SONIC has inspected all property involved
in this Agreement and is not relying on any CITY representation concerning the parcels.
13. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK OR SERVICES. The acceptance of work or
services, or payment for work or services, by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any
provisions of this Agreement.
14. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. SONIC shall maintain accurate accounting
records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in Performance of
this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at SONIC's office during
the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of the
completion of SONIC's development, and said records shall be made available to CITY
representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours.
15, ~e~zl~l..~. This Agreement shall not be assigned by any party, or any
party substituted, without prior written consent of all the parties.
16. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure
to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs,
administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
17. CQMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. SONIC shall, at SONIC's sole cost,
comply with all of the requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in
force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully
observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all Municipal
ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations now in force or which may
hereafter be in force.
t8. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this Agreement
represents and warrants they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement
on behalf of the corporation or organization, if any, named herein and this Agreement is
binding upon said corporation or organization in accordance with its terms.
19. ~J_~]~t. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product
of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement.
Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this
Agreement.
ConsumerSciem:eCorporafiol~DaASonicBurger .~. ~.
S:~LiB1NORKS~AGRS~Seni~r.d~2.wpd . ~.. rn
-,~orlll0, 1898 -- Page 8 of 12 Pages ~3 ~
ORIGINAL
20. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or
specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms,
conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which
reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether
or not actually attached.
21. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out
of, this Agreement shall be instituted in Kern County, California.
22. ~. SONIC shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its
officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of
action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or
judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by
SONIC, $ONIC's employees, agents or independent contractors or companies in the
performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement
whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except as limited by
California Civil Code section 2782.
23. II~. In addition to any other insurance or bond required under by
this Agreement, the SONIC shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement
the following types and limits of insurance ("basic insurance requirements" herein):
23.1 Automobile liability_ insurance, providing coverage on an
occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more
persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits of not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and the policy
shall:
23.1.1 Provide coverage for owned, non-owned and hired
autos.
23.1.2 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of
this Agreement.
23.2 Droad form commercial aeneral liabili~ insurance, providing
coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of
one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and
the policy shall:
23.2.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of
this Agreement.
Agreement ToPayNICosls
ConsumerScienceCorporalionDBASoni,~Burge~ ~ ~J~,,~..~
S:~PUBWORKS~.GRS~SonlcAgr.dr2.wlxl Page 9 of 12 Pages - '-'
--April 10, 1998 --
ORIGINAL
23.2.2 Contain an additional insured endorsement in favor of
the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents,
employees and designated volunteers.
23.3 Workers' comDensation insurance with statutory limits and
employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident; and the policy shall contain a
waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of the CITY, its mayor,
council, officers, agents, employees and designated volunteers.
All policies required of SONIC shall be primary insurance as to the CITY, its mayor,
council, officers, agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and
designated volunteers shall be excess of the SONIC's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VlI. Any
deductibles, self-insured retentions or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types
of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance rated below Bests' A:VII,
must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and approved by the CITY in writing.
All policies shall contain an endorsement providing the CITY with thirty (30) days written
notice of cancellation or material change in policy language or terms. All policies shall
provide there shall be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any
policy.
The insurance required hereunder shall be maintained until all work required to be
performed by this Agreement is satisfactorily completed as evidenced by written
acceptance by the CITY.
SONIC shall furnish the City Risk Manager with a certificate of insurance and required
endorsements evidencing the insurance required. The CITY may withdraw its offer of
contract or cancel this contract if certificates of insurance and endorsements required have
not been provided prior to the execution of this Agreement.
Unless otherwise approved by the CITY, if any part of the work under this Agreement is
subcontracted, the "basic insurance requirements" set forth above shall be provided by,
or on behalf of, all subcontractors even if the CITY has approved lesser insurance
requirements for SONIC.
24. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. All prior agreements between the parties
are incorporated in this Agreement which constitutes the entire agreement. Its terms are
intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms
as are included herein and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement
or contemporaneous oral agreement. The parties further intend this Agreement constitutes
the complete and exclusive statement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever
may be introduced in any judicial or arbitration proceeding involving this Agreement. This
Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the CITY Council and signed by
all the parties.
25. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. CITY shall not become or be deemed a
partner or joint venturer with SONIC or associate in any such relationship with SONIC by
reason of the provisions of this Agreement. SONIC shall not for any purpose be
considered an agent, officer or employee of CITY.
26. NON-INTEREST. No officer or employee of the CITY shall hold any
interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
27. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and
shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon
actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be
addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California, 93301
SONIC: CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION
dba SONIC BURGER
~9'1 Pine View Drive
Bakersfieldr California 93307
28. TAX NUMBERS.
"SONIC's" Federal Tax Identification No. 77-0292908
"SONIC" is a corporation? Yes x No
(Please check one.)
29. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon execution and terminate upon
the deeding of Rosedale Highway from Caltrans to the CITY.
30. TIME. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
Agreement ToPayNICosts
Consumer-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r~=lem=eCo~x)ratim~ [:3~ASo~lcBurger
S:~PUBWORKSV~GR$~o~ir~r.dr2.Y4xl
~ ~o, 1~ -- Page 11 of 12 Pages -
ORIGINAL
31. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another
a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce
such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
32. BROKERS AND FINDERS. The parties acknowledge and represent that
no broker or finder has been used in connection with this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed, the day and year first-above written.
"ClT~' "SONIC"
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CONSUMER SCIENCE CORPORATION
dba SONIC BURGER
Mayor Title: ,
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney
COUNTERSIGNED: ~
ADD:dlr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" and "B"
,~greement ToPayNICosts
ConsumerScieneeCorpomt~nDBASonicBurger I::) ,,~ 12of 12 o,,.. __ ~'~'
S:~PUBWORKS~GRS~SonicAgr.dr2.WlXl
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE DATE: 5/14/98
SONIC DRIVE INN, ROSEDALE
AT EL TORO SITE
SUMP IMPROVEMENTS (CAL TRANS)
ITEM ESTIMATE UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY COST COST
I. SITE GRADING:
1. Sump Grading
· Excavate Sump 6262 c.y. $8.00 $50,096.00
TOTAL GRADING: $50,096.00
II. STORM DRAIN:
1. 24" Storm Drain (R.C.P.) 451 I.f. $42.00 $18,942.00
2. Storm Drain Manhole 1 ea. $2,200.00 $2,200.00
3. Catch Basin 2 ea. $3,000.00 $6,000.00
4. Standard Outlet Structure i ea. $1,500.00 $1,500.00
TOTAL STORM DRAIN: $28,642.00
III. MISCELLANEOUS:
1. 6' Chain Link Fence
(Rdwd. Slats/Cone. Ftg.)
(Including Gates) 722 l.f. $24.00 $17,328.00
2. Site Landscaping 1 ea. L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000.00
(El Toro Drive)
3. Civil Engineering 1 ea. L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000.00
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS: $32,328.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $111,066.00
CONTINGENCY 20% $22,213.20
TOTAL $133,279.20
NOTE:
This estimate is issued for the purpose of bonding for improvements associated with the construction
of a drainage stunp for Cai-Trans. No development of surrounding properties is included. Street
improvements will be included in the development of the property to the north.
Landscaping is for the El Toro Frontage.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
- FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~~~......------~
DATE: October 26, 1999
SUBJECT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1998-1999
FREEWAY UPDATES
Enclosed are copies of Agenda Summary Reports relating to Freeway Updates:
Agenda Summary Reports
Urban Development Committee Meetings
1999 1998
Monday, September 27, 1999 Monday, September 28, 1998
Monday, August 30, 1999 Thursday, August 20, 1998
Monday, July 12, 1999 Wednesday, June 17, 1998
Monday, May 10, 1999 Wednesday, April 23, 1998
Monday, April 5, 1999 Wednesday, March 4, 1998
Monday, March 1, 1999 Wednesday, February 4, 1998
Wednesday, February 17, 1999 Wednesday, January 7, 1998
Please let me know if additional information is needed.
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
[ - Randy Rowles, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, September 27,1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:15 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard
2. ADOPT AUGUST 30, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Pauline Larwood spoke regarding the request she made at the joint City Council/County
Supervisors meeting regarding creating a joint city/county committee to review development
standards within the 2010 General Plan boundaries. It was explained that the City Council had
not yet taken any action to respond to her request and that the item could be addressed directly
by the Council or possibly referred to a Committee to review her request.
DRAFT
URBAN I~EVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, September 27, 1999
Page -:2-
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Metropolitan Bakersfield freeway status report
Mai'ion Shaw gave a bdef update on the status of freeways in metropolitan Bakersfield. She
provided a memo that was requested regarding Centennial Corridor land acquisition by the state.
Raul Rojas gave a bdef update on the Kern River freeway status. He indicated that staff has
been discussing a potential solution to the connection of the Kern River freeway to Highway 99
with CalTrans. Ron Brummett indicated that CalTrans is preparing cost estimates for Kern COG
for each of the mute alternatives for the Kern River Freeway. A summary memo with information
on the Century freeway was also distributed in response to a previous Committee request. Staff
indicated that a more detailed report by the California State Auditor on the Century Freeway was
available upon request.
B. Staff report regarding transfer of development rights
Jack Hardisty distributed a memo and gave a presentation in the use of transfer of development
· rights O'DR) for potential water recharge areas to the Committee. He indicated that such
programs may be difficult to implement due to administrative cost and legal liability issues. It
was explained that the purchase of easements, options on property or outright purchase could
possibly be more cost effective that a TDR program. He explained that Planning Director Stan
Grady would be giving the City Council a workshop of broader scope on TDR programs and
additional information would be provided at that time.
C. Staff report regarding Charrette Process
Jack Hardisty gave a presentation on the Charrette process a'nd provided the Committee with
a handbook on the process as well as some examples of how it has been used by other
communities. Councilmember Rowles indicated that he and staff had met with representatives
from the local chapter of the Amedcan Institute of Architects who are interested in assisting with
this process. Councilmember Rowles asked that Mr. Hardisty research the cost of a facilitator
should the City want to consider using the Charrette process and bdng that information back to
the Committee.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding existing City ordinances
·relating to manufactured homes
Jack Hardisty gave a presentation regarding the regulation of manufactured homes within the
city. He indicated that the state generally regulates manufactured homes, with the city having
limited regulatory authority. He explained that the City could limit the use of manufactured
homes more that 10 years old on R-1 lots should the Council choose to. However, there could
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, September 27, 1999
Page -3-.
be issues of housing affordability if this change were 'made. The Committee asked that staff
provide additional information regarding manufactured homes and bdng this item back for further
discussion.
B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding standards for billboards
bordering City/County areas
Staff distributed a comparison of city and county standards for billboards. Upon review the
committee requested that staff draft a letter for City Council action to be sent to the Board of
Supervisors requesting that the City and County work together to have consistent standards for
billboards within the metro Bakersfield area. This would be in keeping with the goal of having
consistent planning and development standards within the metropolitan area.
C. Set next meeting
The next meeting was set for October 25, 1999.
7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Chief Assistant City Attorney Bob Shed'y,
Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Water
Resources Mar~ager Gene Bogart; Civil Engineer Madan Shaw; Finance Director
Gregory Klimko; and Planning Director Stan Grady.
Public: Ron Brummett, Kem COG; Roger Mclntosh, Martin-Mclntosh; Renee Nelson;
Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition; and Chuck Feer, KERO - TV 23.
s:John\UrbanDev\UD99sept27summary.wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Urban Development Committee
~'ROM: Raul M. Rojas, Putdic Works Director
DATE: September 27, 1999
SUBJECT: Century Freeway
At the last Urban Development Committee meeting, a question was raised regarding the Century Freeway
and some problems associated with it. Please find attached for your information a copy of the executive
summary of the California State Auditor's report number 99113, "Department of Transportation:
Disregard!ng Early Warnings Has Caused Millions of Dollars to Be Spent Correcting Century Freeway
Design Flaws".
The Century Freeway has had problems with rising groundwater in a segment of the freeway that was
constructed below ground level (about 15 - 20'). This segment crosses a water recharge area. This has
caused some fairly serious problems with the pavement and the drainage system. CaiTrans has spent $22
million in emergency repairs and plans to spend another $45 million for permanent repairs to the drainage
system.
Evidently, CalTrans agreed to extend the lowered section of the freeway across this water recharge area,
but did not sufficiently design the freeway for those conditions. The State Auditor has made some
recommendations for both this specific project and all future projects designed to prevent this from
happening again. The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and CalTrans has'agreed ii, ith the
Grades have not Yet been set for the segment of the'Kern River Freeway crossing` the. water recha~-i~'~}?~rea.
G:~GRoUpDAT~Memo'~ 1999~UrbDevCenmryFrceway.wpd
RMR:mln
ac: · Readin8 File
Pm. iect File
Jact~ue~ R. La Rochelle
Marian P. Shaw
!':!TV MAI"~,.GF_.R'$ nc-:'
B A K E R S F I E L D I .... ..: ....
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Urban Development Committee
~.,~ Raul M. Rojas: Public Works Director
FROM:
DATE: September 21, 1999
SUBJECT: Centennial Corridor Property Acquisition Update
To date, the City has acquired nearly 45 acres of land within the City's adopted Specific Plan Line.
Revenue for these purchases has come from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee
prograln. Another 40 acres of land has been rescued through the subdivision mapping process. This
properly has already been appraised in its pre-development condition comistent with State law and will be
purchased at a later date.
The City has also requested that CalTrans pursue an early purchase of property which is outside the City's
currently adopted specific plan line but which will fall within the Siate's proposed plan line. The property
at the southwest comer of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road was being processed through the City for a Site
Plan Review for a large retail store. Because of the property's status of "immanent development", CalTrans
may be able to utilize the provisiom of the Eaves Bill to start the early acquisition of the property prior to
construction of any improvements, thereby realizing a considerable savings.
California State Auditor:Bureau of State Audits
Summary. of Report Number 99113 - August 1999
Department of Transportation:
Disregarding Early Warnings Has Caused Millions of Dollars to Be Spent Correcting
Century Freeway Design Flaws
RESULTS IN BRIEF
After .nearly 30 years of controversy, court injunctions, and delays, the California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) opened the Century Freeway in Los Angeles County in October 1993. In
March 1995, problems again arose for the freeway when, less than two years after the opening, CalTrans
discovered cracking and sunken sections in the shoulder areas of the freeway that it had constructed
below m'ound level. Although it originally ·thought the problems involved maintenance issues, by
J-anuar~ 1996 CalTrans became aware that matters were far worse: it had not designed the lowered
section of the freeway to compensate sufficiently for the effects of risin~ .,o-roundwater beneath t_h_!_b~
pav._..__ement._
During thc planning, design, and construction phases for the Century Freeway, CalTrans disregarded
· warning signs that could have prevented design flaws in the freeway's 3.5-mile lowered section. Most
significantly, CalTrans disregarded the 1968 recommendation of its staff to test extensively the soils and
the groundwater levels in the area planned for the lowered section, even when it designed the modified
storm-drain system for the freeway in 1973. Further, in late 1981, CalTrans agreed to extend the length
of the lowered section of the freeway west toward the Los Angeles River, and the department apparently
desi_o-ned this extension without adequate research and consideration, such as additional testing of the
soil 7md groundwater conditions in the area. If CalTrans had performed these tests, it could have realized
the rising groundwater would threaten the freeway as designed, and it could have taken appropriate steps
early in the project.
CalTrans has documents from 1987 showing that groundwater levels had risen substantially between
1985 and 1987 in the area planned for the below ground level section of the freeway. However, because
this analysis was for determining bridge foundations, it was not sent to the district unit designing the
lowered section. During construction of the drain system for thc lowered section in Jul.,,' 1990, CalTrans
installed four dewatering wells because it was encountering a lot of water.. The ground was so wet that
CalTrans halted construction for more than six weeks. Another six years passed before CalTrans realized
it had a serious groundwater problem.
While CalTrans was struggling to move forward with the Century Freeway project, another agency was
taking action that was to have important consequences for the freeway. The freeway crosses over two
groundwater basins. By the 1950s, the groundwater of these basins had been overpumped, reducing
available groundwater supplies while demand for groundwater was increasing. As part of the effort to
restore the health of the groundwater basins, a water replenishment district was established in 1959 to
return water to the basins. By early 1997, the groundwater levels had increased over 30 feet. Although
the groundwater replenishment involves all the geological layers, those layers closest to the surface,
which are about 25 feet below grade, are the ones affecting the lowered section of the Century Freeway.
CalTrans may have pushed ahead without farther analyzing groundwater conditions because it was
under some pressure to begin construction of the freeway after the 1981 lifting of a court injunction that
had halted progress for many years. To qualify for federal highway funding for this project, CalTrans
had to meet certain construction deadlines.
In January 1996, once CalTrans acknowledged that the cracking and sinking were more than ongoing
maintenance problems, it spent $22 million in emergency repairs and planned to use another 545 million
for permanent repairs to the drainage system. CalTrans engaged both in-house engineers and outside
consultants from academia and private practice to evaluate the underlying causes of the problems and
develop options to resolve them.
9 20 99 12:49 p.x
_ of 2
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
_(~~ Randy Rowles, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
Staff: John W, Stinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, August 30,1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:15 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch and Mike Maggard
2. ADOPT JULY 12, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Update on current status of Bakersfield area freeway projects - Rojas
Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave an update on various freeway projects. He
indicated the resurfacing of highway 178 would be finished in about a month according
to Caltrans. There was a discussion about the Kern River Freeway environmental
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, August 30, 1999
Page -2-
assessment continuing and possible acquisition of land for right-of-way by Caltrans.
Councilmember Couch requested a memo from Public Works regarding Caltrans freeing
up funds for these purchases. Gene Bogart gave an update on the recharge test ponds.
Councilmember Couch also requested Development Services staff prepare a report on
the transfer of development rights, including a possible program for the protection of
water recharge areas.
Robyn Cady, representing the California Trucking Association expressed concerns
regarding the safety and environmental impacts of the proposed Kern River Freeway.
She cited recent problems with the Century Freeway in Los Angeles as an example of
poor highway planning. Staff was asked to prepare a summary of issues involving the
Century Freeway for background information.
B. Discussion of possible incentives to encourage planting of trees in the downtown
area - Stinson
There was a discussion regarding the planting of trees in the downtown. Ruth Simonson
from the Downtown Business .and Property Owners Association (DBA) spoke regarding
the need for an Urban Forestry Plan and an Urban Forestry Planner. Cathy Butler from
the DBA commented that there needed to be a comprehensive and uniform process for
planting and maintaining trees that ensures conformity in the downtown. She said it
would be helpful to downtown businesses if there were a program similar to the
Unreinforced Masonry assistance program to provide funding for additional tree
improvements. Ms. Simonson provided the committee a brief memorandum regarding
the Urban Forestry Plan and some publications regarding urban forestry. Staff provided
the committee with cost information to provide a typical tree in the downtown including
the cost of the tree, grate and irrigation.
Rick Hewett of the Tree Foundation of Kern provided a "50 Year Strategic P/an for Kern
Community Forests." Staff indicated that it was proceeding with expanding the
landscaping of downtown beyond Chester Avenue to other adjacent streets such as 18~h
Street which is in the 1999-00 budget. -Staff is also looking for grant funding to further
expand the effort. A major concern is the need to have areas in.maintenance districts
to provide funding for ongoing maintenance of the trees. The city needs the support of
property owners to be added to the maintenance district. It was suggeSted that staff
investigate a program similar to the refuse program, which is done by agreement with the
DBA for the watering and maintenance of trees. The Committee requested that staff
provide a summary of the 3rd party relationship with the DBA regarding providing refuse
services, a 5 year plan for planting trees in the downtown, the cost of a maintenance
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, August 30, 1999
Page -3-
district for the area, and to .contact the DBA and Tree Foundation regarding their interest
in participating in options for planting and/or maintaining trees in the downtown. This
report is to be brought back to the Committee at their next meeting.
C. Discussion of Transportation Sales Tax Measure - Rojas
Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave a brief overview on the transportation sales tax
survey done by the Kern Transportation Foundation. Preliminary results indicate
insufficient countywide support for additional sales taxes for road maintenance or
construction. The final report should be prepared within the next month and when it is
available, it will be brought back to the Committee for further discussion.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Transportation Development Fund Projects - Rojas
Marion Shaw gave a brief overview of the project list and reviewed the list with the
Committee. Councilmember Couch asked about deferring the signal project at Hageman
and Patton to a later time on the schedule. Staff will review the accident records for that
intersection and make the change to delay it if appropriate. It was discussed that the list
of projects must be mutually reviewed and approved by both the City and County. City
and County staffs will be meeting to discuss projects directly affecting both agencies in
the next week or so. The list of projects will be reviewed with the Building Industry
Association and brought back at the next Committee meeting for review prior to
recommendation to the City Council for approval.
B. Discussion about Downtown Park and Square - Tandy
The Committee had a discussion regarding the Council goal of developing a downtown
park and square. Councilmember Rowles discussed the charette process and suggested
that it could be useful to identify the image the public would desire for the downtown. He
requested that Mr. Hardisty explore the costs for such a process and bring back
information at the next Committee meeting. Councilmember Couch requested
information from staff on the use of transfer of development rights in the downtown, the
process and forms of property acquisition in the identification of specific sites and that
staff investigate the charette process as recommended by Councilmember Rowles. City
Manager Tandy discussed the complexities of attracting developers to a potential
downtown project including potential site location and economic concerns. The
Committee also discussed potential incentives to encourage downtown development.
The Committee will continue discussion of this issue at future meetings.
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, August 30, 1999
Page -4-
C. Set Next Meeting Date
The next meeting was set for September 27, 1999.
7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City
Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development. Services
Director Jack Hardisty, Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Water
Resources Manager Gene Bogart; Stan Ford, Parks and Recreation Director; Civil
Engineer Marian Shaw; Water Resources Director Florn Core; Water Department
Engineer Tera Entenman.
Public: Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Michael Green, Reporter- The Bakersfield
Californian; Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County; John
Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; Robyn Cady, Chairman, Kern Unit of the
California Trucking Association; Ray Hewett, Tree Foundation of Kern; Cathy
Butler and Ruth Simonson, Downtown Business Association; and Roger Mclntosh.
s:John\UrbanDev\UD99aug30summary.wpd
Freeway Status Update
August 30, 1999
SR 178 Resurfacing
Repaving from Q St. to Oswell St.
· I 1/2" overlay
· paving will start today
· will be complete in about one month
· at least one lane will be open each way at all times; most of the work will be done at
night
SR 58 Alternate (Centennial Freeway)
· CalTrans has met with FHWA re: biological opinion from Fish and Wildlife - should be
getting a revised opinion soon
· still expecting the EIR to be complete in November 2000 with plan line adoption and
right-of-way acquisition to follow soon thereafter
· CalTrans working on acquiring the parcel at the southwest corner of Brimhall and Coffee
- prospects look very good that the parcel will be acquired
· Kern Water Bank Authority and Kern COG mutually signed a position paper in July
regarding the west end of the freeway and KWBA's facility recommending that CalTrans
go north of the facility or parallel Stockdale
C:\\\'INl)OWS\TEMP\gwprint\Freewayu.wpd
DRAFT
B A K E'R S F I E L D
Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard
........ AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, July 12, 1999
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:15 p.m.
Present:Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; leaving at 3:07
Councilmember Mike Maggard
Councilmember David Couch arrived at 1:20 p.m.
(Voted on first item heard, 5B)
Planning Commissioners Jeff Tkac, Chair; Stephen Boyle, and
Marti Kemper
2. ADOPT MAY 10, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Renee Nelson provided an announcement for the 1999 Air Quality Symposium presented
by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on September 15 and 16. She
requested that the City Council receive a copy of the announcement. (Attached)
FIL£ COPY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, July 12, 1999
Page -2-
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Update on current status of Bakersfield area freeway projects
Jack LaRochelle gave an update on current freeway projects. He indicated we are
waiting for CaiTrans to complete the analysis of the freeway 58 at 99 interchange and
that there should be a report on the status of their recommendation at the next committee
meeting. Gene Bog_art ga~ve,an update on the study of the recharge areas Potentially
affected 'by the Kern River freeway. Soil samples are being analyzed and percolation
tests are being conducted for a 60-day period to develop strategies to address potential
mitigation that may be required. Staff is continuing to work with interested parties on this
issue. There was a question regarding sewer lines in the area that also could be affected
by the freeway. Public Works Director Rojas responded that the sewer lines would be
double lined as part of any mitigation, similar to the existing river crossing of these lines.
There was also discussion of developing a' map of Water recharge areas within the city
and developing ways to protect them from development. There were also comments
made by Ron Brummett from Kern COG about collection of additional informatiOn
regarding issues related to the refinery property along the proposed freeway route.
B. Review of proposed amendment to the sign ordinance regarding off-
premises directional signs
Jack Hardisty provided a memo regarding discussions with Mr. Rosenlieb and including
recommendations to address the sign issue involving Mr. Rosenlieb's client. Also
presented was a response by Mr. Rosenlieb re. concerns with staff's recommendations.
There was discussion by the committee regarding a desire to address the issue of these
types of unique non-conforming signs. Staff will report back to the Council a
recommendation to send back to the Planning Commission a proposed amendment to
the ordinance regarding the abatement of non-conforming signs.
C. Update on current status of alternatives for beautification of entrances to
the City
Staff gave. a brief update on progress regarding entry signs to the city. Discussions with
the Arts Council are continuing and input from other groups is being solicited regarding
possible types and locations of signs. Public input on proposed sign styles was collected
via the city web site. Approximately 15 comments were received with no one style
receiving a clear majority of votes. Staff will continue to work with these groups.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, July 12, 1999
Page -3-
D. Discussion-of possible incentives to encourage planting of trees in the
downtown area
This item was deferred until the next meeting.
E. Discussion of Transportation Sales Tax Measure
This item. was de_f_err_ed until_the next meeting._
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of improvements to downtown parking including possible
cooperative efforts to provide additional bus services for area parking lots
A brief presentation was made by city staff and Bill 'Wilbanks from the' County
Administrative Office regarding the possibility of bus service for the parking areas
adjacent .to the City and County government buildings, the Convention Center and
Centennial Garden Arena. Staff has had preliminary discussions with the County and
GET to explore possible routes and to analyze the costs of such a service. Research
and discussions with the other agencies will continue.
B. Review of list of sites qualified for Transportation Development Funds
This item was deferred until the next meeting.
C. Joint meeting with Planning Commission Committee to review draft
ordinance regarding Planning Commission appointments
The Urban Development Committee met jointly with a committee from the Planning.
Commission to receive comments regarding concerns previously expressed by Planning
Commissioners regarding the proposed ordinance. Planning Commissioner comments
focused on concerns regarding the nomination of individual Commissioners by individual
Councilmembers. They were concerned with the appearance to the public that this
method of appointment would politicize the Planning Commission. They expressed that
open application by city residents to serve on the Commission should continue. They
indicated the public's perception of the Planning Commission is that of an independent
body and linking appointments to an individual Councilmember could change that
perception. There were differing opinions stated by members of the Urban Development
Committee in response to the stated concerns. There was discussion that there may be
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, July 12, 1999
Page -4-
two distinct issues, one involving the nomination procedure and another regarding the
process of voting for Commissioners. The Committee did not reach a consensus
regarding this issue and recommended that the proposed ordinance prepared by the City
Attorney which incorporated with the comments from the June 30~' City Council meeting
be returned to the City Council at the July 21't meeting along with the comments of the
Planning Commissioners for further Council deliberation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 4:05 p.m. - ............. -
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City
Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development Services
Director.Jack Hardisty, Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Water
Resources Manager Gene Bogart; Engineering Services Manager Jack
LaRochelle; Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Parks Supervisor Ed Lazaroti.
Public: Jim Johnson, Arts Council of Kern; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth
Coalition; Renee Nelson; Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Jay
Rosenlieb on behalf of Good Nite Inns; Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Dennis
Bainbridge, C.L.E.A.N.; Michael Green, Reporter- The Bakersfield Californian;
and Bill Wilbanks, Kern County General Services
s:John\UrbanDev~UD99ju112summary.wpd
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
.//~~_..~ Randy Rowles, Chair
Alan. S,
City I~a~aX(~ David Couch
Staff: John W. Stin/~or~l,J / Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, May 10, 1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:25 p-re.
Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard
2. ADOPT APRIL 5, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Raul Rojas and Jack LaRochelle gave the Committee a brief report on freeways. They
discussed the concerns expressed by the public and local water agencies regarding the
Kern River freeway and what staff was doing to address them.
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEF
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, May 10, 1999
Page -2-
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. JAY ROSENLIEB LETTER OF REQUEST REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE
Jack Hardisty gave a brief presentation of the issue regarding the Good Nite Inn sign
located on Rosedale Highway and changes to the City's sign ordinance proposed by
Mr. Rosenlieb, their representative. There was discussion about offsite signage and the
need for an address change to properly reflect the location of the business for the public
and for public safety responders. '.The Committee recommended that staff work with
Mr. Rosenlieb and his client to try and work out a solution regarding the unique need for
directional signage due to the type and location of the business. Also discussed was the
potential for a directional sign program to assist visitors to the City to find services (such
as food, lodging and fuel) when they exit the freeways. Staff was to bring this item back
at the next meeting.
B. BEAUTIFICATION OF ENTRANCES TO THE CITY
Public Works staff presented various concepts of entry signs to the City for discussion.
It was discussed that the scope of the request needed to be more clearly defined. Issues
such as the size and type of signs, their location and possible addition of landscaping
were discussed. The committee requested that staff explore the number of locations
where such signs could be located at freeway exits and that staff look at establishing a
committee with representatives.from different community groups such as the Convention
. and Visitors Bureau to work on this issue. Staff will continue to research locations and
potential costs and funding sources for such a program and report back at the next
Corn m ittee meeting.
C. TREE PLANTING INCENTIVES FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES
Councilmember Rowles explained that there was a need to provide incentives rather than
barriers for property owners in the downtown to plant trees. He explained that the cost
to plant street trees including the installation of automated irrigation systems and the
required tree grates were a deterrent to businesses. There was discussion about
expanding the current limited hand-watering program; however, staff expressed concerns
regarding its long-term cost effectiveness vs. automated irrigation. There was discussion
about Possibly using CDDA funds to offset the cost of installing irrigation systems and the
cost of grates. Also discussed was the need to include any additional areas to be
maintained within the existing maintenance district. The committee requested that the
DRAFT
'URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, May 10, 1999
Page -3-
item be continued to next month, that staff identify typical costs to plant trees and that
representatives from the Tree Foundation and the Downtown Business and Property
Owners Association be invited to the meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
JVVS:jp
Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City
Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Development Services
Director Jack Hardisty, Economic Development Director Jake Wager; Planning
Director Stanley Grady, Assistant City Attorney Carl Hernandez, Public Works
Park and Landscape Designer Don Hoggatt, and Engineering .Services Manager
Jack LaRochelle.
Public: Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition; Brian Todd, Building Industry
Association; Carl Moreland, Telstar Engineering; Fred Porter; Porter - Robertson
Engineering; Renee Nelson; Jay Rosenlieb on behalf of Good Nite Inns; Ron
Brummett, Kern COG; and Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors.
s:\john\UrbanDev~UD99rnay10summary.wpd
UPDATE ON FREEWAYS
IN
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
by
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
ROU I'E 58 (KI~RN RIVER FREEWAY)
The Route 58 freeway project continues to progress through the Route Adoption process.
According to CalTrans, the Phase I environmental work is complete with only two remaining
issues outstanding. Those issues are 1) Biological with the Fish and Wildlife Department and 2)
Historic preservation of the Ffiant Kern Canal due to its age (over 50 years old).
Recently, public interest in this project has increased. Concerns such as total project cost,
conflicts with water recharge facilities, mitigation of potential environmental concerns at the old
Texaco Refinery and the freeway connection to freeway 99 has arisen. In an effort to address
those concerns, staffhas been working with KernCOG, CalTrans, and Kern County to resolve
the issues as follows:
1. Total project costs- We are currently working with CalTrans and KernCOG to
develop an overall transportation strategy as a "systems"
approach to solving traffic congestion problems. These
include widening State Route 204, improving the State
Route 204/freeway 99 interchange, adding arterial
roadways in strategic locations, improving key intersection
locations and the like. KernCOG is currently modeling the
systems approach which will then be given to CalTrans for
further analysis. We believe a strategic systems approach
to traffic congestion may in fact result in a better overall
system at a substantially reduced cost.
2. Water recharge- KemCOG recently held a meeting with all of the various
water agencies to develop an understanding of their needs
and how to address those needs in the freeway design. The
initial meeting was successful with a series of
subcommittees formed to work on individual concerns.
Ron Brummett of KernCOG states that he would like to
have a consensus established within the next 60 to 90 days
that would be acceptable to all parties concerned. The City
has begun work on determining soil conditions east of
Allen Road as a possible location for additional and
replacement recharge basins.
3. Texaco Refinery- Ron Brummett of KemCOG will be working with
presentatives from Equilon (formerly Texaco) to ascertain
potential problems and develop workable solutions.
4. Freeway 99 connection- Staff has developed a plan that connects Route 58 to
freeway 99. Traffic volumes for this plan are currently
being modeled by KemCOG. Once these volumes are
developed, CalTrans will check them against the proposed
connection to determine i f the connection will work
properly.
In the mean time, CalTrans continues work on the freeway. Aerial photography should be
completed shortly which will give the freeway designers an opportunity to develop actual
freeway layouts.
SOUTH BELTWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE ADOPTION
Model runs indicate that the proposed shift from the preferred alignment to an alignment 1 mile
south of Panama Road (State Route 119) make only a marginal difference in traffic congestion
on Ming Avenue, White Lane, Panama Lane and Hosking Road. It should be noted however,
that even with the South Beltway in place, congestion on those roadways is unacceptable in
terms of level of service. This suggests that the South Beltway should have been placed nearer to
White Lane, perhaps along the Pacheco Road alignment, to fulfill the 2010 goal for freeway
planning that would "...relieve congestion on major arterial roadways".
WEST BELTWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE ADOPTION
Kern County has adopted a specific plan line for a portion of this freeway within the West
Rosedale Specific Plan Area. We have had recent discussions with KemCOG and the City of.
Shafter to reexamine this freewav and complete the Specific Plan line to connect freeway 99 with
interstate 5.
EAST BELTWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE ADOPTION
There has been only preliminary discussions regarding this alignment. Staff will, however,
insure that its connection at State Route 58 is consistent with the proposed South Beltway and
that the preferred route follows the Commanche Road alignment.
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
~* ~ ~,*~..--~.... _ . . Randy Rowles, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, April 5, 1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:23 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; and Mike Maggard
Absent: Councilmember David Couch
2. ADOPT MARCH 1, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FRE~AY UPDATE
Mary Frederick representing Caltrans gave a presentation on the Kern River Freeway.
She explained the lengthy environmental review process for the freeway and the issue
FILE C07¥
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-i'EE DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, March 1, 1999
Page -2- _
of mitigation was discussed by the Committee. The City Manager indicated that
discussions with concerned water agencies and Caltrans were in process regarding
environmental concerns and Caltrans indicated a willingness to work with the community
regarding proposed mitigation of freeway impacts.
6. NEW BUSINESS
_. A. ORDINANCE REGARDING APPEAL FILINGS FOR SUBDIVISION MAPS AND
EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty presented an overview of the proposed
ordinance. He explained that it was intended to clean-up the current process and better
define what is appealable. He explained that it is helpful for staff to be aware of the
specifics of an appeal in order to be able to properly respond to Council questions dudng
the hearing process. Several representativesfrom CELSOC commented that the current
appeal process is fine as it is. They indicated that the Subdivision Map Act and the
current procedure is adequate. Committee members indicated a desire to encourage
public input to the Council through the appeal process, and not create additional review
layers or complicate the process. Councilmember Rowles made a motion to send this
item to a working group made up of staff and development industry representatives to
review and come back with a recommendation for the Committee.
B. ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKING GROUP FROM CELSOC TO WORK WITH
CITY'STAFF
This item was in response to a request from Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors
of California (CELSOC). They request.ed the formation of a working group from the
development industry to meet with city staff to work through policy changes which affect
their industry. They expressed concerns regarding the economic and implementation
impacts of changes to city procedures and standards. Cou~cilmember Rowle~
recommended creating a "Planning and Engineering Policies and Standards Committee"
made up of representatives from CELSOC, the Building Industry Association, Board of
Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, Kern County Contractors Association, the Sierra Club,
Kern County, and City staff. This group would be similar to one previously used
succesSfully for permit streamlining several years ago by the city. Assistant City Manager
Stinson will coordinate the committee and quarterly progress reports will be made back
to the Urban Development Committee on any issues discussed. The Urban
Development Committee agreed to the formation of the new committee.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-I'EE DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, March 1, 1999
Page -3-
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and 'City Council
jWS:jp
Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City
Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raui Rojas, Development Services
Director Jack Hardisty, Planning Director Stanley Grady, and Engineering
Services Manager Jack LaRochelle.
Public: Roger Mclntosh, Martin - Mclntosh; Carl Moreland,'Telstar Engineering;
Fred Porter; Porter- Robertson Engineering, Renee Nelson, Tim Collins, T. W.
Collins Associates; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; James Burger,
The Bakersfield Californian; Mary Frederick and Mike Donahue, CaiTmns.
s:~john\UrbanDev\U D99aprO5summary.wpd
/~ [_/t~ C.~'~ f Randy Rowles, Chair
Ala'-'n Tandy, ~itY Manager David Couch
Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, March 1, 1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:20 p.m.
Present:Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch;' and
Mike Maggard
2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 17, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. PARK DEVELOPMENT~PARK LAND FEES ORDINANCE.UPDATE
Jack Hardisty presented revised drafts of the proposed Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee
Credit and the Park Development Fee Credit Ordinances with the changes that were
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, March 1, 1999
Page -2- _
requested by the Committee in order to provide a criteria where multi-service medical
and recovery care facilities could receive a 100% credit or exemption from the park
development fee. He suggested some additional changes to Section C. of the Park.
Development Fee Credit Ordinance, which would more clearly indicate the additional
facilities required to qualify for an exemption from the park development fee. These
changes were acceptable to those requesting the Ordinance change and also to
representatives from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. The Committee
recommended that the Ordinances with the proposed changes be forwarded to the City
Council for adoption.
B. FREEWAY UPDATE
Public Works Director Raul Rojas gave the Committee an overview of road funding and
how various transportation improvement funding sources are applied to projects in the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
C, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - GREATER BAKERSFIELD 2020 VISION
Assistant City Manager John Stinson indicated that staff needed further direction from
the Committee regarding their desire to have the Urban Development Committee meet
in the community regarding this issue. He noted that the County had recently taken
action on this item and had contacted the City to coordinate activities. It was pointed out
that there could be confusion among the public as to the purpose of the 2020 Vision
meetings since the County is starting a strategic planning effort, and both the City and
County are working on updating the 2010 General Plan which will also require public
meetings and input. There was discussion about the possibility of having joint meetings
of the Urban Development Committee and representatives from the Board of Supervisors
out in the community. The City Attorney indicated that there were Brown Act issues to
deal with if other Councilmembers or Board members attended these meetings. It was
su~Igested that if meetings were noticed as meetings of the entir~ City Cc~ncil and ,~oard
of Supervisors, all could attend. Staff was directed to cheCk to see if the County had any
interest in such meetings to discuss the 2020 Vision Report. Staff will also be preparing
an inventory of activities the City is currently doing which are consistent with the
principles in the 2020 Vision Report. The Committee expects to receive additional
direction on this issue from the City Council at the March 17~' Council meeting.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, March 1, 1999
Page -3-
6. NEW BUSINESS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
.JWS:jp
Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Development Services Director Jack
Hardisty, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Public Works Director Raul Rojas,
Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle, Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and
Planning Director Stanley Grady.
Public: Mike Callagy, Comerstone Engineering; Michael Abril, Borton, Petrini and
Conron; Earl M. Miller, Careage Inc.; Colon Bywater and Henry Agonia, North
Bakersfield Recreation and Park District; Brian Todd, Bakersfield Association of
Realtors; Michael Green, The Bakersfield Califomiarl; Laura Snideman, BIA;
Renee Nelson; and Ron Brummett, Kern COG for Item 5.B.
S:UohntUrbanDev~,U D99mar01 sumn'~ry.wpd
A~R.-O1 99 11:~]' F]~OM:MAR. TI~ MCINTOSM 661-834-~7~ TO:8~ ~4 185~ PAGE:01
April 1, 1999
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
ATTN: Alan'Tandy
RE: Ordinance Relating to Appeal Filings for
~ -Subdivision Maps
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to our meeting, I have reviewed the changes pertaining to Section
16.52.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. As I read Section B, I do not see where
the ability for the City Engineer, the Planning Director, or any member of the public
adversely afl'coted by a decision of the Advisory Agency approving an extension of time
for a Tentative Map or a Vesting Tentative Map, may file an appeal from such a decision
to the City Council. As I read the Map Act, the subdivider is the only individual that may
appeal a denial of an application for an extension of time to the City Council on a Vesting
Tentative Map. However, I find no provision for any other person or party to appeal a
decision of the Advisory Agency it[lp, to_y_i~ an extension or' time for a Vesting Tentative
Map and, in fact, feel that the intent of the vesting map provision, which affords the
individual developer the vested right to proceed with his development in accordance with
ordinances, laws, standards and policies in affect at the time that the original vesting map
application was accepted, would be compromised if after the fact, in some case two or
three years later, a third party filed an appeal from the Advisory Agency approval of the
extension of time for that same Vesting Tentative Map. Therefore, Section B does not
make sense and I don't think it is in line with the intent of the Subdivision Map Act
Vesting Rights.
In addition, I understand there may be other concerns Rom other organizations on
this ordinance and to that extent I will withhold any other possible changes for a later
date. '
2001 WHEELAN COURT · BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 · 805/~34-4814 · FAX 805/834-0972
Rpr O1 99 lO:3Sm S.C. Rnderson - Executive 1805~ 382-7089 p. 1
March 30. 1999°
Mr. Randy Rowte~, City Councilman
City of 8akemfleid
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakemfietd. California 93301
RE: C_E~ PREB~NTATION
Dear Randy;
I hereby request that CELSOC be placed on the Urban Development
Commiffee Agenda for Monday. April 5. 109g to make a presenta~on relating to
the approval process. Please call me at 327-0362 and let me know if this is
possible.
Thank you [or your consideration in ~is matter,
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
~i_~ ~ . Randy Rowles, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
Staff: John W. Sfinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 17, 1999
1:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 1:15 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Randy Rowles, Chair; David Couch; and Mike Maggard
(Randy Rowles left at 3:30 p.m. for previous commitment)
2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. PARK DEVELOPMENT~PARK LAND FEES ORDINANCE UPDATE
Stan Grady made a bdef presentation of the proposed park land and park
development ordinances which would provide 50% development fee credits for
multiple service medical and recovery care facilities meeting a specific criteria and
D. RAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, February 17, lg9g
Page -2-
providing specified open space and recreational facilities. Michael Callagy spoke
and indicated that he was not opposed to paying 100% of the park land fee, but
supported the abiliLy to obtaimi a waiver of the Park Development Fee rather than
the 50% credit recommended by staff. Mr. Abril representing Careage Inc. also
supported the approach to exempt their project. Staff indicated that the Council
could not simply waive the fee but could'provide a credit to developers based on
facilities they provided in lieu of paying the fee or providing public facilities.
............ The Committee discussed the proposed ordinance and requested staffto develop
a criteria and objective standards which could be used to provide for up to 100%
park development credit and return with it at the next committee meeting, March
1st.
B. FREEWAY UPDATE
Jack Larochelle and Ron Brummett gave the Committee an update on the
financing and status of freeway projects in metropolitan Bakersfield.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. KERN TRANSPORTATION FOUNDATION CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING
ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX
Raul Rojas explained a request by the Kern Transportation Foundation for the City
to contribute $10,000 toward a poll to determine support for a % cent sales tax for
transportation. The foundation is proposing to hire a consultant to conduct the
poll. Other agencies contributing to the project included Kern County ($22,500);
Kemcog ($5,000); Golden Empire Transit ($5,000); and Kern County
Superintendent of Schools ($2,500). Councilmember Maggard made the motion
to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously. A report will be submitted to the Council at their March 17~ meeting.
B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - GREATER BAKERSFIELD 2020 VISION
Chris Frank gave a brief presentation of the Chamber 2020 Vision report. She
clarified that item #3 recommending hiring a consultant was a chamber
recommendation, and is only one option to consider. Renee Nelson indicated
support for the report and the recommendation to hire a consultant. The
Committee expressed their support of the Chamber's efforts and the 2020 Vision
RAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, February .17, 1999
Page -3-
process. Assistant City Manager Stinson indicated that perhaps the Council may
want to consider some of the 2020 vision concepts in their upcoming goal setting
session and those discussions should be completed prior to a~ing on the actions
requested by the Chamber. He also indicated that the Board of Supervisorswould
be receiving a staff report on February 24"' on this issue. Chairman Rowles
suggested that the public could be involved through the Urban Development
Committee meetings if they were held in the community. Councilmember Couch
suggested that the press could assist in getting the public involved in the process,
........ He also indicated that.the City of Pasadena had conducted a similar process and
would like to know what they did. CouncilmemberMaggard thought going out into
the community was a good idea. Chairman Rowles made a motion to send a
report back to the Council recommending, adoption of only the three broad
principle statements included in the 2020 vision report. He also recommended
that the Committee discuss the specific items under each principle at subsequent
committee meetings to be held throughout the community to solicit community
input and the committee taking direction from the Council through the Council
Goal setting session. The committee unanimously approved the motion.
C. DECELERATION LANE STANDARDS
Traffic Engineer Steve Walker gave a brief presentation on deceleration lanes.
Public Works director Rojas indicated that the City uses nationally, accepted
standards for the city guidelines and recommended that the city continue with its
current standard which provides for appropriate public safety. He also indicated
that in areas that are already developed which have unique situations involving
. grades, utility relocation, drainage and other issues staff works with developers
to come up with solutions which help contain costs to the developer. Roger
Mclntosh indicated he agreed with the city standard due to public safety. He
indicated that there could be an alternative to address slope and drainage issues
which increase costs to developers. The City will continue with its existing
standard for deceleration lanes and Mr. Rojas indicated that staff would discuss
the design alternatives with Mr. Mclntosh and bring something back at the next
meeting for the Committee to consider.
D. 1999 PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE
The Committee tentativelyadopted the proposed 1999 meeting schedule, pending
Councilmember Maggard's approval.
7. ADJOURNMENT
D AFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, February 17, 1999
Page -4-
Adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
JVVS:jp
Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Development ServiceS Director Jack
Hardisty, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Assistant City Attorney Cad Hemandez;
Assistant Fire Chief Kirk Blair, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Engineering
Services Manager Jack LaRochelle, and Planning Director Stanley Grady. Traffic
Engineer Steve Walker for New Business Item 6C.
Public: Roger Mclntosh, Martin Mclntosh; Steve DeBranch, Castle and Cooke;
Mike Callagy, Cornerstone Engineering; Michael Abril, Borton, Petdni and Conmn;
Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Chris Frank, Chamber of Commerce; David Sozinko,
Chamber of Commerce; Brian Todd, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Michael
Green, The Bakersfield Californian; Dale Hawley, Kern Transportatio'n Foundation;
Laura Snideman, BIA; Betsy Teeter, Castle and Cooke; Colon Bywater, North
Bakersfield Recreation and Park District; Pauline Larwood, Larwood Associates;
and Renee Nelson;
S:~John~UrbanDev~UD99feb 17surm-nary.wpd
Route 58
Centennial Transportation Corridor
project Description: The Centennial Transportation Corridor project would replace Rosedale Highway
and 23/24 th Streets as the state highway routes 58 and 178. The proposal is to construct a six/four lane
freeway from, Routes 58 and 178 through Bakersfield connecting to Interstate 5.
Proiect Backqround:
· The concept o[ a freeway ihrough the metropolitan Bakersfield area was developed by Caltrans in
the late 1950s. Construction was completed to Route 99.
· A proposed freeway north of the Kern River was shown in the Rosedale Community General Plan
adopted by Kern County in February 1980.
· In October 1986, Kem CountY adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and General Plan
Circulation Element Amenament for the Westside Thoroughfare.
· In December 1986, the Route 178 (Crosstown Freeway) Study was completed by Kern COG.
· Kern COG completed the Westside Corridor Study in June 1988.
· The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted in 1989 by the City of Bakersfield and
Kern County identified the Route 58/178 Freeway Corridors.
· The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern adopted a plan line for Route 58 in 1991. During
the re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act in 1991, Congressman Thomas
was able to include the Route 58 project as a dernonstration project ($4.7 million).
· The 1994 and 1996 Regional Transportation Plan have the Route 58 project listed as the number
one priority project (pages 5-8 ).
· In 1992, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programmed $45 million to allow
Caltrans to begin the Route Adoption Study and EIR.
· Caltrans began wOrking on the Route Adoption Study and EIR in 1992.
· On May 1, 1996, the CTC adopted the STIP that aside $500,000.00 and directing Caltrans to
proceed "diligently' with the route adoption study in time for consideration of programming for
right-of-way and/or construction funding by the Commission in the 1998 STIP cycle.
· Caltrans completed the Project Study Report for Phase 1 of Route 58 in October 1997.
· Dudng the re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act in 1997, Congressman
Thomas was able to include the Centennial Transportation Corridor project as a demonstration
project ($15.7 million).
· At the February 1997, the Kern COG Board of Director's approved a long-term funding program
for the Route 58 project.
· The Final EIR/EIS TIER 1 document was submitted to the Federal reviewing agencies in October
1998.
Current Issues and Focus: The Route 58 project can not move forward until the Route Adoption
Study and EIR are completed and the route alignment is adopted by the CTC. Kern COG's current focus
is to work with Caltrans District 6 to complete the EIR so that the Route Adoption Study and EIR can be
submitted to the CTC and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for review and approval. A major
issue with the completion of the Route Adoption Study and EIR is the lengthy review process by FHWA.
FHWA has two review periods that may total eleven (11) months. Congressman Thomas has been
contacted to assist in shortening these review times.
The local technical staff and Caltrans continue to meet to develop a fundable project for submittal to the
CTC. Caltrans, Bakersfield City, Kern County end Kern COG are working on a phase 1 project which is
currently priced at $175 million (construction and right of way) that was included in the 1998 STIP. At its
February 4, 1998 meeting the Kern COG TAC committee voted to ask for Policy Board approval of this
project in the 1998 STIP. The Kem COG has approved the project for the RTIP and Caltrans has
approved the project in their ITIP (Interregional Transportation Improvement Program). The Tier II study
has been held up pending the final approval of Tier.I.
A Phase I Project Study Report has been completed, signed by Caltrans District and forwarded to
Headquarters. FHWA notified Caltrans that they had approved the circulation of FEIS/EIR and would be
publishing the notification in the National Register by mid-November. A Public Workshop was held
December 11, 1997. Final date for comments is January 25, 1998.
Upcorninq Events: An RFP will be issued to proceed with the Tier II environmental document. A
consultant should be approved at the July 1999 Kern COG Board meeting.
Kern Regional Transportation Financing Program
October 1998
( In :~.qlions of Dollars )
Funding Summary including Interregional Improvement Program
TiP CYCLE -~ 1998~ 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Total
2000
Route$$ $115 (!) $26** (4) $54 (6&8) $26 (9) $26 (10) $78 (!1) $78 (12) $78 (13) $481
liP $30 (I) $14 (4) $30 (6&8) $14 (9) $14 (10) $42 (il) $42 '(12) $42 (13) $228
Centennial Corridor $5 (2&3) $8.75*** (5&6) $2 (7) $16
Other Projects $0' $34 '" $36 $64 $64 $12 $12 $12 $234
Total Program $180 $92.75' * $122 $104 $104 $132 $132 $32 $959
Expenditures
RIP Advance $30 (i) $(30)
Assumptions:
· Regional Improvement Program funding is cstimatcd at $90 million per two year cycle.
· Centennial Corridor Funding Split 35% liP / 65% RIP
Notes:.
I. Route 58 (Kern Rivcr Frccway)- Build Frccway/ Expressway from Mohawk to Stockdalc Highway.
2. Complete PSR and Tier I EIS/EIR for Centennial Corridor (cast).
3. Complete PSR and Tier ! EIS/EIR for Route 58 (cast).
4. Complete construction of intcrchangcs at Calloway Rd., Rcnfro Rd. and Allen Rd. and widen to four lanes.
5. Complete Tier I! EIS/EIR for Route 58 (east).
6. Purchase right-of-way from Mohawk to "P" Street.
7. Complete Tier I1 EIS/EIR for Route i 78 (cast).
8. Complete construction of Cenntcnniai Corridor fi.om Mohawk Rd. to "P" St.
9. Purchase right-of-way from "P" St. to Route 178 and Route 58.
10. Construct Centennial Corridor fi.om "P" St. to Route 58/178.
i !. Cons~uct thc Routc 58/178 interchange.
12. Complete construction fi.om Route 58/178 to Routc 58 (cast).
13. Complete construction fi.om Route 58/i 78 to Route 178 (east).
· Estimate $15 million to do othcr environmental studies.
· * Includes payback advancc of $30 million.
· ** lncludcs $3 million for Ticr II work for Route 58 (cast), (//5), and for right-of-way purchase.
II \WPWlNXRIilNORlXl'I'I'(-'~II(]UT } WI'l)
Questions and Answers of Route 58 .
Why are we constructing the Route 581178 freeway?
The new freeway is being.constructed to relieve congestion in the south and west portions of Bakersfield,
and to provide a direct route through Bakersfield.
Will this take care of all the congestion for the near future?
No, this freeway along with the new city and county roads will relieve the congestion somewhat but as the
area continues to grow, further improvements in both local roads and transit will be needed.
What alternatives to Route 58 were studied?
When this study began there were 20 alternatives. They included 7~ Standard 'Road, Hageman Road,
Rosedale Highway, Brimhall Road, Kern River and a southern alignment near Panama Lane. As the
study progressed, and issues identified, alternatives were eliminated. The reasons for elimination were
that the alignment did not meet the original purpose identified for the facility.
Where non-highway alternatives studied?
Both a light rail alternative and an increased transit alternative were studied. Currently the population of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is not dense enough to make light rail feasible. Given the current desire
for Iow density residential development the densities required to support a light rail system may never be
realized. Increasing Golden Empire Transit service in lieu of a freeway was also considered, however the
capital outlay and operating cost were prohibitive.
Why are we building o this alignment instead of 7t" Standard Road of the Southern alignment.
This facility must fulfill the needs of two types of travelers; the local commuter and the interregional
traveler. The 7th Standard Road alignment would satisfy the needs of these interregional travelers but
would do little for or nothing for the Bakersfield commuter. The estimate is that the 7= Standard Road
alignment would carry only about 33% of the traffic that would be on the Route 58 alignment. The
Southern alignment would not serve either the interregional traveler nor the Bakersfield commuter. The
Southern alignment would only carry about 15 -20% of that on Route 58.
Why don't we build the freeway on the 7= Standard Road alignment to serve the interregional
traveler and also build an expressway along the Kern River serving only local commuters?
Funding. While the 7~ Standard alignment would be considered cheaper we would be unable to get state
and federal support for separate facilities. As there is virtually no local funds available for new facilities the
expressway which would be the most necessary part of the two facilities would remain unfunded. We
must build facilities that serve state and national interests as well as local interest if We are to receive
federai funds.
Many of those opposed to the Route 58 project contend that this facility is being constructed for
the trucks interests.
The Route 58 alignment in the year 2020 is estimated to carry between 50,000 to 85,000 vehicles daily
between Allen Road and Route 99. It will carry about 22,000 vehicles daily between Allen Road an I-5. Of
these trips, about 80% have an origin and/or destination within Kern County. The remaining 20% is
inten'egional tdps that lie outside our study area (Kern County). About 25-30% of the total trips are trucks
some of which stop or start within the study area. Many of these trucks are moving through the area
today. They are primarily using Stockdale Highway and Rosedale Highway.
What benefits are there to this new facility?
No matter where you live in Bakersfield or where you wo~, the projected levels of congestion will affects
you. The construction of this facility will relieve congestion on many of the major streets to the north and
south of this alignment.
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 2 IST CENTURY
(TEA-21)
Completion Highway ]Transportation! I Miti.gation. and]
~ ~m~~ and System ! Program /L` A,rOuahty-J
~ Maintenance (NHS) | (STP) .,,I (CMAQ)
] i~ State . ~'~ ~ State Highway ~1 /Regional Sur.f. ace/ CongeStion"~
'- / Improvement '1 ] Operations and] J Transpodatmn ~ Mitigation andI
~ / Program / /Pr°tect*°n Plan/ / Prog~m I Air Quali~ /
~ (RSTP) [' (CMAQ) ~
L (SHOPP) ~
((STIP)2
PUBLIC WORKS FINANCING
OF
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Gas 'Fax
Federal = $. 184
State = $.18
Federal Gas Tax (TEA-21)
ST~
75% to Regions
25% to State (Interregions)
SHOPP (State Control)
STP
CMAQ
TEA
HES
ER (EMERGENCY RELIEF)
SEISMIC BRIDGE RETROFIT PROGRAM
State Gas Tax
GAS TAX SUBVENTIONS
GRADE SEPARATION
EEM
PVEA
BICYCLE LANE ACCOUNT
Transportation Development Act (I/4 of 1% sales tax)
Article 3
Article 8
Special Local Taxes for Transportation
~A cent sales tax
Development funded project financing
Transportation Impact Fees (Regional)
Transportation Impact Fees (Local)
Development actually constructing improvements
Bond Financing
GOB (voter approved)
COP (need only a source of revenue and entity that has backing to pay for it)
Assessment District
February 11, 1999
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 178
A contract to repave S.R. 178 from M Street to Fairfax Road has been awarded. However, since most of the
work will be done at night and with a constant temperature above 55° required for paving, work is not
expected to start until April or May.
Kern River Freeway (S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
The Kern River Freeway preferred alignment extends from S.R. 99 at Truxtun and extends westward, roughly
paralleling the Kern River, to Interstate 5. The first phase of this project would consist of building a full
freeway facility from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway past Renfro Road, and improving Stockdale
Highway (two lanes with shoulders) from that point to Interstate 5. There would be no direct connection to
S.R. 99. Any traffic on the Kern River Freeway which needed to get onto S.R.'99 would have to exit at
Mohawk Street and get onto S.R. 99 from Rosedale/Pierce Road. The Local Agencies are to fund the
Mohawk Street portion between Truxtun Avenue and Rosedale Highway excluding the "freeway portion".
It is anticipated that the portion of Mohawk Street to be funded by the Locals will cost approximately
$20,000,000. A meeting between the local agencies and the CalTrans will be held on October 20, 1998 to
discuss constructing the Mohawk Street portion earlier than the actual freeway itself, lfthis could by done,
a portion of the overall freeway project would begin early and an additional arterial/river crossing would be
completed.
The CTC authorized $175 ~nillion for this project at their June 2, 1998 meeting.
The Route adoption E1R was completed on September 25, 1998.
Other significant dates are as follows:
Route Adopted by CTC Spring 1999
Feds Adopt STIP November 1998
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately ! to 3 yeaps. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be connected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and the
Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two freeway
segmeuts comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of State Route
58 with Interstate 5.
Planning for the Crosstown Freeway is in its infancy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing
possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However, for the process to move forward, the
route must be adopted by the CTC and FHWA. Federal demonstration funds in the amount of $15.75 million
were authorized in TEA-21. These funds will be used to finalize planning for this project and to provide
construction for a link to downtown. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350 million.
This freeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation from downtown Bakersfield to
nearby residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5.
South Beltway
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R.
58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at Interstate 5
at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately the
alignme~t of Hosking Avenue. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline Road
or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. A public scoping meeting was held at the regular Planning
Commission meeting on January 15, 1998. Minimum comments were received at that meeting.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive local
funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no right-of-
way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The draft E1R should
be out for public review by late July. Notice of preparation has been filed with the State. Once the EIR has
been certified, the specific plan line will be adopted and protection of the right-of-way using local funds may
begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020+.
S:\Projects\Freeways\Frwy2-99
DRAFT
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BAKERSFIELD
SEP 3 0 ,.1998
[-~) ~ Kevin McDermott, Chair
.~.lan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles
Staff: John W. Sfinson Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, September 28, 1998
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:30 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy Rowles
Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 20, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
- 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Jack LaRocheile gave a bdef update on the status of freeway projects and distributed a
report of current activities. He noted that the EIR on the Kern River Freeway was
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, September 28, 1998
Page -2-
completed. Councilmember McDermott requested that the anticipated start dates for
construction of Mohawk Street and the Kern River Freeway be made a part of future
freeway status reports. It was also requested that the Project Study Report for the
Crosstown freeway begin as soon as possible. The Committee also requested that the
status of the East Beltway be included in future reports as some related activity is
anticipated.
B, .... PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE ORDINANCE
Jack Hardisty presented the Committee with a discussion paper regarding the ordinance
changes requested by the Committee at their last meeting. It was requested that the
discussion paper be sent to all interested parties and that a draft ordinance be brought
back to the Committee. Comments were made regarding a requirement that a certain
minimum amount of parkland and/or amenities be required to be eligible for up to a 50%
credit against applicable parkland or development fees. It was suggested that staff
develop a list of typical qualifying amenities that would meet such a criteria.
C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) APPROVAL PROCESS
Staff presented a draft ordinance revising the P.U.D. approval process to provide for
more flexibility to make certain changes which are not minor in nature, but are not a
significant change to a project. Currently these changes must follow the cumbersome
zone change process. Instead a hearing would be conducted before the Planning
Commission. Minor changes would continue to be approved by the Planning Director and
significant changes would continue to require a zone change review. The Committee
supports approval of the ordinance.
D. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
Staff gave an update on the recent action taken by LAFCO denying the expansion of the
City's sphere of influence. Staff was uncertain about the reason for the denial as little
comment was made by the LAFCO board other than they were "uncomfortable" with the
City's request. Staff indicated that the application could be resubmitted with or without
modifications for further consideration by LAFCO within 30 days of the previous action. ·
The Committee recommended that staff make a request for reconsideration of the sphere
of influence and eliminate some of the areas originally submitted which include
agricultural zoning. This would leave primarily land with urban type uses within the
sphere request. Resubmittal also reinforces the City's legal position in the future.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'i-r'EE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Monday, September 28, 1998
Page -3-
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. SIGN ORDINANCE
Staff presented proposed minor changes to the Sign Ordinance to the Committee for their
review. The Committee supported approval of the proposed ordinance changes..
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
jws:jp
Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Chief Assistant City Attomey Bob
Sherry, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Planning Director Stan
Grady? Assistant City Attorney Carl Hernandez, and Public Works Engineering
Services Manager Jack LaRochelle.
Public: Michael Greene, Bryan Todd, Laura Snideman, and Renee D. Nelson.
September 28, 1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. La_Rochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 99
The landscape project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is complete.
Kern River Freeway ¢S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
Phase I of the Kern River freeway was funded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on
June 3, 1998. The approved funding level for this project is $175 million which made it the single largest
project in the entire State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The Route Adoption EIRwas completed September 25, 1998. It is anticipated that the CTC will formally
adopt the route in the spring of 199~g.~
Preliminary work is also continuing on right of way and design. Discussions are beginning that include
early construction of the Mohawk Street section prior to actual freeway construction. A meeting is
scheduled for October 20, 1998 to see if this is feasible.
It is anticipated that right,of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 years. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be c.>nnected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative t'Crosstown Freeway)
A kick-off meeting regarding this freeway was held in Fresno on August 20, 1998. The meeting outlined
the scope of work for the first phase of the project which consists of developing alternate alignments for
study. The goal of this preliminary phase will be to develop a project scope. Once the scope is developed,
a contract will be let to a consultant to perform a Project Study Report (PSR).
Once the PSR is complete, the project will be placed in the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) for funding. The amount currently available for this project will pay for all necessary studies
leading to Route Adoption and also for a limited amount of right of way. Our next meeting is scheduled
for October 20, 1998 in Fresno.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with
S.R. 58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at
Interstate 5 at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at
approximately the alignment of Hosking Road. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at
either Towerline Road or between Vineland Road and Edison Road.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive
local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no
right-of-way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The EIR will be
available for review September 1, 1998. The Specific Plan Line will be placed before the Planning
Commission in December 1998. Following the Planning Commission, the City Council will hear the
matter in January and February of 1999. The County is scheduled to hold their hearings in March, 1999.
Once the hearings are complete, the Specific Plan Line should be adopted.
A Public meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 28, 1998 and Thursday, October 1, 1998, to receive
comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Beltway freeway.
Highway 178 ~ Commanche Drive/Alfred Harrell Hwy
The City, County and Caltrans met regarding a project to realign Commanche Drive to line up with Alfred
Harrell Hwy. The initial meeting went well with Caltrans. They are interested in participating in a project.
At the last Inter Governmental Relations Committee, Councilmember Smith brought up the issue of
improving Commanche Road/Alfred Harrell Hwy as a joint project with the County and CalTrans. Since
the County was reluctant to even respond to our requests for a meeting, this forum was used to express our
concerns. Both Supervisors Peterson and Parra indicated support for the project and asked the CAO to
look into ways to construct the project and to think "...outside the box".
A meeting has been scheduled for this Friday with Craig Pope, County Road Commissioner. Alan
McCuen, Deputy Director of CalTrans, and Jack LaRochelle of Public Works to discuss alternate ways
to make this project a reality. A report will be issued with the results of that meeting.
Revised Oct 1, 1998 Sep~nbe:28,1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 99
All landscaping in the landscape and irrigation project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airpc rt Drive
has been completed.
State Route 178
An overlay project has been awarded with work to begin in a few weeks on SR 178 from Faiffax to M Street.
The contractor has requested that this work be postponed until next spring since the paving must be done
with a conslant temperature above 55°. CalTrans is considering lhis request.
Kern River Freeway (S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
The Kern River Freeway preferred alignment extends from S.R. 99 at Truxtun and extends westward, roughly
paralleling the Kern River, to Interstate 5. The first phase of this project would consist of building a full
freeway facility from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway past Renfro Road, and improving Stockdale
Highway (two lanes with shoulders) from that point to Interstate 5. There would be no direct connection to
S.R. 99. Any traffic on the Kern River Freeway which needed to get onto S.R. 99 would have to exit at
Mohawk Street and get onto S.R. 99 from Rosedale/Pierce Road. The Local Agencies are to fund the
Mohawk Street portion between Truxtun Avenue and Rosedale Highway excluding the "freeway portion".
It is anticipated that the portion of Mohawk Street to be funded by the Locals will cost approximately
$20,000,000. A meeting between the local agenciesand the CaiTrans will be held on October 20, 1998 to
discuss constructing the Mohawk Street portion earlier than the actual freeway itself, lfthis could by done,
a portion of the overall freeway project would begin early and an additional arterial/river crossing would be
completed.
The CTC authorized $175 million for this project at their June 2, 1998 meeting.
The Route adoption EIR was completed on September 25, 1998.
Other significant dates are as follows:
Route Adopted by CTC Spring 1999
Feds Adopt STIP November 1998
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 yems. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be connected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and the
Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two freeway
segments comprise the centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of State Route
58 with Interstate 5.
Planning for the Crosstown Freeway is in its infancy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing
possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However, for the process to move forward, the
route must be adopted by the CTC and FHWA. Federal demonstration funds in the amount of $15.75 million
were authorized in TEA-21. These funds will be used to finalize planning for this project and to provide
construction for a link to downtown. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350 million.
This freeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation from downtown Bakersfield to
nearby residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5.
South Beltway
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Bcltway" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R.
58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preti:rred alignment starts at luterstate 5
at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately the
alignment of Hosking Avenue. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline Road
or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. A public scoping meeting was held at the regular l'lanning
Commission meeting on January 15, 1998. Minimum comments were received at that meeting.
This projectis also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive local
funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no right-of-
way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The draft EIR should
be out for public review by late July. Notice o£preparation has been filed with the State. Once the EIR has
been certified, the specific plan line will be adopted and protection of the fight-of-way using local funds may
begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020+.
S:\Projects\Freeways\Frwy9-98
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
(~ ~_~ ~' Kevin McDermott, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles
Staff: John W. Stinson Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT.COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 20, 1998
12:15 p.m. AUG 2 5 1998
Ci~ ManageFs Conference Room
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:25 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 17, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Public Works Director Raul Rojas distributed a .report on the status of freeway and
state highway projects to the committee'and gave a brief overview on the status
of specific projects. Councilmember Smith requested that the issue of Comanche
Road and Alfred Harrell HighwaY be discussed at the upcoming Intergovernmental
Relations Committee meeting with the County.
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Thursday, August 20, 1998
Page -2-
B. VESTING RIGHTS
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty presented flowcharts and staff
recommendations regarding the issue of vesting rights. Staff recommended
keeping the current one-year vesting dght and to allow up to a one-year extension
for good cause. The Committee supported staff's recommendation.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. TRAILS PLAN FOR BRIMHALL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Carolyn Belli gave a bdef update and explained that she had discussed this issue
with Bruce Freeman of Castle and Cooke and believed that the parties would be
able to work something out regarding the trails issue without the involvement of
the city. There was no further action required.
B. PARK FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE CARE
FACILITIES
There was a discussion with staff, representatives from the North Bakersfield
Recreation and Park District, industry representatives and the Committee
regarding proposed changes to the Park Development Fee Ordinance.
Representatives from the Recreation and Park District expressed concerns
regarding the potential use of District facilities and programs by residents in these
types of facilities. They distributed a list of Senior Programs currently being
offered by the District. Staff suggested that some credit towards the park land and
facilities development fee should be provided when the project provides certain
minimum amounts of park acreage, recreation facilities and programs as part of
a comprehensive care facility. The Committee requested that staff further develop
the concepts discussed and prepare a draft Ordinance for further review by the
Committee.
C. POLICY FOR USE OF BANNER POLES
Economic Development Director Jake Wager gave an update on the current
process used to allow groups to display banners on city iight pole~. It is
anticipated that the same process will be utilized for banner poles in Centennial
Plaza once it is transferred to the City. No further action was needed.
D. STATUS OF LIBERTY PARK
Representatives from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District gave an
update on the status of the construction of Liberty Park. They explained that they
are finalizing the required agreement with the County so other road and park
construction can proceed. The road and traffic signal construction associated with
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-I'EE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Thursday, August 20, 1998
Page -3-
the park will be done through joint agreements with the City, the Recreation and
Park Distdct and the Kern High School District. It is anticipated that the park and
road improvements will be complete prior to the opening of the adjacent high
school in the fall of 1999. No Committee action is required.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
jws:jp
Staff present: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Chief Assistant City Attorney Bob Sherry,
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Planning Director Stan Grady, Public Works
Director Raul Rojas, and Economic Development Director Jake Wager present for Item 6.C.
Others present: Henry Agonia; Colon Bywater; Carolyn Belli; Mike Callaghy; Steve Debranch,
Castle and Cooke; Renee D. Nelson; and Roger Mclntosh.
August 20, 1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
The landscape project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is continuing.
~eismie Retrofit Pro_leer
Work on State facilities are complete. Design on City facilities are in progress by outside consultants. All
costs associated with these improvements are paid by the State.
Kern River Freeway ¢S.R, 58 Adoption Studv~
Phase I of the Kern River freeway was funded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on
June 3, 1998. The approved funding level for this project is $175 million which made it the single largest
project in the entire State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The Route Adoption EIR is still not complete but is making progress. Apparently, the Federal review has
taken longer than expected and has resulted in a delay of approximately 2 months. Preliminary work is
also continuing.on right of way and design.
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 years. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be connected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next nighest priority for the City of Bak~L-sfield, an,~
the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two
freeway segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of
State Route 58 with State Route 5.
The cross town freeway, dubbed the "Centennial Transportation Corridor", has received Federal funding
in the form of a demonstration project. Funding level for this demonstration project is $15,750,000. This
funding amount should pay for all necessary studies through route adoption (approximately 57 million) with
the rest utilized for right of way preservation. City staff will be attending a kick-off meeting on August
20, 1998 with CalTrans to discuss the project scope.
The/Vletropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with
S.R. 58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at
Interstate 5 at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at
approximately the alignment of Hosking Road. The route continues eastward t intersecting S.R. 58 at
either Towerline Road or between Vineland Road and Edison Road.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive
local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no
right-of-way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The EIR will be
available for review September 1, 1998. The Specific Plan Line will be placed before the Planning
Commission in December 1998. Following the Planning Commission, the City Council will hear the
matter in January and February of 1999. The County is scheduled to hold their hearings in March, 1999.
Once the hearings are complete, the Specific Plan Line should be adopted.
Highway 178 ~1 Commanche Drive/Alfred Harrell ltwy
The City, County and Caltrans met regarding a project to realign Commanche Drive to line up with Alfred
Harrell Hwy. The initial meeting went well with Calm. They are interested in participating in a project.
Subsequent meetings with the County have resulted in a non-committal response. We are currently trying
to schedule another meeting with the County but as of this date have been unsuccessful. The City has
budgeted funds in the 1998-99 Capital Improvement Program for this project. We are merely waiting for
the Count3' to contribute their share for the project to move forward.
BAKERSFIELD
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles
Staff: Dolores B. Teubner Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, June 17, 1998
12:15 p.m.
........ - ....... : City Manager's conferenceR°om''
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:25 p.m.
Present:Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw gave an update. The landscaping and
irrigation project on State Route 99 is near completion and the seismic retrofit of 12
bridges in the metropolitan area has been completed. The CTC has authorized $175
million for the Kern River Freeway project, so that project is moving forward. Federal
demonstration funds for the Crosstown Freeway/Centennial Corridor have been
authorized in TEA-21 in the amount of $15.75 million for planning the project to provide
construction for a link to downtown. The second administrative draft of the EIR has just
been received for the South Beltway, so the environmental process is moving forward.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-I'EE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, June 17, 1998
Page -2-
Committee Chair McDermott pointed out that the Kern River Freeway project is the
largest project in the state to be funded by the CTC. The $15.75 million authorized for
the Crosstown Freeway is very good news, and there may be additional funds through
BESTEA which would allow eadier completion of the project. Chair McDermott expressed
concern about the condition of the on- and off-ramps on Freeways 99, 58 and 178,
although he has contacted CalTrans and they have indicated work has started, he with
committee agreement requested staff to ask Mayor Price to wdte a letter to CalTrans.
....... B. ' ' ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Police Chief Brummer expressed public safety concerns about enforcement and
pedestrian traffic moving safely in areas where encroachment permits may be authorized
especially where alcohol will be served and the safety of downtown businesses in an
encroachment area where alcohol is being served. A video prepared by the Police
Department was played showing the heavy amount of typical pedestrian traffic at night
in the downtown area around some of the existing businesses showing particularly at
closing time that it takes many officers and the canine unit to disburse the crowds. Police
administration is recommending in the encroachment areas that are serving alcohol that
there be minimum of eight feet between the curb arid the structure to accommodate
pedestrian access; serving alcohol beverages discontinue at 10:00 p.m.; no glass
containers such as bottles or pitchers be allowed; a requirement that an employee of the
establishment be present to oversee who is consuming alcohol; and patrons of the
encroachment area be required to enter through the main entrance of the establishment
to ensure that underage Jndi¥iduals are not being served alcohol.
The chair gave an update from the last meeting. It was decided that businesses be
required to get an annual permit and provide evidence of insurance; and if needed, for
example to repair sidewalks, etc., could be given a 90-day notice to take the structure
down.
Regarding the encroachment areas, the Committee discussed that patrons should enter
· through the front entrance if alcohol is bein~i served; pertaining to emergency exits,
businesses to comply with fire codes; the height of temporary fencing/structures be a
minimum of four to five feet with a grandfather clause for existing structures; the distance
from curb to the structure should be a minimum of six feet; an employee of the business
be present to oversee areas serving alcohol from 10:00 p.m to 12:00 midnight; serving
alcohol in the encroachment area be discontinued at 12:00 midnight; and this ordinance
be limited to food and beverage businesses at this time. The new ABC requirements
regarding serving in plastic containers addresses the glass container issue. Staff to
prepare ordinance and forward to Council.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, June 17, 1998
Page -3-
C. VESTING RIGHTS
With existing ordinance, developers get one year from the date the map is recorded to
exercising their vested dghts. The Development Services Director after meeting with the
Planning Commission, is recommending keeping the existing one-year and adopting a
policy for one-year extensions upon request. The Committee requested staff to bring to
the next meeting a flowchart showing time frames from when the developer first comes
in and the date the permit is issued.
D. - .... CLEANUP LEGISLATION --'
A request had been made to Change the ordinance regulating C-1 Zones to prohibit
outdoor activities. After research, the Planning Department has withdrawn the request.
The Committee took no action.
E. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Planning Director Stan Grady gave an overview of the work done by the Planning
Commission Subdivision and Public Services Committee in response to questions from
their last meeting with the Urban Development. Committee. Their recommendations
address mechanisms for encouraging amenities, promoting clustering, limiting numbers
of projects at one location, architectural and site design and lot size proposals that
support more open space. A copy of the memo is attached. The Committee agreed that
the ordinance be prepared for a public hearing to be held at the Planning Commission for
public input.
6. NEW BUSINESS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT:jp
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Urban Development Committee
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director / ~"~/~-__...~__.~
DATE: June 17, 1998
SUBJECT: Freeway Status Update
Please find attached the Freeway Status Update for June 17. 1998.
P:XMEMOFORM.WPD
RMR:mps
xc: Reading File
Project File
Jacques R. La Rochelle
Marian P. Shaw
June 17, 1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Depamnent
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 99
Ail landscaping in the landscape and irrigation project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive
has been completed. This project is now in the plant establishment period with completion dt, e in about 4
'weeks.
Seismic Retrofit Project
Work on the seismic retrofit of 12 bridges in the mclropolilan area was completed on March 4, 1998.
Kern River Freeway {S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
The Kern River Freeway preferred alignment extends from S.R. 99 at Truxtun and extends westward, roughly
paralleling the Kern River, to Interstate 5. The first phase of this project would consist of building a
freeway facility from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway past Rent¥o Road, and improving Stockdale
Highway (two lanes with shoulders) from that point to Interstate 5. There would be no direct connection to
S.R. 99. Any traffic on the Kern River Freeway which needed to get onto S.R. 99 would have to exit at
Mohawk Street and get onto S.R. 99 from Rosedale/Pierce Road. The Local Agencies are to fund the
Mohawk Street portion between Truxtun Avenue and Rosedale Highway excluding the "freeway portion".
it is anticipated that the portion of Mohawk Street to be funded by the Locals will cost approximately
$20,000,000. In addition, the City, CountY and KernCOG is looking into constructing the Mohawk Street
portion earlier than the actual freeway itself. If this could by done, a portion of the overall freeway project
would begin early and an additional arterial/river crossing would be completed.
The CTC authorized $175 million for tiffs project at their June 2, 1998 meeting.
The Route adoption E1R is nearly complete. It is anticipated that the final EIR will be entirely complete in
late summer, 1998. Other significant dates are as I'ollows:
Route Adopted by CTC June 1998
Feds Adopt STIP November 1998
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 yems. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be conuected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and the
Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. ~Fogether these two freeway
segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connectiou of State Route
58 with Interstate 5.
Planning for the Crosstown Freeway is in its infancy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing
possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However, for the process to move tbrward, the
route must be adopted by the CTC and FHWA. Federal demonstration funds in the amount orS15.75 million
were authorized in TEA-21. These funds will be used to finalize planning for this project and to provide
construction for a link to downtown. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350 ~n illion.
This freeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation frmn downtown Bakersfield to
nearby residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5.
South Beltway
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 wilh S.R.
58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the ~netro area. The preferred alignment starts at Interstate 5
al Taft I ligbway (S.R. 119) and conlinucs eastward aud norlhwarcl, crossing S.R. 99 al approxilnalcly Iht
aligmnent of Hoskiug Avenue. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline Road
or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. A public scoping meeting was held at the regular Plmming
Commission meeting on January 15, 1998. Minimum comments were received at that meeting.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation hnpacl Fcc Facilities I~ist and as such cau receive local
fimding fi'om that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no right-ot:
way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. The draft EIR should
be out tbr public review by late July. Notice of preparation has been filed with the State. Once the El R has
been certified, the specific plan line will be adopted and protection of the right-of-way using local funds ~nay
begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020+.
S:\Projects\Freeways\Frwy6-98
DRAFT
//,~~~~J3~A K E R S F I E L D
Kevin McDermott, Chair
A~n Tandy,,.~.~l~ ~ager Randy Rowles
Staff: Dolores B. =ubner Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY, REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesdayl April 23, 1998
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL' CALL
Call to Order at 12:30 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles
Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. pUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Staff gave a brief update on the status of the Kern River Freeway Funding. The project
is up for review before the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the State
Transportation Improvement Program. Staff also provided a status on the reauthodzation
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
B. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT
Staff gave a presentation on the proposal to increase the City's sphere of influence (SOl).
A sphere of influence is a buffer between urban and rural land and defines the planning
FILE COPY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Thursday, April 23,1998
Page -2-
boundary in which urban growth is anticipated to occur. The proposal to expand the SOl
is needed since the City limits are either right up to the current SOl boundary or are
quickly approaching the boundary. The Planning Commission, at its December meeting,
reviewed the proposal and based on the objections of property owners, agreed to exclude
the McAIlister Ranch and the Pacificana specific plan areas. Since that time the owners
of Sunland Nurseries have also objected to being included in the expanded SOl, so staff
is also recommending removing them. Staff's current proposal is to maintain a SOl
boundary that creates a minimum one-mile buffer between urban and rural and to include
all of the new and anticipated development area in the Northwest.
Bill Turpin, Executive Director of LAFCO, made a presentation explaining LAFCO's
involvement in th'e SOl expansion process and the policies, procedures and objectives
that LAFCO uses to evaluate proposals. He stressed the need for ag land protection
policies and methods in the General Plan in order to bring ag land into the City's SOl.
The Committee thought it would be better to plan ahead for the transition of ag land which
is in the direct path of urban growth, and develop ag policies for those areas that are not.
Mr. Turpin offered his assistance in developing the policies. Staff was directed to work
on this issue. The Committee supported staff's recommended SOl expansion and
forwarded it to the City Council for hearing on May 6.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. ANNEXATION PROCESS
The City M~nager gave a report on measures which staff is proposing for improving and
expanding the current annexation information program. He indicated that the City's effort
is the most extensive one ever undertaken to inform residents about annexation and get
them involved. He proposed that all protest hearings would be individually noticed, there
would be no bundling of non-contiguous areas, and that an informal forum would be held
prior to filing the annexation to get further input. In addition, staff would be developing
an issue of Borderline which detailed the annexation process.
Public comments were taken from residents of a recently annexed area and proposed
annexation areas regarding their concerns about the process. The Committee
recommended several additional changes including expanding the hotline to include
options for several recorded messages to get information about upcoming meetings,
dates and events. Also recommended was holding City services faires in potential
annexation areas to give residents the opportunity to talk one-on-one with City staff about
various services and issues. Staff was also directed to change the tracking system used
for surveys and to hold more small meetings in each area so that each resident has an
opportunity to attend one. The Committee will be making a report to Council on the
recommended changes and enhancements.
-" AFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Thursday, April 23,1998
Page -3-
B. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
The Public Works Director did a demonstration of vadous sidewalk widths and the impact
of sidewalk encroachments with different widths. Staff presented a list of other cities and
comparisons of their encroachment policie~ and sidewalk requirements. Currently there
are areas of Bakersfield's downtown where the sidewalk is as narrow as 4.5 feet. The
ideal standard according to CalTrans is 10 feet, however, that may not always be
practical. Staff would recommend a compromise of 6 feet. In addition, they would
recommend that encroachment onto the public sidewalk be temporary so that it can be
moved in case of emergency or when repairs are needed. _ _
Representatives of the DoWntown Business Association indicated that they would like to
encourage more outside activities in downtown and would like to see only 5 feet as a
required sidewalk width. The Committee discussed the various options for sidewalk
requirements and types of encroachments. Police also expressed concerns that
encroachment permit requests were often for bars and taverns and that allowing ddnking
outside, encouraged problems with alcohol on public streets.
The committee agreed to an annual permit process with a $10 annual renewal fee. The
structures should be temporary and the City should maintain its right to require' their
removal if needed. Also agreed on was a minimum 6 feet (from curb to property)
sidewalk width. The Committee directed staff to begin Working on revising the current
process to include these changes. The C-1 zoning issue and the drinking in public right-
of-way issue was referred back to staff for additional review.
C. VESTING RIGHTS
After discussion, it was agreed that the vesting rights issue should be tabled to the May
meeting
D. CLEANUP LEGISLATION
Staff made a brief presentation on the nature of the cleanup items which simply bdng the
Municipal Code into compliance with what the actual practice of the City and/or with State
or Federal requirements. After discussion, all items were recommended to Council for
approval with the exception of the C-1 zoning issue which was tabled to the May meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT )p
S.\Oolores\u0mm42398
DRAFT
B A K E R S F [.E L D
Manage;'r Kevin McDermott, Chair
City
Randy Rowles
Staff.' Dolores B. Teubner Patricia M. Smith
.AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, March 4, 1998
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:25 p.m.
Present:Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patricia M. Smith
~ 2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 4, 1998 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
Renee Nelson requested that the City look into widening the sidewalk in front of the
Public Defender's Office on Truxtun. She was concerned about ADA accessibility.
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Staff reported that the KernCOG Board approved the Regional Transportation Program
(RTIP) which includes the $175 million for Phase I of the Kern River Freeway. The
California Transportation Commission (CTC) will review and approve State Transportation
Program (STIP) in June. Staffalso presented a proposal for construction of a sewer trunk
line aiong the alignment of the Kern River Freeway to serve the Rosedale area (area
around the DoubleTree Hotel). The current sewer line has reached capacity and requires
significant maintenance. The Committee directed staff to move forward with development
of the sewer line project.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, March 4, 1998
Page -2-
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. YARD ENCROACHMENTS FOR CARPORTS, CANOPIES AND PATIOS
This ordinance amendment will clarify the definition of encroachment and permit carports,
patios, etc., constructed more than 10 years ago to remain nonconforming uses. This will
resolve the problem the City has had with older neighborhoods which tend to have a
number of these types of structures. This will also allow the Building Director to
grandfather them in rather than requiring the property owner to go through a costly BZA
hearing. The Committee was satisfied with the proposed ordinance change and
forwarded it on to the Council for second reading.
B. REVIEW OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCESS
Staff reviewed the process which allows final development plans to be handled by staff
at site plan review provided they comply with what was approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor
changes; however, major changes including alterations to the architectural design or
style, physical placement of buildings or struCtures, location of access points, packing
design, building density or size or the quantity/quality of landscape materials, must be
appealed to the City Council for approval. The Committee was concerned that the
current process was inflexible and did not allow the Council the ability to compromise if
needed. Staff indicated that further study was needed on what changes could be
approved by the Planning Director versus the City Council. The Committee indicated that
there is a need to clarify what items can be appealed to the City Council; staff should
have some authority to determine whether or not an issue may be appealed to the City
Council; and some basic standards should be developed for the form and content of the
appeal. Staff was directed to further study the issue and bring it back t° the Urban
Development Committee at a future meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT:jp
March 4, 1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 99
The landscape project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is continuing.
Seismic Retrofit Project
Work continues on the seismic retrofit of 12 bridges in the metropolitan area. To date work on eight of the
bridges has been completed. Work on the 24'h Street bridge at the Kern River is expected to be ~omplete.
The structural portion of the work at Wible Road and SR 99 is complete. The work on Airport Drive at the
Calloway Canal is still underway.
Kern River Freeway ¢S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
The Kern River freeway passed a major milestone last month. On February 19, the KernCOG board
approved the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which included $175 million 5or phase
I of the freeway project. The RTIP will be included with other RTIP's statewide and approved by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) on June 2 & 3, 1998. These combined RTIP's along with
other interregional State projects will form the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Although Phase I had to be scaled back due to funding limitations, the full project will be constructed in
a reduced scope, The remaining elements will be funded in subsequent STIP cycles.
In addition to the STIP being approved at the CTC's June meeting, the freeway 58 route wilt also be
adopted by the State. It is anticipated that the route will be formally adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) later in the fall of 1998.
The Route Adoption EIR is nearly complete. Comments are now being compiled by CalTrzns to be
submitted to FHWA. According to CalTrans staff, none of the comments submitted by the public or other
agencys could not be answered with any concerns mitigated. It anticipated that the final EIR will be
entirely complete in late summer, 1998. Other significant dates are as follows:
Submit project to STIP in March 1998
Route Adopted by CTC in June 1998
Feds Adopt STIP in November 1998
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately I to 3 years. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a furore phase and will be connected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative. (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and
the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two
freeway segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of
State Route 58 with State Route 5.
Planning for the Crosstown Freeway is in its infancy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing
possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However, for the process to move forward, the
route must be adopted by the CTC and FHWA. The Kern Council of Governments, together with both the
City and County have applied for Federal demonstration funds to finalize planning for this project and to
provide construction for a link to downtown. It is imperative that the proposed demonstration project be
re-endorsed by the City Council since re-authorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) is being considered by Congress. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350
million.
This freeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation from downtown Bakersfield
to nearby residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R.
58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at Interstate
5 at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately
the ali~m'unent of Hosking Road. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline
Road or between Vineland Road and Edison Road.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive
local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no
right-of-way acquisition may yet proceed.
The City and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. Technical studies are
being prepared for the EIR. Notice of preparation has been filed with the State. Once the EIR has been
certified, the specific plan line will be. adopted and protection of the right-of-way using local funds may
begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020 +.
Highway 178 @ Commanche Drive/Alfred Harrell Hwy
The City, County and Caltrans met regarding a project to realign Commanche Drive to line up with Alfred
Harrell Hwy. The initial meeting went well with Caltrans interested in participating in a project. Caltrans
asked for traffic counts to be conducted on both existing intersections. These counts were performed by
City and County staff. The results of the counts have been submitted to Caltrans for their analysis. Once
their analysis is complete, it will determine their level of participation. The next steps will be to provide
funding from both the City and County in the amount of approximately $200,000 each agency. This
funding coupled with Caltrans funding will be enough to complete the project.
· B A K E R $ F I E L D
· 'i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
" MEMORANDUM
DATE: MARCH 4, 1998
TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ~
FROM: RAUL Mi ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SEWER TRUNKLINE ALONG KERN RIVER FREEWAY
EXISTING PROBLEM .
For a number of years, the City has been experiencing maintenance and capacity problems of its
sewer system serving the DoubleTree Hotel area (formally Red Lion Inn).'. An extensive study of
the area indicated that not only was capacity of the system insufficient, a portion of the sewer
main was constructed at adverse grade. The end result is that City crews must clean the sewer
main ~very week. The cost estimate to correct the adverse grade problemis approximately
$400,000.
Several recent developments have caused us to look into another option to not only provide the
necessary remedy to the tnaintenance problem but also provide sufficient capacity for continued
development. These developments include:
· Continued progress in development of the Kern River Freeway.
· Proposed anneXations in the area.
· Proposed large imultiplex movie theater.
· Proposed 55 to'.65 unit motel complex (see attached letter).
In an et'tort to provide'ia global solution, we looked into the feasibility and cost of constructing a
trunk line to the west. '.[ The cost to provide this trunk line is approximately$1,233,000. The
overall benefits of this. thank line deserve consideration.
'CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the factors abo~,e and the overall benefit now and in the futurb, staff'would recommend
we begin the process Of providing tbr this trunk line. This would require design, environmental
clearance, easement acquisition and construction. We currently have a consultant (Quad
Engineering) providing engineering services for the "band-aide" solution. No actual design has
been completed to date. With the Council's approval, we could modify the current project to
begin design of the trunk line immediately with construction to follow thereafter.
i_etter
1/21
Mr. Jacques LaRochelle
Civil Engineer IV - Design
City of Bakersfield Public Works
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Sewer System, Marriott Court and Camino Del Rio Court
Mr. LaRochelle
On behalf of our client, we are proposing to develop the parcel of
land at the northwest comer of Marriott Drive and Camino del Rio Court.
The project shall consist of a 55 to 65 unit motel complex. Please find
enclosed a site plan for your use.
{ It is estimated that construction will start around mid-1998 and the motel
will come on-line by the end of the year or the beginning of 1999.
i We understand that a new 'sewer trunk line' is being proposed to serve
i this area because of the present lack of capacity. My client would be very
interested as to the progress of this proposed project and the possibility
of being able to hook-up to the system as an alternate to providing a storage
! tank and pump system for the effluent to be discharged into the City's system
during the off peak hours.
"Thank-you for your attention in this matter. Please keep us abreast of the
!'ess.
GqlbE 'rt M. Won~ Architect, NCARB
Gilbert I t.Wong
Architectur~/Planninll
606 Davies Ct. ~
Bakersfield,Ca ~ 93309 i
(805) 328 1716 !
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
~" (~'~ ~ Kevin McDermott, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles
Staff: Dolores B. Teubner Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 4, 1998
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:30 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patdcia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 7, 1998 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Staff gave an update on the status of freeway projects in the metro area. The Route
Adoption EIR for the Kern River Freeway is nearing completion. CalTrans is compiling
public comments that were given and will be submitting them to the FHWA. Staff does
not anticipate any new issues being raised with regard to the proposed alignment.
Kern COG expressed some concern over the approval of funding for the Kern River
Freeway. Kem COG members wanted to insure that future funds would be available for
projects in other cities. Staff is working with Kern COG to resolve this issue.
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, February 4, 1998
Page -2-
B. DOWNTOWN TREE PLANTING
Councilmember Rowles referred this item to staff to develop methods to facilitate
voluntary tree planting by downtown businesses. He indicated that often the cost of
installing an irrigation system makes tree planting cost prohibitive for small private
businesses. As an inducement to plant trees, it was suggested that a waiver of the
requirement to install automated irrigation be given and instead businesses could arrange
for other means to water trees such as contracting with the Tree Foundation or the City
for watedng with a water truck. Staff was directed to discuss this issue with the Tree
FOundation and the DBA and return to the Committee with a proposal.
C, 1998 PROPOSED MEETING CALENDAR
The schedule was adopted as proposed.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Staff outlined the latest proposal for site plan review procedures. The procedure provides
for an initial review and approval of a site plan bythe Development Services Director who
· will conduct a CEQA review, another review by the Site Plan Review Committee will occur
at the time of application for a building permit. The procedure further allows for any party
to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission
may only verify the consistency of the plan with standards already adopted by the City
Council. No new standards may be imposed. The procedure also calls for all
development policies to be adopted as part of the Municipal Code and the proposed
ordinance reiterates some state law to make it easier to understand.
Staff indicated that site plan review is not arChitectural or elevation review under CEQA.
This new procedure provides for a means to review environmental impacts without
making the City overly bureaucratic. Staff was directed to move forward with presenting
the proposal to the Planning Commission.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT:jp
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 1998 ADOPTED MEETING SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAYS (!~ 12:15 PM
COMMITTEE MEETING COUNCIL MEETING
January 7 January 14
None January 28
February 4 February 11
None February 25
March 4 March 11
None March 25
None April 8
April 15 Apdl 22
None May 6
May 13 May 20
None June 10
June 17 June 24
None July 15
July 22 None
None August 12
August 19 August 26
None September 9
September 16 September 23
None October 7
October 14 October 21
None* November 4
None* November 18
None December 2
December 9 December 16
'No meetincj scheduled because of holidays.
DRAFT
BAKERSFIELD
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Alar/R/'~ndy, City~Manage~ Randy Rowles
Staff: Dolores B. Teubner ~. Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, January 7, 1998
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:20 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OFOCTOBER 15, 1997 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. FREEWAY UPDATE
Public Works staff provided an update on the status of the Kern River Freeway,
Crosstown Freeway and the South Beltway. Please refer to the attached status report.
The Committee wanted to know how the City can preserve ROW for the alignment while
CalTrans is in the process of finalizing the Route Adoption EIR over the next 5 months.
The City Attorney presented one alternative which is adoption of an ordinance which
places restrictions on renewals and application for tentative tract maps in the proposed
alignment. Representatives of Castle & Cooke expressed concerns over this method.
Another alternative is to develop a disclosure statement which buyers must sign when
purchasing property along the proposed alignment acknowledging the future freeway.
DRAFT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, January 7, 1998
Page -2-
The Disclosure Statement could be a condition of approval for a tentative tract map. The
proposal was unanimously approved and staff was directed to develop the disclosure
statement.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In order to fully imPlement the Park Development Fee in the North of the River Parks and
Recreation District, the City must adopt a capital projects listing which identifies the
projects for which the fees are being collected. The Committee was concerned that the
City might not receive its share of NOR park dollars from other fund sources. A
representative of NOR stated that they would not use park development fees to supplant
other discretionary dollars. They will supply a detailed list of park projects tied to funding
sources and completion dates for review by the City.
B. DOWNTOWN TREE PLANTING
Tabled
C. REGULATION OF STORAGE CONTAINERS
Staff summarized the current ordinance regulating the use of storage containers. Staff
indicated that it was restrictive and recommended several proposed changes to the
ordinance including allowing up to six containers for seasonal use in addition to the two
allowed under the standard, requiring screening of containers from public view, instituting
a maximum time of 60 days for one time period per year and prohibiting stacking of
containers. The CUP process would still be available for those businesses needing
containers beyond the proposed restrictions. Representatives of Wal-Mart requested a
longer time .period for the seasonal containers, suggesting 90 days rather than 60 days.
The Committee indicated that Wal-Mart could apply for a CUP to request the longer
duration. The proposal was approved unanimously with Randy Rowles absent. Staff was
directed to revise the ordinance and bring the issue to the full Council for consideration.
D. 1998 PROPOSED MEETING CALENDAR
Tabled
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT:jp
January 6, 1998
STATUS OF FREEWAY
AND STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA
Public Works Department
Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
State Route 99
The irrigation portion of the landscape project between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive is 90%
complete. The planting portion is expected to begin in February with completion in 5 - 6 months.
Seismic Retrofit Project
Work continues on the seismic retrofit of 12 bridges in the metropolitan area. To date work on eight of the
bridges has been completed. Work on the 24'h Street bridge at the Kern River is expected to be completed
in approximately three weeks. The structural portion of the work at Wible Road and SR 99 is complete with
only cleanup remaining. The work on Airport Drive at the Calloway Canal should be completed in 3 to 4
weeks.
Kern River Freeway (S.R. 58 Adoption Study)
The KeJTt River Freeway preferred alignment extends from S.R. 99 at Truxtun and extends westward,
roughly paralleling the Kern River, to Interstate 5. The first phase of this project would consist of building
a full freeway facility from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway past Renfro Road, and improving
Stockdale Highway (two lanes with shoulders) from that point to Interstate 5. There would be no direct
connecti, on to S.R. 99. Any traffic on the Kern River Freeway which needed to get onto S.R. 99 would
have to exit at Mohawk Street and get onto S.R. 99 from Rosedale/Pierce Road. The Local Agency's are
to fund the Mohawk Street portion between Truxtun Avenue and Rosedale Highway excluding the "freeway
portion". It is anticipated that the portion of Mohawk Street to be funded by the Locals will cost
approxL,-nately $20,000,000. In addition, the City, County and KernCOG is looking into construction the
Mohawk Street portion earlier than the actual freeway itself. If this could be done, a portion of the overall
freeway project would begin early and an additional arterial/river crossing would be completed.
Due to ~'he passage of Senate Bill 45, the majority of the freeway will be funded by the County minimums
over a 6 year period. Based on these available minimums of approximately $193 million over the 6 year
period and a total cost of approximately $240 million, the remaining funding must come from the State.
CalTrans is in the process of trying to secure that additional funding at this time.
The Route Adoption EIR is nearly complete. An open house showing the proposed freeway alignment was
held December 1 I, 1997. The open comment period will extend until later this month. Once all comments
are submitted, CalTrans will address those comments and submit them to FHWA. It anticipated that the
final EIR will be entirely complete in late summer, 1998. Other significant dates are as follows:
Submit project to STIP in March 1998
Route Adopted by CTC in June 1998
Feds Adopt STIP in November 1998
It is anticipated that right-of-way acquisition will take approximately 1 to 3 years. Construction should take
approximately 2 years to complete. The connection to S.R. 99 will be a future phase and will be connected
to the City's proposed crosstown freeway described below.
S.R. 58 Southern Alternative (Crosstown Freeway)
After construction of the Kern River Freeway, the next highest priority for the City of Bakersfield, and
the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the construction of the Crosstown Freeway. Together these two
freeway segments comprise the Centennial Corridor which will eventually provide a direct connection of
State Ro'ate 58 with State Route 5.
Planning for the Crosstown Freeway is in its infancy. Several studies have been conducted to date showing
possible alignments as well as preliminary cost estimates. However, for the process to move forward, the
route mu. st be adopted by the CTC and FHWA. The Kern Council of Governments, together with both the
City and County have applied for Federal demonstration funds to finalize planning for this project and to
provide construction for a link to downtown. The estimated cost for this project is approximately $350
million.
This freeway facility is not only vital to provide adequate traffic circulation from downtown Bakersfield
to nearby residential areas, but it is also essential to complete the State Route 58 link to Interstate 5.
A very preliminary outline of what is needed to adopt the crosstown freeway route is attached. The total
cost to obtain this route adoption is shown on the last page of the outline.'
South Beltway
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan shows a "South Beltway" connecting Interstate 5 with S.R.
58 and S.R. 178, circling the southern part of the metro area. The preferred alignment starts at Interstate
5 at Taft Highway (S.R. 119) and continues eastward and northward, crossing S.R. 99 at approximately
the alignment of Hosking Road. The route continues eastward, intersecting S.R. 58 at either Towerline
Road or between Vineland Road and Edison Road. A public scoping meeting is scheduled for the regular
Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 1998.
This project is also listed on our local Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List and as such can receive
local funding from that source. However, a specific plan line has not been adopted for this route, so no
right-of-way acquisition may yet proceed.
The Civ..l and the County are proceeding with a Tier I Environmental Impact Report. Technical studies are
being prepared for the EIR. Notice of preparation has been filed with the State. Once the EIR has been
certified, the specific plan line will be adopted and protection of the right-of-way using local funds may
begin. Construction is not anticipated to begin until 2020+.
P:\Misc'~l'r~¢ways
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Public Review - Public Scoping Meeting For
South Beltway Freeway Transportation Corridor
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
The City of Bakersfield will conduct a public scoping rneeting for the South Beltway Freeway
Transportation Corridor Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The intent of the
scoping meetings is to solicit comments from the public regarding the scope of the
environmental issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The South Beltway Freeway Transportation Corridor project is an amendment to the existing
Circulation Elements of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the Kern
County General Plan. The project includes an adoption of a "specific plan line" for the South
Beltway Freeway Transportation Corridor. The "specific plan line" is considered the centerline of
the 300 feet wide corridor South Beltway Freeway Transportation Corridor. The transportation
corridor will be approximately 26 miles in length and will extend from Interstate 5 to State Route
58. By adopting a transportation corridor (Specific Plan Line), future development proposed to
occur within the corridor would not be permitted by the City or County. Land being developed
during and at the time an alignment corridor it chosen will be purchased prior to construction of
the South Beltway Freeway. Land within the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction will be purchased by
the City and land within the Kern County jurisdiction will be purchased by the County.
Preservation of a right-of-way corridor will also prohibit any requests for a change in land use
within the corddor inconsistent with its purpose. Preservation of land for a transportation
corridor will reduce or avoid potential land use conflicts in the future as development occurs
within the regional area.
The purpose of this project is to accommodate future east-west traffic in the developing
metropolitan Bakersfield area. This project is planned to alleviate traffic congestion, support
economic development and support alternative modes of transportation.
A preferred transportation corridor and four alternative corridors have been identified. The
preferred transportation corridor alignment extends from the Interstate 5/Taft Highway
interchange and follows Taft Highway to approximately Buena Vista Road, proceeds in a
northeast direction to McCutchen Road, continues east along McCutchen Road, intersects
State Route 99 south of Hosking Road and gradually extends in a northeast direction to just
north of Hermosa Road and then eastward connecting to State Route 58, a distance of
approximately 26 miles.
The alternative transportation corridors are as follows:
1. North of McCutchen Alternative: This alternative is a variant of the preferred
transportation corridor utilizing the same alignment except as follows: just east of Buena
Vista Road the alignment continues northeasterly to Old River Road just south of
Panama Lane, then continues east to Ashe Road and southeasterly to New Stine Road
and Hosking Road where this alternative alignment joins the preferred alignment. From
Interstate 5 to State Route 58, the alignment has a distance of approximately 27 miles.
2. Bear Mountain Boulevard Alternative: Extends from Interstate 5 to Malaga Road and
then northward along Malaga Road, connecting to State Route 58 and then northerly
connecting to State Route 184, a distance of approximately 28.5 miles.
3. Engle Road Alternative: Extends from Interstate 5 along the approximate Engle Road
Extension alignment to Union Avenue/State Route 204, then northeasterly to
Cottonwood Road just south of Hosking Avenue continuing in a northeast direction to
just north of Hermosa Road and then eastward connecting to State Route 58, a distance
of approximately 25.5 miles.
4. Taft Highway/Panama Road Alternative: Extends from the Interstate 5/Taft Highway
interchange and follows Taft Highway to Union Avenue/State Route 204, then
northeasterly to Cottonwood Road just south of Hosking Avenue, continuing in a
northeast direction to just north of Hermosa Road and then eastward connecting to
State Route 58, a distance of approximately 25.5 miles.
Standards for the South Beltway Freeway Transportation Corridor are as follows:
A 300 feet-wide right-of-way; an ultimate build out to a six lane divided highway; 12 feet wide
travel lanes; 60 feet wide medians; 10 feet wide shoulders; and areas needing elevated road
crossings or depression of the road will require additional right-of-way on each side.
The scoping meeting will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield on
January 15, 1998, at the hour of 5:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in
the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. If you
have questions regarding the scoping meeting, please contact Richard Dole or Marc Gauthier
at the Development Services Department (805) 326-3733.
p:sbwscope-nph
-2-
· ~ /loftWO0~ ~
/.eke Slou( i ~ 0' I 2 3miles
C^L,~=O..,: :v~ [ 0 1 2 3 4 Skin
i *, ' ' ~' Alignment
BAKERSFIELD "'"*~ l~ I
LEGEND
~_~ ~E . ; ! ~ ~ -i Freeway
Conventional Highway
· [ I i Prefe.ed Alignment
~ ~ I ~ ' ~ I =~ ~e"~ ....... Taft Highway/Panama Road Alternative
~ ~ ~ ~ ~E~A~ABL~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Engle Road AEemative
~ ~ =: ~ ~s~ ~[ ~ ~ ~ - Bear Mountain Boulevard Alternative
~ . -~----- No~h of McCutchen Alternative
Source: ~ 1991
I South Beltway Corridor EIR PROJECT AREA WITH I Figure
PREFERRED ALIGNMENT AND .2
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
Woodward-Clyde
971000NA-O2.0/112497/wcc/graphics/gos.mci
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~/'t~ ~....
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1999
SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION - 7905 PEMBROKE AVENUE
City Council Referral #WFO018289 / O01 (Couch)
Staff has contacted Mr. Russell Fox of 7905 Pembroke, who had a question about a rider
on his property deed. Apparently, the deed contains language dating from 1980 requiring
that the property hook up to the sewer within 180 days of sewer being available within 1/4
mile. In 1980, this area was in the County. It is possible that this rider was put on the deed
by the County as a condition of the map, but staff would have to research this at the
County Planning Department to verify that.
Staff informed Mr. Fox that, as a result of the promise that the City made during the
annexation process, the City would not require connection to the sewer. Mr. Fox was
satisfied with this answer.
G:\sub\SHARED\COUNCIL\COUNCIL.REF\001829.wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
~' ,~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018289 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10~22~99
REQUEST DATE: 10/20/99
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 13:28:15
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: s'l'A/<'r: 10~20~99
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 10/28/99
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: ,COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: SEWER CONNECTION 7905 PEMEBROKE
CONTACT
MR RUSSELL FOX Phone 1 661 - 3994844 (
7905 PEMEBROKE Phone 2 -
BAKERSFIELD, CA
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
COUCH REQUESTED STAFF CONTACT MR. RUSSELL FOX
CONCERNING HIS DEED%CONTAINING A RIDER STATING
THAT HIS PROPERTY WILL BE HOOKED UP TO THE SEWER
WITHIN 180 DAYS.
Job Order Description: SEWER CONNECTION 7905 PEMEBROKE Category: PUBLIC WORKS
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__
October 28, 1999
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer ~..p
SUBJECT: Council Referral WF0018290 - Lighting at McDonald's at Hageman & Coffee Road
The manager and contractor for the McDonald's at the above location have been contacted.
Corrections have been made with glare shields and adjustments of the angles of the lights. However,
after talking with the reporting party, Mr. Lomax, the lights still need more adjustments. We will
continue working with McDonald's with the adjustment of the lights and will keep Mr. Lomax
apprised of our progress.
cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY - CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1999
SUBJECT: SHELLABARGER CUL-DE-SAC ISSUE
Council Referral No. tFF0018291 / 001 (October 20, 1999)
Councilmember Couch requested Public Works Director contact him at 327-9142 concerning th e I
Shellabarger cul-de-sac issue.
I
I spoke with Councilmember Couch on October 27, 1999 and told him Public Works will
be sending a letter, RcgisteredMail, to the Shellabarger residents regarding opening the.
west end of Shellabarger Road to through traffic. The notice is requesting residents in the
Shellabarger area to send us their opinion as to the removal of the gate and opening of the
road.
Attached is a copy of the letter transmitted to Councilmember Couch on 10/27/99, by way
of facsimile, along with a sketch showing every lot with frontage on streets with access to
arterial/collector, and the cost involved for the mailing of 200 registered letters.
Attachments
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrars\Couch\Shellabarger_WF0018291 .wpd
~ ~.City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018291 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10~27~99
REQUEST DATE: 10/20/99
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:07:18
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: ~'l'~/~'l': ±0~20~99
LOCATION'ID: ZIP C'ODE: COMPLETION: 10/28/99
GEN. LOC: FRoM:FACILITY NODES
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: SHELLABARGER CUL-DE-SAC ISSUE
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
COUCH REQUESTED RAUL ROJAS CONTACT HIM AT 327-9141
CONCERNING THE SHELLABARGER CUL-DE-SAC ISSUE.
Job Order Description: SHELLABARGER CUL-DE-SAC ISSUE
at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: ..... PUBLIC WORKS ~
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE
October 27, 1999
Residents in the Shellabarger/Pepita Area
Subject: - _ .... Opening:the west end of Shellabarger Road to Through Traffic
Dear Resident:
Both the City and the County have received a petition from some of the residents in the
Shellabarger area requesting that the west end of Shellabarger Road be opened to through
traffic. We are considering removing the gate and opening this road. Nevertheless, we
would like input from all of the residents in the area on whether or not this would be
desirable. A postpaid card has been enclosed with this letter. Please fill it out and return
it.by November 19, 1999.
We appreciate your cooperation and patience in this matter. If you have any questions
concerning this, please contact Marian P. Shaw at (661) 326-3579.
Sincerely,
DAVID R. COUCH RAUL ROJAS
Councilman, Ward 4 Public Works Director
Attachment
C: Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Third Supervisodal District, Kern County ,
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Room 503
Bakersfield, CA 93301
G:\GRO U PDAT~eferrals\Couch~ShellabargerLetter102799WF0018291 .wpd
5200 Rosedale Hwy. · Bakersfield, CA g3308
Phone (661) 327-3228 · FaX (661) 327-5140
From: ~ ~/,"~ Date: /~,/2,'"~/?~/
/
PLEAIIIE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES 1'0~
Name: ~,~ ~-a ~
Address:
Phone No.: ( ). '_~ & C -- ~- ?Z- F=x No.: (
WE ARE SENDING ~' PAGES {lnoludlng this page)
If you do not rece~/G all pages, or are unable to read c~py, please call 661
HEFIE IS THE, ESTIMATE RECIUEST FOR: ~/~//~ o/ ~-//-~,