Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/29/99 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM January 29, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM' ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /~ 7"/_~.q SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. On January 15th, I sent you a report from the Water Department showing drought conditions. I think that situation has now over corrected. '.' 2. Crews worked hard this week on snow, flooding, and "downed" tree conditions. It was an unusual week. 3. A letter is enclosed from the Building Industry Association regarding the Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision/Community Development Summit Report. VVhile the BIA endorses the general principles of the report, they are in opposition to several proposed "Requested Action" items contained in a separate summary document (also enclosed). 4. The Project Area Committees for Old Town Kern and Southeast Bakersfield held meetings last week. A summary is enclosed for your information. 5. The County's December Activity Report for LEA regulated projects within the City of Bakersfield is enclosed. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst Affiliated with BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF KERN COUNT BIB 6901 McDIVITr DRIVE, SUITE C NAHB BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 - 2047 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 805/832-0258 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS January 22, 1999 Alan Tandy, City Manager City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: The Building Industry Association of Kern County was a proud participant in the Community Development Summits held last year. We worked diligently and cooperatively with a broad cross section of community organizations to reach consensus on a set of principles designed to guide decisions about the future of our community. Ultimately, the BIA of Kern County added its signature to the Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision/Community Development Summit Report which you have received, acknowledging our endorsement of the general principles set forth in that document. You also received a separate Summary document that included for Requested Action items. We feel obligated to call to your attention that proposed action items 2, 3, and 4 contained in that subsequent Summary document do not appear in the original vision document. Our association has a number of concerns about the requested actions, and after reviewing them we oppose them. BIA's specific concerns are as follows: 1. Proposed action #2 calls for an assessment of economic opportunities and community planning issues in the metropolitan area. As you are aware, a number of ongoing collaborative programs involving the City and the County are underway, including a major study dealing with economic development strategy. Initiating a new separate study for the metropolitan area could duplicate work already in progress. Moreover, the results of the ongoing economic development strategy study, expected in the next several months, could be directly relevant to the goals stated in the Summit document. Therefore, we believe action in this direction is premature. 2. Action item #3 recommends a major study utilizing the services of one or more consultants. The fiscal implications of this recommendation have not yet been subject to any kind of public debate needed to assure cost-effective allocation of scarce resources. Further, the considerable professional and technical expertise already available through existing governmental staffs needs to be brought into the equation prior to embarking on any major new-i~-,~c~c~i~"_,~/5 . 3. Lastly, action item g4 proposes to establish a "lead group" separate from the City and County to establish a scope of work for the proposed program, and to oversee the actual work. This proposed delegation of local government's legal authority in the area of community planning, however well-intentioned, is highly inappropriate, and could unduly limit participation in the process for a variety of stakeholders in the community who have something to contribute and who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of this effort. There are well-established procedures governing public participation in community planning which should be acknowledged and respected. We strongly believe that the principles set forth in the Summit Report should be considered for future action in the context of your normal decision-making processes, allowing for full involvement by all affected knd interested segments of the community. It was never the intent of the Building Industry Association, by its participation in the summit meetings, to circumvent the planning process, which is rightfully under the authority of local government. We remain committed to being active and responsible participants in these important deliberations affecting the future of our community, and we hope you will view the BIA and its members as a resource. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, 0 COUNTY avi mo ows ' President Page 2 Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision Summary Prepared for , December _ , t998 IA'ho we are: · Thc Greater. Bakersfield Chamber of'Commerce convened a se~ ot'~urm-aits of those broad-based ¢ommunit3' organiza~ons who had invested time and resources 'tn corrtmtmity planning or in the development of principles for conununity growth. · Two summits were held, in June and Sept~nber, where rePresentatives of these groups participated in the development, through cooperctt~on and consensus, of commonly agreed upon principles for the future development of our eommurtity. Outside professionals facilitated the process. · The organizations, whose signatures appear on the endorsement page actively participated in the process and have taken Formal action to support thc adopted principles. These organizations are broadly based and reflect the diversity of our community,, r~pres~nting many thousands of people. Summit Results - 202_0__Vision.' These community development principles repre~nt an initialization of the development of a long-term strategic, integrated plan for the development of greater Baker~eld. The th,nm key principles ate: · ~I'he need for a bu.~ness environment that retains and attx~ta t~ainess and industry and improves their long term viability. * The need to prioritize infrastructure investment to support growth and as a catalyst tot private iave~nent. · The need for an integrated approach to a comprehensive metropolitan plan that incorporates consistency. , Requested Action: 1. Adopt the Principles: Read the document. We trust that you will support, it when you do. Then we request that you adopt the principles, and incorporate them in ali planning decisions of your body. 2. City and County Ofli¢iatn Work Together: The theme throughout the ~ummits was the need for city and county to work closely together to develop a metropolitan plan. 3. Hire a Planner:, We want you to work collaboratively with ua and other governmental groups in hiring, directing, and monitoring an ~ert, outside planner to develop the following: a community needs as,~ssment · a list of valuable community assets · input from the groups who participated in the summits for additional ideas and concerns · input from other individuals and groups in the community who are also stakeholders in the future of'the community. · a vision and plan the community can buy-in to and support 4. Establish s Lead Group: This has been an exiensive planninl~ process to date, but this is }ust the first step. We urge you to act quickly .and establish a group to support, monitor, and move the pl~n and process forward. This ,group should be small with significant representaIion from the priva~ sector as well ~ the city and county. We will be available to support you in achieving this planned direction. In c~os~,e, the ~ro~ has coocluded ~ there is afurrtamenta/needfor cJ~zng¢ in the process. We need ~o look forward so as to establish a community vision. The developmen! oftha~ vision and plan has to be broad-based, collaborative, and memorialized in a formal way. We look forward to wcrking with you as an active member of the process. TOTA~ ~ 35 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM January 27, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct~.~ SUBJECT: Second PAC Meetings f The Project Area Committees (PACs) for Old Town Kern-Pioneer (OTK-P) and Southeast Bakersfield (SE) held their second meetings earlier this week. The OTK-P PAC convened on Tuesday, January 19 followed by the SE PAC meeting on Thursday, January 21. The agendas for each meeting were identical and covered: 1)Presentation by Paul Schowalter, GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., on the redevelopment process; 2) discussion of the Preliminary Plan; 3) identification of project issues and goals setting; and 4) discussion of a tour for the PAC members of proposed redevelopment project area. Summary of OTK-P PAC Meeting The OTK-P PAC meeting began at 6:38 p.m. All PAC members, except one who had notified staff of their absence, were present. No alternates attended the meeting. There were three additional members of the public in attendance. Mr. Schowalter's presentation concentrated on redevelopment tax re-distribution, the redevelopment process, blight, tax increment, what redevelopment can do and can't do, and he gave some examples of redevelopment projects. Then Mr. Schowalter explained that the preliminary plan is the basic document for more detailed documents which are forthcoming including the preliminary report, redevelopment plan and the environmental impact report. Regarding the tour, PAC members asked staff to provide tentative dates for the tour at the next meeting. Mr. Schowalter facilitated discussion of the "likes", "dislikes" and "overall goals" of the project area. There were no PAC member statements. The meeting concluded at 8:35 p.m. __ RECE S:\REDVAREA\PAC AdminsL2nd OTKP PAC mtg Mem.wpd ~ "1~ [(~ Second PAC Meetings Memorandum January 27, 1999 . Page 2 Summary of SE PAC Meeting The SE PAC meeting started at 6:39 p.m. with six PAC members and two alternates in attendance. Three other PAC members arrived later. There were two members of the public in attendance. As with the OTK-P PAC meeting, Paul Schowalter gave a presentation on redevelopment and the process involved to form the project area, followed by a discussion of the Preliminary Plan. Because of the length of the meeting, the agenda item to identify project issues and goals was tabled to the next meeting. A tentative date of Saturday, February 20th was selected by the group to be provided a tour of the project area coordinated by staff. Under PAC Statements a number of questions and issues were raised by various PAC members, following is a summary of the main issues: - The need for additional special meetings to be called to discuss community issues or get community input. - The need to form special sub or ad hoc committees within the PAC to hold special meetings with various community groups they represent. - A request for staff support of these special meetings in terms of doing mailouts/notices/surveys and attendance to answer questions. (Staff encouraged the members to discuss redevelopment and the plan with the community individually but not to create formal committees due to notification and Brown Act requirements. Staff indicated that the PAC meetings had been noticed, and newsletters were and will continue to be sent to all residents and property owners on progress of the PAC and redevelopment plan.) - Request for a specific answer as to whether the PAC has an operating budget and how much it could be, in order to fund PAC needs such as mailings and attendance to out of town redevelopment workshops/conferences. - Request for office space for the PAC to conduct its business, citing it is allowed under a specific code section of redevelopment law. - A request for staff to submit the February 20th tour route for approval by the PAC. It seemed from the comments and discussions by the PAC members throughout the meeting that a number of the members believe their role should be expanded and that they should be developing the plan, not just reviewing what the consultant/City provides them. The group doesn't want to be an advisory group but one that actually shapes the plan from the beginning. The plan and document deadlines for approving the project area were also questioned as to if they were set deadlines or do we have flexibility in pushing them back. Some of the PAC members made comments to indicate that the City is rushing the process so as not to allow the PAC the opportunity to develop a plan that they want. They don't want to just S:\REDVAREA\PAC AdminsX2nd OTKP PAC mtg Mem.wpd Second PAC Meetings Memorandum January 27, 1999 Page 3 "rubber stamp" the plan. Whether the project area is adopted this year doesn't seem to have much urgency. They view the short timelines as the City pushing through what it wants as opposed to what the area really needs. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Staff will continue to provide these updates as the PAC meetings progress. S:\REDVAREA\PAC Admins~2nd OTKP PAC mtg Mem.wpd BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director~~~~ DATE: January 22, 1999 SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION Attached is a copy of the Activity Report for the month of December 1998, from the Environmental Health Services Department, describing the status of the LEA regulated projects within the City of Bakersfield. Attachment G:\GROUPDAT~Merno\1999\LEAREPORTDecember98.WPD PROGRESS OF PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD '" Activity For The Month Of December 1998 Bakersfield Sanitary Immediate Goal': Remediation of The LEA received a letter, datedThe City will modify the original Landfill/Burn Dump burn material to. reduce/eliminate November 16, 1998, regard~ng Draft Closure Plan to integrate the Closure. the health risks associated with the 3rd quarter gas monitoring burn dump closure with the landfill burn ash. readings. A supplemental t~ble closure. SWIS #: 15-AA-0044 was added which lists the n~w Iocabons ,,=,~u~,~,,, ,.,, ~,,~ ,o,,~,,,,,,,,,~,,,o,,; and retired probes, their Residential properties which are LEA WO #: 102 and 319 ~oo o, ,,,~ ,o,.,,,,y ,~,~,,,,~o, y ~, and the readings for the mofithsowned by the City, and remediated ,~oo'^~A ,,.~_,, ,o,, ..,t°',u ,.,,~' '~'~, ,~ Lower of July, August and Septeml~er of under direction of the State Sections 10, 11 14, and ~"-'-A:"~ ' :-:'" ~' ' , -,,~,,.,o,~ -,,,,,, v--). 1998. Department of Toxic Substances 15, T29S, R28E Completed 8/29/97 Control, have been listed for real 4200 Panorama Drive estate sale. Long Term Goal: Property Owner: Closure of the sanitary landfill City of Bakersfield and burn dump in compliance with Title 27, CCR. No Change No Change China Grade Burn ,,'-~";~'~, ,,, ,~,.,,o~= ,.~,.,o,.'"~ ~" ,~'~'~"':~-,~,, ,~,.,,,=~,,~,, of Grading and drainage LEA staff will conduct routine Dump/Landfill Closure ,~,~,~' ......,,,, ,o,~,'^':-',o, '":~':-vv,,, ,,,, ,o,'--~'~:",,~,,,, improvements at the landfill ~re_ inspections of the burn dump ~,,~,~,'- .... ,~,o,-'A':~,~o, '^~,., ,-^'~.~,,~,.~, ~,,, .... '~':- :- ~'~, ,,, ,o,~ underway and are expected ito areas within the legal boundary of SWIS #: 15-AA-0048 '"~ ~'~"~' -:~' ....... :~'~" '-':'" ' ' ,,,~ ,,~o,,,, ,,o,,o ooo,~,.,o,=,., ~,,,,, be completed by the end of the landfill. ,.,u, ,, ash. Completed June 4, 1997. January 1999. LEA WO #: 108 LEA staff will monitor compliance Long Term Goal: with the Notice and Order. Location: Closure of the sanitary landfill Sections 1 & 12, T29S, and burn dump in compliance R29E with Title 27, CCR. Property Owner: No Change Kern County January 15, 1999 * SWIS = Solid Waste Information System number issued by the California Integrated Wast(~ Management Board (CIWMB). ** LEA WO# = Local Enforcement Agency Work Order number used by EHSD.