The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/21/00 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM January 21,2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ '7"g.~ r'"~. SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. As you are aware, the Community Services Committee is considering the question of a new improved median standard for the less attractive medians around the City. Because it is such an important decision, we are going to build a couple of short "test sections". That way, you will not have to depend on artistic renderings or written concepts but can, instead, take a look. We will advise you when they are done. 2. We were advised today that a citizen may try to stop the removal of the Alamo sign and missile located on top of the Padre Hotel. If an injunction is filed, we will reevaluate the situation, as we did not expect to incur any significant costs related to the removal of the objects. 3. The United States Agency for International Development and International City Management Association have established a mentoring program for cities transitioning to a free economy - going through difficult conditions, etc. Currently, they are seeking mentor cities for cities in Bulgaria and Kazakhstan. I would like to submit our name. If they find a match or suitably sized city with issues in which we have expertise, it would return for City Council consideration. It is an opportunity to help transitioning governments, and I believe our staff would benefit from the cultural experience, as well as problem solving in a different environment. If selected, all costs are paid by the United States Agency for International Development. This is a mentoring, technical assistance program - not at all like the Sister City cultural exchange. Please call if you have questions or concerns. 4. Frank Jao, the developer who has a strong interest in a potential City Center project, which would include a senior housing element, requested additional information on Bakersfield's actual need for that. The enclosed response from EDCD indicates there is presently a substantial need, which is projected to increase in the future. Honorable Mayorand City Council January 21,2000 Page 2 5. At the staff level, we are starting work on the 2000-2001 Annual Budget. All known factors considered, it should be a pretty good year, perhaps a bit better than the past few years, not dynamic, but solid, with limited growth. The Governor's proposed State budget did not include any ERAF relief for cities, so initial indicators don't reflect much in the way of additional revenues from the State this year. A copy of the budget guidelines that went out to Department Heads is enclosed for your information. 6. A report from EDCD is enclosed on First Night® Bakersfield 2000. This inaugural event for our city turned out to be a great success. 7. A report on funding sources for economic development is enclosed, per the request of Councilmember Carson. 8. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: · Executive summary regarding Borba Dairy EIR and County actions to date; · Drainage problem at Arco Station entrance, Wible Road/White Lane; · Road conditions at intersection of Panama Lane/Wible Road; · Status of traffic signal at intersection of Fairfax Road/College Avenue; · Investigate discharge of water from tank at Panorama/River Boulevard; · Status of neighborhood meeting regarding speed bumps on Flintridge Drive; · Graffiti problem at Hughes Lane/Maurice Avenue; · Status of drainage improvement project on east side of Wible, between Planz and Wilson; · Action regarding request to agendize several Kern River Freeway items; · Follow up correspondence to previous request for information on park improvements and maintenance districts; AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst B A K E R S F I E L -D t,: 2 0 2000 .Januaw 20,2000 Mr. Frank Jao Bridgecreek Development 9039 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 312 Westminister, California 92683 Dear Mr. Jao, In responding to your need for additional information regarding affordable senior housing in Bakersfield, I offer the following information which was primarily extracted from the City of Bakersfield's Consolidated Plan 2000. The Consolidated Plan 2000 is a planning document produced by the City, consisting of a housing analysis and needs assessment, a five-year strategy, and a year by year action plan. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds City of Bakersfield's community development programs based on information contained in this document. HuD considers affordable housing as housing costs less than or equal to 30% of a household's gross monthly income, including utilities. According to the 1990 Census, there are an estimated 15,998 elderly persons (65+ years of age) in the City of Bakersfield, representing 9% of the total population. The CHAS Data Book estimates that 1,890 elderly households in the city are lower income households (50% of median income or less) in need of housing assistance (CHAS Table tiC, page 111-9 of the Consolidated Plan). Bakersfield has three subsidized housing projects specifically targeted for the elderly: Plaza Towers and Towers Annex, Sunny Lane Village, and Saint John's Manor. Combined, these developments contain 318 hOusing units for seniors who are capable of living independently. Canyon Hills Assembly of God was able to utilize tax credits to develop 58 affordable housing units for senior citizens; and the Housing Authority of the · County of Kern is developing an 80-unit affordable housing complex for senior citizens through its nonprofit arm, Golden Empire Housing, Inc. There are approximately 26 other residential facilities with a total of 891 beds that are licensed to provide housing for persons 60 years and over. Twenty of these facilities are designed to accommodate non- ambulatory persons. '(Consolidated Plan 2000 page 111-31) City of Bakersfield · Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California 93301 (661) 326-3765 · Fax (661) 328-1548 · TDD (661) 324-3631 Mr. Frank Jao January 20, 2000 ~ Page -2- - Not counting the facilities that provide assisted living for frail elderly persons, there are 456 affordable senior units in Bakersfield. That leaves a need for at least 1,400 additional affordable units for Iow income senior citizens. It should be added that Bakersfield has a large percentage of housing units said to be affordable; however, the supply of available affordable units is extremely Iow. (Page 111-81-84) The Kern County Office on Aging states that high costs of energy and utilities as a factor in affordable housing for the elderly. Given the fact that Bakersfield has 1,890 senior citizen households in need of housing assistance, only 456 affordable senior units exist or are undergoing development, and the need for affordable senior citizen housing will increase as the population continues to age; we believe there will be a greater demand for affordable housing for Iow income senior citizens. This belief that affordable housing units for senior citizens is an unmet need is further demonstrated in the enclosed Consolidated Plan 2000. Jo n F. Wag . Economic Development Director cc: Ray OImscheid, Olmscheid Development ~.-Alan Tandy, City Manager enclosure dlk:S:\HAYVVARD~senior Housing.wpd S:~IAYWARDXsenior Housing.wpd I BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM JANUARY 13, 2000 TO: ALL DEPARTMENTS JOHN W. S TINSO~'.'.~SSISTANT CITY MANAGER/~ '~ FROM' ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /// THROUGH: Y~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2000- 01 BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS ~ This is our first budget of the 21st century. Generally, the FY 2000-01 budget picture is good compared to previous years. However, the city will continue to maintain a conservative approach in planning our fiscal future. The City continues to grow and the proposed budget continues to try and meet the increase of those demands. The budgetary process provides an opportunity to focus on city operations and review priorities within each department and the city as a whole. Throughout the budget preparation process staff should balance the need for service enhancements with cost effectiveness and public accountability. Budget Parameters With the information currently available, staff is projecting an increase in sales tax revenues of about 5% and a 2.5% growth in property tax for FY 2000-01. The increase in sales taxes generally reflects the current strong national and state economy. Property taxes have remained stable, consistent with property values in our area. Due to our heavy reliance on the oil and agricultural industries, the local economy although strong, may be subject to cyclical downturns and other negative economic influences such as oil company mergers and/or relocations. Current sales tax revenue growth needs to be viewed as a positive, however it may not be sustained due to local economic cycles. Therefore, for budgetary purposes any extraordinary increases in sales taxes should be considered as non-recurring revenues and used for one-time purposes rather than ongoing expenditures. Planning is projecting an estimated population of 236,800 for the city. So population .growth over the current year is about 2.6%. The election for residents in the Palm- Olive annexation area will be held in March 2000 and that outcome may affect these estimates, should they vote to leave the city. Budget Instructions -All Departments January 13, 2000 Page 2 Although the state provided limited relief for ERAF in the FY 1999-00 budget, there is no ongoing ERAF relief proposed for cities in the Governor's proposed FY 2000-01 state budget. It is uncertain if the state will include any further ERAF relief in the final budget. In addition, the state has implemented further reductions in Motor Vehicle fees. These fees are currently backfilled by the state general fund, but it is uncertain how long or if it will continue. It is unlikely there will be additional funds provided by the state. Salary negotiations and agreements are in place for most bargaining units through the end of FY 2000-01. The Police Unit contract will expire at the end of March 2000. Actual scheduled salary increases will be included in the salary projections. VVhile we anticipate reductions in PERS rates for certain public safety groups, these reductions are likely to be offset by increases in medical premium expense. Funding of new positions above and beyond the rate of population increase will again be difficult. Requests will, as always require appropriate justification. Please submit only those requests for new positions which are tied to documented increases in workload for your department. Departments should limit the increase in their base budget to the increases in salary settlements (approximately 2.5%) for FY 2000-01 and for operational expense by the increase in the CPI for the past year which was approximately 2.6%. There will be a higher priority for funding one-time operational expenditures and non- recurring capital expenditures rather than ongoing expenditures or programs due to the nature of this years revenue increases. Requests of this nature should reflect the City Council's goals and areas of significant need. The Budget The cumulative changes made over the last few years have significantly streamlined the budget process to make it easier for departments to prepare and for the City Manager's Office to review the budget. Although we have yet to reach our goal of developing a paperless budget, we continue moving towards a paperless budget, making the budget process more efficient and maximizing the use of HTE. Budget Instructions- All Departments January 13, 2000 Page 3 For the FY 2000-01 budget process, budgeting for temporary employees will be handled outside of the salary projection process. This change is necessary because the city now contracts with temporary agencies for temporary employees. Additional instructions will be provided under separate cover later in the budget process as policy decisions regarding this program are finalized. Justifications will again be rolled over citywide without the associated dollars. The roll over should enable departments to prepare their budgets in a more efficient manner and result in significant time savings. Although justifications will be rolled over, departments must ensure the information is current and accurate. Again, we will not be asking departments to submit a budget binder to the City Manager's Office. These instructions will outline the budget review process and the parameters which each department will need to follow in preparing their budget proposals. Budget information must be entered into HTE by the due date of March 1, 2000. Please refer to the attached budget calendar for all of the budget due dates. The only thing that departments will need to submit in hard copy on March 1, 2000 is the Budget Transmittal Letter. This letter should be signed by the Department Head and should provide an overview of the proposed budget for the department, specifically highlighting any significant changes. The transmittal memo should list the new positions that are being requested by the department including a brief description of the need for the new positions. Departments should not include attachments of the .HTE new position requests or budget reports. The transmittal memo should primarily focus on those new or expanded programs or projects which are being proposed for the coming fiscal year. For each new or expanded project/program being proposed, the Department should give a brief description, and explanation of why the project/program is necessary, the total cost of the program/project, what if any new personnel or internal service requests are associated with the program/project and how the proposed program/project relates to the City Council's Goals and Policies. This is very important and any transmittal letter with requests for new programs or projects that do not include this information will be returned to the department for revision and resubmission. The HTE process for new personnel and internal services allows for one step entry of information on the requests by the departments and allows for summary and detail reports by department and division for all requests. This will save time and eliminate paperwork since the City Manager's Office can access everyone's requests directly Budget Instructions -All Departments January 13, 2000 Page 4 over HTE along with the other budget requests. New personnel request must be entered into HTE.by February 8, 2000. After that date users will be locked out of the .system and additional requests will require a memorandum under separate cover which will need to be approved by the Assistant City Manager A training session can be scheduled by contacting Amber Lawrence at ext. 3751 for those who need a quick "refresher" crash course. If you do have any questions, please call Darnell at ext. 3747. The Risk Management Office will enter workers compensation, liability and property insurance allocations into the departments operating budgets no later than February 1, 2000. Once the list of new positions has been determined, Management Information Services will be responsible for entering all associated computers into the appropriate department budget, Fleet Services will enter all vehicles and equipment and Telecommunications will enter all phones and pagers. All changes to the salary projection file must be completed and input into HTE by January 25, 2000. After that date any changes to salary line items will be made by the City Manager's Office. It is imperative that you carefully review the salary projection report and make necessary adjustments for your department in a timely manner. Budget Review Process The budget review process will be similar to last year. The City Manager's Office will be focusing on any requested increases in the base budget, new or expanded programs, projects proposed by departments and the new personnel requests. It will be the department's respOnsibility to carefully scrutinize their budget and expenditure history to determine the funding needs for each line-item. With the exception of the temporary pay, reimbursable expense, capital outlay and professional services line items, the City Manager's Office will not be spending a great deal of time personally scrutinizing each line-item, however, it is still expected that the miscellaneous information will be sufficient to explain proposed line-item requests should a 'question or concern come up. In other words, departments will have greater discretion and less review by the City Manager's Office in developing their base budgets, but will have more responsibility to insure that budgets are an accurate reflection of a department's needs and expenditure history. After the City Manager's initial review of the department budgets, a list of questions will be e-mailed to each department head to assist you in preparing for the budget review with the City Manager's Office. Budget Instructions- All Departments January 13, 2000 Page 5 Summary Sections of the budget manual and the FY 2000-2001 budget calendar are available to assist departments in preparing their annual budgets and meeting all of the appropriate deadlines. This year the Budget Team consists of myself and Alan Tandy, Greg Klimko, Darnell Haynes and Joe Lozano. I sincerely, hope that you find the budget process both user-friendly and time-saving. If you have any questions or comments about the budget process, please feel free to call either myself at ext. 3775 or Darnell at ext. 3747. Good Luck!!! CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FY 2000/0'1 CALENDAR OPERATING CIP ACTIVITY BUDGET BUDGET * Letter to departments announcing CIP kickoff meeting -- 11/22/99 (Departments should begin to formulate CIP project requests and have them preliminarily reviewed by appropriate staff). * CIP kickoff meeting -- Forms and guidelines distributed to 12/01/99 departments. Departments begin working on CIP Worksheets and entering project scope, justifications, cost estimates, funding sources, priority, etc. Engineering Services Division available to work with or review department requests and provide assistance as needed. * HTE Payroll Budgeting File available. Salary payroll 12/02/99 computations distributed to departments. * HTE Budget Training available. 01/10/00 HTE CIP Training available. 12/06 & 12/07/99 * Departments final CIP Worksheets due to Public Works 12/27/99 including transmittal memo with Department. Head's signature summarizing department requests. * Public Works reviews projects with Departments. 12/28/99 to 1/14/00 * Salary Projection process completed. (Departments will have 01/06/00 opportunity to review inputted information and make necessary changes.) * Operating Budget kick-off meeting. (HTE Budget access 01/18/00 available. Salary payroll computations again distributed to departments for review.) * Departments update CIP requests based upon Public Works' 01/11 to 01/14/00 review. * Department's proposed CIP Budget due to the City Manager's 01/18/00 Office including transmittal memo. * All cha'nges to salary projection file must be inputed into HTE - Final Change. 01/25/00 * City Manager's Office / CIP Committee reviews Department's ' 01/19/00 to 01/28/00 CIP Requests. * New Personnel requests entered into HTE. 02/08/00 * On-line internal service requests due to various Internal 02/08/00 Service Managers. (No exceptions to.this due date.) ~"~ '"~ OPERATING ClP ACTIVITY BUDGET BUDGET * City Manager's Office reviews proposed CIP changes with 02/01 to 2/11/00 Departments. * Goals and Objectives -- Organizational Charts. 02/15/00 * Operating Budgets due to City Manager's Office, including new 03/01/00 personnel requests and current personnel compliment list. * Finance, City Attorney, Police Budget Review with City 03/16/00 Manager's Office. * General Government, ED/CD, Recreation & Parks Budget 03/17/00 review with City Manager's Office. * Fire, Development Services, and Water Budget Review 03/20/00 with City Manager's Office. * Public Works Budget Review with City Manager's Office. 03~23~00 * City Manager recommended budget available to departments 04/06/00 on-line. * First review of department budget presentations. 4/12-4/14/00 * Maintenance District Workshop - Recreation & Parks. 04/12/00 * City Manager Budget Overview Presentation to Council 05/10/00 (5:15 workshop). * First Maintenance District Hearing. 05/10/00 * Final review of department presentations, including final hand-5/8-5/12/00 outs, visual aids and script. * Departments Final Budget Presentation e-mailed to Mgr's office 1 Week prior to Council date. * Departments Budget Presentations to Council (includes CIP 5/15-5/24/00 05~22~00 budget): '05/15/00- Gen. Government, Fire, Dev. Svcs, and Police 05/22/00 m Recreation & Parks, Public Works, ED/CD,' and Water 05~24~00 -- City Attorney and Finance (5:15 Workshop) * CIP Budget to Planning Commission. 05/18/00 * Second Maintenance District Hearing. 06/14/00 * Public Hearing for 2000/01 Operating and CIP Budget. 06/14/00 06/14/00 * FY 2000/01 Operating and CIP Budget Adoption. 06/28/00 06/28/00 G:\Groupdat\Georgina\ClP & Operating Budget Agenda II '<" REClc.,.. BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM January 18, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct SUBJECT: First Night, Bakersfield Update First Night® Bakersfield 2000 (FNB) was, by all reports, a resounding success. The following statistics give an indication of the overall event: We are confident that at least 12,000 people enjoyed the 89 performing groups at one of the 185 scheduled performances in the 26 venues during the 12 hour celebration. Total admission button sales exceeded 9,000, 20 percent of which were for children ten and under. An additional 500 were distributed to sponsors; over 550 special "blinking" buttons were issued to volunteers. In addition to the 89 performing groups, approximately 24 visual artists presented their works. The total number of performers and artists showcased during the event exceeded 500. Over 448 community volunteers worked a minimum of one three-hour shift each for a conservative estimate of 1,344 person hours the day of the event. An additional 150 volunteers worked over 1,000 hours prior to the event. Sales of First Night related merchandise included approximately 2,750 "First Lights", 850 "2000" glow-in-the-dark glasses, and 1,000 multi-colored glow-necklaces. Advertisements and news media coverage advising attendees to "park and ride" the GET shuffle was very successful with over 3200 riders using the four satellite parking sites: Shuttle Transportation Mervyn's 1418 Dept. of Human Services 302 Sam Lynn Ballpark 827 Bakersfield College 744 TOTAL 3291 An additional memo will follow once we have had an opportunity to total everything out. S:\First Night\l st Nite AT mem7.wpd BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM January 20, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development DirectorX,,~, SUBJECT: Request from Vice Mayor Carson regarding cET~nomic Development Grants At the January 12 City Council workshop, Vice Mayor Carson asked about the various funding sources included in the Kern County Economic Development Strategy report as mentioned by Mr. Roger Dale of The Natelson Company. In discussing the identified grant sources with Kern County, staff was reminded that this study was funded almost in its entirety by welfare-to-work monies. The funding sources identified in the report were specifically identified as being applicable to the County's welfare-to-work efforts. These funding sources were grouped into four general areas: · Program Planning and Evaluation, · Employment Training and Placement, · Transportation Funding, and · Child Care Funding. Most of these areas are outside the purview of the City of Bakersfield. Nevertheless, we have sent letters to the appropriate agency director asking, 1. whether any of the mentioned grant sources have been applied for; 2. whether there is any intent to do so; and 3. whether there are any other funding sources that the agency may be applying for with specific relation to southeast Bakersfield. In regard to Employment Training and Placement, correspondence has been sent to Mr. John Nilon, Director of Employers' Training Resource. For Transportation Funding, we have checked with the Kern Council of Governments, where we learned that TEA-21 funds are coordinated through KemCOG and the City of Bakersfield is informed when these funds are available. Kern COG indicated that the remainder of the transportation funding is transit-related; based upon that information, we have sent correspondence to Mr. Chester Moland, Chief Executive Officer of Golden Empire Transit. For Child Care Funding, correspondence has been directed to Ms. Kathy Irvine, Director of the Kern County Department of Haman Services, and Ms. Pam Sanders, Director of Community Alan Tandy January 20, 2000 Page 2 Connection for Child Care. In regard to grant programs listed under the Program Planning and Evaluation heading, our research indicates the following: 1. Technical Assistance Planing Grants: Beneficiaries of this funding must be recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As such, we have asked Ms. Irvine from the Department of Human Services for information about the status of this funding source. 2. Welfare Reform Research, Evaluation, and National Studies: Because this funding source is restricted to activities related to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) program priorities, we have asked Ms. Irvine from the Department of Human Services about the status of this funding source. 3. Employment and Training Research and Development Projects: Because this funding source is targeted to employment and training, we have asked Mr. Nilon from Employers' Training Resource about the status of this funding source. 4. Economic Development Support for Planning Organizations: This funding source is restricted to multi-county economic development districts, Indian Tribes, and counties designated as redevelopment areas or nonprofit organizations representing redevelopment areas or parts of such areas; the governing body of such an organization needs to be at least 51% elected officials. Because of that, this funding source would not be applicable for this area. 5. Economic Development Technical Assistance (National, University Center, and Local Technical Assistance): This funding source requires a local match of funds of at least 25% of the total project cost in cash or in-kind services. Our staff will explore this further. 6. 302(a) Grants State and Urban Planning Programs: This funding source is restricted to paying for planning staff salaries, administrative expenses, and to conduct comprehensive economic development planning. Our staff will explore this further. 7. Economic Adjustment Program: This funding source is aimed at communities that have experienced sudden and severe economic dislocation and long-term economic deterioration resulting from plant closings, military base closures and defense contract cutbacks, natural disasters, or from long-term economic deterioration in the area's economy, defined as very high unemployment, low per capita income, and chronic distress. Our staff will explore this further. 8. Economic Development Administration (EDA) Research and Evaluation Program: This funding source is focused on research, training, and EDA program Alan Tandy January 20, 2000 Page 3 evaluations to determine the causes or unemployment and underemployment. Eligible applicants must be private individuals, firms, colleges, universities and other institutions, and for-profit or non-profit organizations. We have forwarded this Dr. Tomfis Arciniega, President of California State University, Bakersfield, about the status of this funding source. Thus, with the exceptions noted above, most of the 31 identified grant sources are not available to the City of Bakersfield. In those instances we have asked the appropriate agency to advise us as to any action taken or contemplated with respect to those grants. dI:P:\ED grants CC request.wpd MEMORANDUM JAN t 9 2008 January 18, 2000 CITY MAN¢,G~R ~ OFFICE! TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE RE: BORBA DAIRY - CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL #WF0018,3~8 Last Wednesday night the City Council requested an executive summary of the Borba Dairy EIR and summary of county actions to date. They are enclosed for distribution to the City Council and Urban Development Committee. cc: Stanley Grady, Planning Director John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst JH:pah CHRONOLOGY OF BORBA DAIRY March 5, 1998 - Letter from Kern County Planning Department sent to James Borba stating that the Pacificana Specific Plan would have to be rescinded to develop a dairy on subject property. April 9, 1998 - Applicants submitted preliminary review fees and applications. April 21, 1998 - Case went to Pre-Application Review Committee. June 5, 1999 - Application and final filing fees accepted. Began early consultation to rescind the Pacificana Specific Plan and to allow a CUP for a dairy in an A District. Early consultation period to close 7/22/98. August 5, 1998 - Received request from James Borba to withdraw conditional use permit processing but continue with rescinding the Pacificana Specific Plan. Processed as not having any environmental impacts. August 7, 1998 - Prepared hearing notice for the General Plan Amendment - set for September 14, 1998. September 14, 1998 - GPA approved by Board of Supervisors (all ayes). November 17, 1998 - Marty Levine applied for grading permit for James Borba's dairy site (APN 185-070-29, 30 & 31). Authorize zoning approval since an injunction had not been filed with the undergoing litigation by the CRLA. Permit for work allowed "by right." Early 1999 - Administrative Dratt EIR prepared by applicant. Summer 1999 - Draft EIR Circulated. October 15, 1999 - Notice to property owners mailed. November 11, 1999 - Planning Commission final/advisory action to approve taken. December 1999 - Applicant requested application "referred back to staff pending further notice" (actual wording). March 2000 - Next opportunity for Board of Supervisors to hear proposed general plan amendment and conditional use permit. 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a summary of the proposed project and areas of controversy that have been identified by the public and public agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). This section also provides a summary of the discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project. 2.1.1 Proposed Project The proposed project evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consists of the construction and operation of two dairies. The dairies would be located on a 4,677-acre site about ten miles southeast of the City of Bakersfield in an unincorporated area of Kern County. About 4,325 acres of the site are identified in the 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as the Pacificana new town. The zoning of the site currently remains Exclusive Agricultural. The two dairies would occupy about 341 acres each in the northern portion of the site. The dairies would support a total of about 28,572 cattle, of which 14,400 would be producing cows and the remainder related stock, such as dry cows, heifers, bred heifers, and calves. The cattle would generate wastewater and manure. The wastewater and manure would be managed as part of a rural recycling system. The system would use wastewater (mixed with well water) and the manure would be spread on agricultural fields (3,995 acres) on the project site for the raising of crops used for feed for the cattle. The project also requests a rescission of the Pacificana Specific Plan, a plan adopted in 1994 for development of a "new town," mixed use development on 4,325 acres of the project site. Discretionary actions by the County required for the project (see section 2.1.3) include certification of thiS EIR, amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and vacation of existing roadway easements. In addition, a DeveloPment Agreement between the County and the project applicants or a Conditional Use Permit for each dairy, would be required to ensure that any mitigation measures required for the project would be applied to both proposed dairies, and authority to enter into Williamson Act land use contracts would be required upon project approval. Approval of various permits for components of the proposed project by County and State regulatory agencies is also required. I Kern County BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT $ September 1999 2.0 Summary 99217bba.sum.wpd-9/3/99 2-1 I 2.1.2 Areas of Controversy Responses to the HOP indicate concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project in the following areas: · Groundwater contamination from dairy operations · . Effects of increases in school populations on the capacity of local school facilities · Vector and odor impacts to Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area · Degradation of air quality and generation of odors · Impacts to cultural resources · Effects to mineral resources underlying the project site 2.1.3 Discretionary Actions . The following approvals or entitlements would be required to allow the project to be implemented: · Certification of the Final EIR · Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan · Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Circulation Element to modify the proposed West Beltway alignment and eliminate section line and midsection line roadway alignments · Rescission of the Pacificana Specific Plan · Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Dairy 2 (George Borba) (CUP 12 Map 141) · Vacation of roadway rights-of-way established by Parcel Map 8799 · Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Dairy I or preparation of a Development Agreement for all or a portion of the proposed dairies · Authority to enter into Williamson Act Land Use Contracts · Approval by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region of Notice of Intent to comply with General Waste Discharge Requirements for Milk Cow Dairies · Approval of various county permits for'project components and activities (e.g., dairy operations, on-site septic systems, construction grading activities, fuel tank operation) · Caltrans approval if encroachment permit is required to complete any improvements 2.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The impacts and associated mitigation measures for each impact analysis topic are summarized in Table 2-1. Cumulative impacts are also summarized at the end of Table 2-1. The table provides the text of impact statements and the entire mitigation measure that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, if possible. Table 2-1 also those instances where mitigation would not reduce an impact to a less-than- indicates significant level. These significant and unavoidable impacts include: Kern County BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT .3 September 1999 2.0 Summary 99217bba.sum.wpd-9/3/99 2-2 · Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from project operations · Potential incidental take of threatened or endangered species or habitat degradation · Fugitive dust construction during · Reactive organic gas (ROG)~ emissions during operations · Cumulative ROG emissions · Cumulative PM~02 emissions The summary table (Table 2-1) also identifies the type of mitigation being proposed for each impact. Mitigation measures that are required by existing legal or regulatory requirements are classified as "legal/regulatory" mitigations. Mitigation measures that have been developed for project-specific conditions or effects are classified as "project proposed" measures. In some cases a mitigation measure would fit into both classifications. In these cases, a mitigation measure may require actions beyond minimum legal or regulatory requirements to address site-specific conditions. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES This EIR includes an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed proioct, lbo alternatives evaluated include the No Project - No Build Alternative, the No Project - Planned Buildout Alternative, and a Relocated Project Alternative.' The No Project - No Build Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. If that alternative were not implemented, the Proposed Project would be the environmentally superior alternative. I ~ Reactive organic gases (ROG) are hydrocarbon gases that undergo photochemical reactions that can result in formation of ozone. I ~ PM~o is particulate matter (dust) with a diameter of less than ten microns. I Kern County BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT 3 September 1999 2.0 Summary 99217bba.sum.wpd-9/3/99 ' 2-3 ! Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project SignlficsncG L;-.'c: Regulatory Proposed Mltl~jatlon Measures LS SU : :~. ::..,.~.~ :.;:.: :~::.i~,:'i :: i::. ::ii ': ~. ~ ~::i~:i ~ i:: !i~: ~!;~:: :~.~. :' ~:: i,::' ~;::?i~ ~'~ ::: :: i::.:' ,. '! ~..:i: ':;:~i:5 ~: ;~:i.'":~i.~ ~ ;. :.:. ~::. ~.. 4.1.3.1 Poiential Damage during Expected · Mitigation Measure 4.1.3.1 · Seismic Shaking (LS) None required. 4.1.3.2 Erosion Caused by Changes In · Mitigation Measure 4.1.3.2 Topography (LS) During the course of regular maintenance activities (i.e., vegetation removal), the Kem Coun~ Mosquito and Vector Control District (KCMVCD) shall inspect the slopes of manure separation pits and wastewater ponds at the project site annually to evaluate if significant erosion of pit and pond liner systems is occurring.' Formation of erosion rills or channels on the slopes in excess of four inches in depth would indicate significant erosion. If identified, such erosion features shall be corrected by grading. If the inspection of these features indicates that they are caused by uncontrolled runoff, the applicants shall be required by the KCMVCD to re-grade the area, directing the runoff to correct the problem. 4.2.3.1 Construction Related Dust Emissions (S) · · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.1 · (a) The applicants shall ensure that the following dust control measures specified In San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Regulation VIII are implemented during construction activities, as a condition of approval, to reduce PM 10 emissions: · All disturbed areas, Including storage piles, that are not being actively used for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized to minimize fugitive dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover; · All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized to minimize fugitive dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant; · All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavating, land leveling, grading, and cut and fill activities shall be controlled to minimize fugitive dust emissions using application of water or by presoaking; Key:. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Imm {mm m~m mmm.~, m / m mm m' m mm am, mmmm, mm mmm am ~mm mm mm .'~. ~(.;-~ :~ ~:~'.~ ..... ~,~ ........ ~ ~ .~, :.~ ~.. ~ ~: . · ~ L~el of Slgnffl~n~ of ~ M~lg~lon Mltlgmlon Envl~m~M Imp~ ~nd Leg~ll ProJ~ Sf~;~nc~ L~ R~ul~oq Pro~s~ , . Mltl~lon Meesur~ LS SU · All shall minimize the accumulation of mud or di~ ~ adjacent pub]~ ~reets operations or expedJt~usly remove ~i~ at least on~ eve~ 24 hou~ ~en o~rat~ns are ~umn~ (the use of d~ rota~ brushes Is expr~s~ p~hlbff~ except ~em p~ or ac~mpanied by sufficient weffin~ to limit the visible dust emi~ions; ~e of b~wer devices is expressly fo~idden); and · Following the addition of materi~ls ~, or ~e rem~l of m~te~als f~, ~e su~ of o~d~r storage piles, the piles shall be eff~ive~ stabiliz~ to minimize fugitive d~t · emissions using sufficient water or cheml~l stabilizer/su~res~nt. (b) ~e appli~nts shall ensure that ~e follo~ng ~UAPCD con~l measu~ am Implement~ during constr~tion a~ivities as a condition of approval to red~e PM~o emissions: · LIm~ ~affic s~eds on unpav~ r~ds to 15 miles ~r hour; · Wash off all t~ and ~uipment leaving ~e see; · S~nd ex~vat~n and grading a~l~ ~en ~s ex~ ~ ml~s ~r h~. 42.3~ ~~ Re~t~ ~a~ ~lss~s · · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.2 · (S) As a condEion of approval, the appl~n~ shall ~s~ ~at ~e ~lb~ng ~1 m~su~ am l implement~ during ~nst~tion actNities to r~e exhaust emi~ions ff~ ~st~ mlat~ ~uipment: · ~e idling time of all ~nstm~ion ~ul~ent us~ at ~e see shall n~ exc~ ten mln~; · Minimize the houm of o~mtion of heaw d~ ~uipment a~/or ~e numar of ~u~e~ In use at one time; · Ail ~ui~ent shall ~ pm~dy tun~ and malntain~ tn a~a~ ~ ~e man~¢s s~cifications; · ~en feasible, alternative fuel~ or e~dd~l ~st~t~ ~ut~ent shall ~ ~ at ~e pmjed site; · Use the minim~ practi~l engine size for ~nsff~ ~ul~e~; , Ga~line-~er~ ~utpment shall ~ ~u~ ~ ~ta~E ~flem, ~em feasibM; Key:. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Sl(,]nificance Level Recjulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU · Curtail construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations; this may include ceasing of construction activity during the peak-hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways; · Implement activity management (e.g., rescheduling activities to reduce short-term Impacts). 4.2,3.3 PM~0 Emissions from Fugitive Dust · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.3 · during Project Operation (S) As a condition of approval, the applicants shall ensure that fugitive dust emissions from cattle movement and maintenance activities at the unpaved corrals and other unpaved areas throughout the project site are effectively stabilized using a chemical stabilizer/suppressant that is safe for the environment and cattle. Stabilization shall be conducted in a manner that would not result in the potential for breeding of mosquitos and other vectors. (The applicants shall ensure that manure generated at the corrals is removed to prevent the manure from becoming a PM~o source; removal activities shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize dust emissions. 4.2.3.4 Exhaust Emissions from Agricultural and Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.4 · Dairy Equipment during Project Operations (LS) None required. 4.2.3.5 Adverse Odor from Project Operations · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5 · (S) (a) The applicants shall modify the dairy facility design so that the minimum distance between . the nearest sensitive receptor and the boundary of Dairy 2 ts at least one mile. (b) To further reduce the potential for odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, the applicants shall prepare an odor management plan that specifies standard operating practices for livestock handling, and manure collection, treatment, storage, and land application. The plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department and California Department of Food and Agriculture. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Kern County Environmental Health Services. At a minimum, the plan shall include procedures to ensure that: Manure Collection Areas · Clean out manure generated at the freestall barns and corrals at a frequency that would reduce or eliminate odors; · Keep cattle as dry and clean as possible at all times; -, Scrape manure from the corrals and bedding from the freestall barns and corrals at an appropriate frequency rate. Kev: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level ~ Slgn~n~ ~ ~ MfflgMIon ~ Mfflg~n Envl~m~al Imp~ and L~aV ProJ~ Manure Trea~ent and Appli~fion · R~uce moisture content of sepamt~ ~lids to a level ~t ~u~ mlnlm~e ~e ~tential for release of ~omus ~m~u~s dudng land a~l~fl~; · Minimally agitate' st~kpil~ manure during preparation for ~l~dlng, hauling, a~ spreading; · App~ manure by inco~mtlng Into ~e ~il Imm~late~ a~er spreading; · App~ manure ~en wea~er ~nd~lons ~ll generate minimal ~or travel dl~n~ ~tential and intens~ (e.g., app~ manure in ea~ morning, during ~ler tem~ra~res); · Mix liquid effluent ~ well water p~r ~ i~gat~n (dll~ rote shall ~ ad~uate ~ minimize ~or levels a~ maintain a~ropdate n~ent ~ntent In e~t); · · Imm~iate~ clean up manure spills; · Maintain and o~rate separation pits a~ wastewater ~ds to min~ize ~r I~els. General · Implement d~t s~pression measures ~ prevent ~e release ~ ~om~ ~- car~ing f~lve d~t · During prol~ ~mt~ns, ~e a~l~n~ (or o~er ~ d~l~ ~ ~ a~n~) shall res~ to neigh~ ~ ~me adverse~ aff~ by ~om ~nemt~ at ~e proj~ site and take p~pt ~tNe a~ 42.3.6 R~e ~an~ Ga~s ~ Dai~ · M~i~ti~ Measure 4.2.3.6 · ~e pmj~ shall provue for anaemb~ dl~er tma~e~ ~ ~ manure ~ s~lize ~ manure ~m~s (S) generat~ W the ~le p~r to la~ a~l~t~n. ~e digester s~em shall ~ d~l~ to minimize the release of b~ses through convem~n of ~s~ to el~i~l ~wer or o~er appmpflate meth~s. 4.2.3.7 Amm~ a~ ~n Sure · ~ M~i~tl~ Measure 4.2.3.7 · Em~qs ;~ P~ ~rat~ (S) N~e available. M~t~t~n 4.2.3.8 · 42.3.9 I~as~ Tm~ Re~t~ Air Poll~nt M~t~tion 4.2.3.9 · ~s~ (~) No~e r~u~red, Key:. LS = less than slgnlflcant S = significant SU = significant and urmvoldable Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance Level Re<~ulatory Proposed Mitigation Mee,,surea LS SU 4.2.3.10 Cumulative Methane Emissions (S) · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.10 · As a condition of approval, the applicants shall develop a livestock management plan that would identify practices to reduce methane emissions from ruminant livestock; the plan shall be consistent with the voluntary practices incorporated in EPA's Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program. The plan shall be approved by Kern County and implemented during dairy operations. At a minimum, the plan shall identify: · Practices to control disease and maintain herd health, such as use of appropriate antibiotics, vaccines, and other health maintenance products (e.g., regular deworming); management practices for sick and new animals (e.g., quarantine and treat sick and new animals immediately); and development of a health and medication recordkeeping system; · Feed quality and nutritional levels, feed intake levels, feed schedule; · Herd nutrition Including adding molasses, sugar beet pulp, grape pomace, brewery waste, and distillers grains into the feed; · Methods for selecting cattle that are known to be efficiently productive. "--7-~'.7'~-~7".T'-7:/~:::~ !~!~i ~:ii~h'~'"~:~,.~ i~,?~:!::~!~:' :~:'~: ~i,:. ~ ~: i: ::i~. ::::~: ::. ~::: :::i~: i:T::i: :: ~=!:~' !! ~ ~:~ ~:~!~ i;:h: ..T.~';~:: :.:!~: ' ~,:.: :'. ~. :~.. ~'~ !'i!~ ~ ~i:~:~ ~! :~ i:~i:~~ ~:~ ~:/~".=': ~.':.~'~:~'.~ :~.' 4.3.3.1 Surface Water Quality Degradation · · Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.1 · during Construction (S) Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicants shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during construction of the project. The SWPPP shall include: · Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize the .. contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water, The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. Knowledgeable site supervisors and workers are an Important component of a storm water quality protection effort. To educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water qualily protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular training sessions to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency of the meetings and required personnel attendance list shall be specified in the SWPPP. Key:. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant end unavoidable ~.~?:':~.~".*: ~'~:'.':"~:'~ '~ii ;:*?:"':! ~.,.::::::~:.~1~11~1~,,~ o Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Imp~"t end Legal/ Project S1~;;;¢&~¢~ Level Rm]ulatory ;'ropo~, , Mltl~at!,on Measures LS SU The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the constrt~t;o~ site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB) personnel, who may make unannounced site inspections, are empowered to levy appropriate fines If it is determined that the SWPPP has not been properly prepared and implemented. The SVVPPP shall be submitted to the RWOCB and the County Department of Engineering and Survey Services for review and approval. 4.3.3.2 Surface and Groundwater Quality · · Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.2 · Begradation at the Dairy Facilities (S) (a) All manure separation pits and wastewater ponds shall be constructed and maintained so that losses due to infiltration are minimized. The specific discharge of wastewater through the pond liners shall not exceed 1 x 10*5 cm/s in compliance with the Geotechnical, Design, and Construction Guidelines published by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRC$) (1997). This would also result in compliance with State regulations requiring that soils lining the retention basins contain at least 10 percent clay and not more than 10 percent gravel. The design and installation of the liner system shall be supervised by a qualified professional (i.e., Professional Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist). The sampling and permeability testing program shall be designed to be representative of all soils underlying all proposed pond areas at both dairies. Construction of the ponds shall be inspected by a qualified professional to ensure that geologic heterogeneitles (e.g., channel deposits) are identified and properly mitigated to ensure integrity of the liner. The liner must be protected against damage during operation and maintenance actNities. Mechanical agitators, draglines, or suction dredges shall not be operated near the liner. (b) Clayey soils (which occur over much of the nest-surface of the site) shall underlie the corrals and dry waste storage areas. If grading disturbs these naturally occurring near- surface clayey soils, they shall be replaced and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. (c) Positive drainage shall be included In project design and construction to ensure that excessive ponding does not occur. As unpaved areas are cleaned, depressions tend to form, allowing ponding and increased infiltration. Regular maintenance shall include filling of ~ depressions and regrading. All grading shall be performed so as to minimize dust generation. K_.~: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = signif'~ant and unavoidable Level of Significance Type of Mitigation afte~ Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance L~";~ ~ Regulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU (d) Any water supply wells that are located within 100 feet of the boundaries of the approved dairies shall be properly abandoned in compliance with the California Department of Water Resources, California Well Standards (1991) prior to approval of the proposed project or move the boundary of the dairy. Documentation of well abandonment shall be submitted to the County Planning Department prior to operation of the dairies. 4.3.3.3 Surface and Groundwater Quality Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.3 · Degradation Resulting kom Application of Dairy None required. Waste to Agricultural Fields (LS) Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.4 · 4.3,3.4 Depletion of Water Resources (I_S) None required. 4.3.3.5 Surface Water Drainage-Related Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.5 · Impacts (LS) None required. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.6 · 4.3.3,6 Increase In Impervious Surfaces (LS) None required. - ~ ~ .~. '~ ~ *,~ ~,'~'~s~ ~ i'~ ~ ~~.,~.:~I! ~: ::: ::~:~ ~ :.:::~i iifX: '~ f :.!'~. !~~::; :i~! i:: :.:?i:::;':~ ~ !:!:!~ < ~:P;~ i'f: :~:.; !,~;i~ ::~$~ :~,.!~! :::,i,*.'~,~;i?:':: .~,! ', .. f:: '~: · :.w :: . :: C~:.:: ," '!: "-':; ::?f:~,~-,~: 4.4.5,1 Potential Incidental Take of Threatened · · Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1 · or Endangered Species or Habitat Degradation (a) To ensure that direct, indirect, and cumulative potential impacts to threatened and Related to Dairy Construction (S) endangered species are mitigated, the applicants shall: · comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Consewation Plan requirements for payment of a development fee for threatened and endangered species or · negotiate 'take" authorization individually for part or all of the entire project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. ~ LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable m m m m m m W mmmm mm mmmmmm m mmmmmm m{mmmm mm m mmmm mmmm afle~ Mitigation ' Type of Mltlgatlof~ Envh'onme~tal Impact and Legal/ I Project Mitigation Measures ' LS ' SU Significance Level --'------'- (b) If project is not Implemented within 12 months, a preconstructio~ survey shall be conducted within 12 months prior to construction of Dairy 2 for all construction activities. Prior to ground clearing, grading, or eliminating ditches, reservoir, and fence line vegetation, a biological survey shall be done to prevent potential take of threatened and endangered species that have been identified to occur on the parcels or that may occur on the parcels. In addition, prior to moving piles of broken concrete and pipes that occur on the site, they should be inspected to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox will not be harmed upon moving the piles of these materials that occur on the site. Open pipes should be kept capped or otherwise covered to prevent entrapment and harm to wildlife, the San Joaquin kit fox, in particular. Steep-sided open trenches that may entrap wildlife shall be provided with escape ramps and inspected prior to backfilling to prevent entrapment of wildlife. Potential Incidental Take of Threatened · · Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.2 In the dairy areas, threatened and endangered species shall be avoided, and take avoidance or Endangered Species or Habitat Degradation practices shall be followed during normal dairying operations. The following specific programs Operations (S) ~ shall be implemented: A program of endangered spocles awareness training (including vehicle operation instructions) for dairy workers and residents at the prolect site shall be Implemented and taught on a regular basis to help ensure take avoidance at the project site. All lights shall be directed toward the dairy facility and shielded if necessary. This will help reduce or minimize any accelerated night-time predation rates en the dairy and adjacent agricultural fields. Around the residences and other areas where it may be appropriate, landscaping shall be used to shield the agricultural fields from additional lighting. 4.5.3.1 Short.Term Noise Increases Generated · /litigation Measure 4.5.3.1 As a condition of approval, the contractors shall comply with the following measures: during Construction (S) All internal engine-driven equipment, vehicles, and pneumatic tools shall be requtred fo use effective intake and exhaust mufflers; all construction equipment shall be fitted with mufflers in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards; all construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition. Staging areas and portable and stationary noiss-producing equipment (e.g., generators) shall be placed as far away as possible from nearby sensitive receptors. Construction phasing shall be conducted in a manner that would result in the least amount of noise possible. -----'--- Ke~: LS = less than slgntflcant S = significant . SU = significant and unavoidable .!. :...~? .~ .,~:..? ~'~:~.~ ~: ~ . ~:,:~.~:~'~' :~ .~::~,~ ~ ~':.~:~.~'..~'~ ~. ....... .,. ..: -.~.~ · ~ ~ :..~ ~ ~. , Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact end Legal/ Project Sl~]nlficance Level Regulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU 4.5.3.2 Increased Noise Levels Generated by Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.2 e Additional Vehicular Traffic (LS) None required. 4.5.3.3 Traffic Noise from Major Roadways in Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.3 · the Project Vicinity (LS) None required. 4.5.3.4 Noise Levels Generated by Project Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.4 · Operations (LS) None required. 4.5.3.5 Noise Impacts Relative to Approved Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.5 · Land Uses (LS) None required. --~' . --'"~l~ ::''} :" '~: '::; :: ...... i~ii: ' ''"' i ,i,i, r i' ii r' I' i ~"l ...... I I '1 I .... I I 4.6.3.1 Visual Compatibility of the Project and Mitigation Measure 4.6.3.1 · Adjacent Land Uses (LS) None required. · '. · '~::: .:: :::::~ i:;i ~ ~?.?:~:~! '_..~?:~!i~-~,~i~?~.~:~I~ ~!~;~'~ :,.~..:=: .':' ': L~nd Use~ Popul~:~liig;!:~!i~iii~;~,~,!~!~i~!?~i:: ':i., ;,~ :,;'~,;;?,',' ...... '~:: '~ :~, .... ': ~-'~: .......... ........ 4.7.3.1 Consistency with Land Use Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.1 Designations in the 2010 General Plan (IS) None required. 4.7.3.2 Consistency with Roadway Locations · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.2 Established in the 2010 General Plan (S) (a) The project shall conform with setback crlteda for the planned South Beltway along the Taft Highway, linking SR 99 and I-5. The proposed dairy operations and structures are not located near the beltway. The applicants may be required to dedicate an easement along the northern portion of the property to accommodate the future beltway, if it is ever constructed. The planned right-of-way is 300 feet, (b) The southern segment Of the West Beltway Corridor shall be modified on the Circulation Plan map to reflect the realignment proposed by the project. (c) Amend the Circulation element to eliminate the future roadway designations along section lines and midsection lines within the project site.. 4.7.3.3 Consistency with Roadway Easements · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.3 · Established by Subdivision Map 8799 (LS) None required. 4.7.3.4 Consistency with the Kern County · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.4 · Zoning Ordinance (S) None required. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable after Mitigation Type of Mitigation ,. Environmental Impact and LS SU Legal/ Project SI nlflcenca Level ~ ~ Miff ation Measures 4.7.3.5 Impacts of Dairy Operations on Adjacent' Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.5 Prospective tenants of the two on-site residences shall be notified In writing prior to occupancy Uses ($) that manure is dispersed on a regular basis on the agricultural fields adjacent to the homes. 4.8.3.1 Improper Closure of Abandoned OII · Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.1 · Following consultation with the Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Wells (Dairy 2) (S) supervisor or district deputy and prior to approval of the building permit for Dairy 2, any ~bandoned wells which are located in positions that would be beneath approved dairy facility structures (possibly wefts 26-2 and 87-2) shall be properly closed according to specifications 3rovMed by DOGGR. 4.8.3.2 Restricted Access to Oil Resources · Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.2 · (Da;r;e-~ 1 and 2) (I.S) , None required. 4.8.3.3 Removal of Areas wtth Prime · Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.3 · !At;~;ciJItUrel Soils ;F-~ Crop Fi~dc;.~,-~ (LS) None required. 4.9.3.1 Exposure to Hazardous Materials during · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.1 · Prior to initiation of dairy operations, the applicant shall submit documentation to the County Dairy Operation (S) Planning Department that all appropriate permits and notifications regarding the storage, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials have been completed and acquired. The documentation shall include, at minimum, evidence of compliance with: · Requirements for preparation and Submittal of a Business Plan to the KCEHS; · RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements; · Aboveground storage tank permitting requirements of Kern County Fire Prevention; · Permitting requirements of the DPR and KC ,ACO for agricultural chemical use. 4.9.3.2 Exposure of Workers to Residual · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.2 · Atj, ~,ultural Ch~n-~k~als (LS) None required. 4.9.3.3 Increased Vector Activity (S) · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.3 · (a) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit documentation that the project is in compliance with all requirements of the Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District. Key:. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance Level Regulato?. Proposed Mltlgetlon Measures LS SU (b) The applicants shall control mice populations by restricting access to feed end grain to the extent possible. In addition, the applicants shall retain the services of a pdvate rodent abatement service, as needed. 4.9.3.4 Dairy Waste Pathogens (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.4 · None required. :: ~ ,J' .... .~ :~::~.?:,: ~:~ ~: ~;:,.~:::~:? , ~: ?.::~.:.; :::: .;:::;~::~L~o~.~,~.~'~:~ ~.';.~i:i*~'.~-:'~'~'~'~-:,~'~;~'~%:~,~ ,~'~:.~'~:::.~!.'~:!.'..:.'~:' :.~:~o~;i!~'~?~i!.,!~'~ ' :': ::~::~.~ ~;::i'~i~'~:,::~!:.A!:~'~:~:~ ' ~:~.~:~::" :*! ;'.:~ :.?Fi: :::: *::~!.~].'!:::: .'..:~::!;:.' .: .' '." :i:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,,:,,', ,. ,~ · ,.:, , ,, . , , , , ,, ~,~ ~.,:~,,::,~:~'~ ',, ,',",,,,'~ .... ~, · ~ , ~ ' 4.10.3.1 Roadway LOS Impact (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.1 · None required. 4.10.3.2 Intersection LOS Impact (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.2 · None required. 4.10.3.3 Roadway Safety Impacts (S) Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.3 · Improvements to Taft Highway (State Route 119), including acceleration and deceleration lanes and tum channelization, shall be as required by Caltrans.. 4.10.3.4 Conflicts with Clmulatlon Plans or Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.4 · Policies (LS) None required. 4.11.3.1 Water Demand by Dairy Operatk)ne · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.1 · (LS) None required. 4.11.3.2 Increases in Wastewater Treatment · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.2 · and Disposal (LS) Implement Mitigation Measures in Section 4.3, Water Resoumes. 4.11.3.3 Increased Demand for Police and Fire · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.3 · Protection, Emergency Medical Response, and None required. Solid Waste Disposal Services (I.S) 4.11.3.4 Increased Demand for Additional · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.4 · School Facilities (LS) None required. - . 4.11.3.5 Increase In Park Usage and Potential · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.5 · Impacts to the Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation None required. Area (LS) K_.q/: LS = lees than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable m mm m m mmmm m m m ,m m m m m m m m m m m L~el of Slgn~n~ ~ of Mltlg~lon En~m~tal Imp~ and L~sV Sl~nfflcan~ LMI R~ul~ Pro~s~ Mffl~lon Measur~ LS SU 4.11.3.6 R~n In Publ~ ~s Dema~ · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.6 ~ to A~ ~ Us~ (LS} None r~uired. 4.12:3.1 Pot~tlal D~e of Uniden~fl~ · Mitigation Measure 4.12.3.1 · Cu~l fi~u~ (S} If archa~l~al resources are e~ter~ on the p~ dudng pmj~ ~st~, ~ In the vicini~ of the find shall ~ sus~nd~ or dive~. ~e a~lican~ shall retain a a~a~logist (i.e., qualifi~ u~er the S~reta~ of ~e Inter~¢s S~a~s a~ Gu~elin~ for archa~gists) to ~do~ an asse~ment of ~e r~u~. De~ing ~ ~e nacre of aW s~h fi~, evaluation may i~lude dete~inatl~ of sffe ~ad~ and a~essm~t of sffe Int~ a~. signlf~nce. Standa~s for site eval~tlon s~uid adhere to a~date S~te a~ F~eml r~uiremen~ (including ~lifomia Public Re.urns ~e S~ 210~). Eval~t~n may incl~e, ff n~, sffe reaping a~or Ilmff~ s~u~M t~g ~1~ s~nda~ archa~l~i~l metes. If aher evalua~ a r~r~ is j~ to ~ of sign~ pu~nt to CEQA criteria, a initiation plan shall ~ pre~r~ in a~rda~e ~ guMeltnes a~ submi~ to the Kem ~un~ Planning De~ent. M~l~t~ ~ld i~l~e avoidance, site ~pping, da~ r~ve~, a ~mbinati~ of thee, or ~er m~su~ as situation d~tates. ~nsultation ~th represen~flves of ~iz~, I~1 Native Ame~n g~s shall ~ refl~ In ~e development of any mifigat~ plan. .4.12.3.2 R~ Area ~DI~ Relat~e · Mitigation Measure 4.12.3.2 to Pac~na S~i~ Plan (~) None r~uired. Cumul~l~ Im~, 5.1.1 C~ulat~e I~rease ~ PMm a~ R~ · Mitl~tion Measure 5.1.1 , N~e available. 5.1.2 ~mulat~ I~se Jn Me~ · M~lgation Measure 5.1.2 · Em~sNe ~ A~ ~ Use None available. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable L~el of Slgn~n~ of a~ M~IgMI~ Mitigation Envlr~m~tal Impa~ and L~a~ ProJ~t Sl~nlfl~nc; L~v~i R~olatow Pro~s~ M~lgatlon M~sur~ LS SU 5.1.3 Pot~t~l Cumulat~e Water O~l~ Mitigation Measure 5.1.3 On an annual ~sis, the appli~nts shall re.in a q~lifi~ profe~al to ~1~ a~ ana~e ~mda~ samples from three of ~e existing water supply wells at ~e s~e. ~e wells to ~ ~mpl~ are shown on Figure 4.3-2. ~e ~mples shall ~ submi~ to a S~te~e~ifl~ a~l ~rato~ for anal~is of, at minimum, ~ium, magn~ium, ~ium, ~i~, ~dde, sulfate, p~phate, and nitrate. ~e list of ana~z~ ~m~unds and minem~ may r~uest of the RW~B. The results shall ~ su~i~ to t~ RW~B w~ ~ ~ of ~ipt of the la~rato~ re~s. If elevat~ levels were dete~, ~e RW~B has the res~slbili~ a~ori~ ~der ~e California Water ~e to r~uire fu~er ~v~t~at~n a~ ~e a~. 5.1.4 ~u~t~e D~mda~ of Habit of ~re · Mitigation Measure 5.1.4 ~ ~nger~ S~i~ ~e ~un~ shall continue to implement ~e provisos of ~e Me~l~n Habit Plan and sup~ the pre.ration of the Kern ~un~ Valley ~r Hab~at ~sewat~n P~n. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and urmvoldable mm mm mm mm mm m m mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm m BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ DATE: JANUARY 14, 2000 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE ISSUE ON WIBLE N/O WHITE LANE Council Referral WF0018337 1 001 ICouncilmember Salvaggio referred the drainage problem at one of the entrances at the Arco Service Station on Wible Road, north of White Lane, The sunken curb and gutter at the entrance to the Arco Service Station will be placed on the Street Division's Concrete Repair £i$t. A temporary repair of the sunken area will be done by the Streets Division Wednesday, January 19; 2000. Permanent repairs are scheduled to be performed during the latter part of April 2000. G:\GROUPDAT~STREETSV~rco Station. Drainage Repair,wpd ~ity of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 ? ~Q/JOB: WF0018337 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:02:52 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ST~'I': 1~12~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/00 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: DRAINAGE ISSUE WIBLE N/O WHITE LANE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** SALVAGGIO REFERRED THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM AT ONE OF THE ENTRANCES AT THE ARCO SERVICE STATION ON WIBLE ROAD, NORTH OF WHITE LANE. Job Order Description: DRAINAGE ISSUE WIBLE N/O WHITE LANE atpgory: 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 MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~~L~ ~~ DATE: JANUARY 14, 2000 SUBJECT: ROAD CONDITIONS AT PANAMA LANE & WIBLE ROAD Council Referral WF00'18336 / 00'1 ICouncilmember Salvaggio referred the issue of road conditions at the intersection of Panama Lane and Wible Road. There are Several sections of pavement in need of repair on Panama Lane between Wible Road and Stine Road. These sections, which include the intersection of Panama Lane and Wible Road, are scheduled to be repaired by the Streets Division. The repairs will consist of sealing the deteriorating sections of pavement with Pre-Mix. Work on this project is scheduled to start in, approximately, the middle of February 2000, when the weather is warmer. In the meantime, any potholes that develop will be patched by Street Maintenance crews. G:\GROUPDA'~STREETS\Panama. Wible Repair.wpd % City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~' WORK REQUEST PAGE i REQ/JOB: WF0018336 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~14~00 REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 ,,CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:03:10 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'l'~u<'l': IZ12Zo~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/0 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: ROAD CONDITIONS - PANAMA/WIBLE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** SALVAGGIO REFERRED THE' ISSUE OF ROAD CONDITIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PANAMALANE AND WIBLE ROAD. Job Order Description: ROAD CONDITIONS - PANAMA/WIBLE at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 18, 2000 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRFAX ROAD AND COLLEGE AVENUE - City Council Referral No. WF0018341 / OOI Councilmember Maggard requested information relating to the status of the traffic signal at the intersection of Fairfax Road and College Avenue. The contractor is scheduled to complete traffic striping and energize the subject traffic signal this week, weather permitting. The work was originally scheduled to commence today, January 18, 2000, but the rain has delayed the start. O:\GROUPDAT~Re ferrals?Maggard~Fairfax_CollegeTraffi cSignal .wpd ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* o~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018341 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~14~0¢ REQUEST DATE: 1/12/0£ CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:00:4~ SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'l'P~-~'i': 1Z12~0C LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/0¢ GEN. LOC: WARD3 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID:' DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT FAIRFAX AND COLLEGE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** MAGGARD REQUESTED INFORMATION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRFAX'AND COLLEGE AVENUE. Job Order Description: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT FAIRFAX AND COLLEGE at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE / / · RbCE& MEMORANDUM January 21, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources M SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018354 This memo is in response to Councilmember Maggard's referral on January 12, 2000 regarding the discharge of water from a water tank located at Panorama and River Boulevard. California Water Service Company is the owner and operator of this tank facility which is also known as the "Skyline" tank yard located at Station 87. This major facility includes seven individual water tanks totaling 4,350,000 gallons of water storage capacity. The tank facilities were being intentionally drained to allow for annual inspection and maintenance activities. The drainage is a normal and routine activity and this function is performed during the winter months which is the low water demand period of the year. If additional information is needed at this time, please don't hesitate to call our office. GB:sr BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ DATE: January 19, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018342/001, WARD 3, SPEED BUMPS ON FLINTRIDGE DRIVE. "MAGGARD REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, RA UL ROJAS, COORDINATE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE REGARDING SPEED BUMPS ON FLINTRIDGE DRIVE." The Public Works Director is coordinating with Councilman Maggard to set a date and place for a neighborhood meeting regarding the issue of speed bumps on the portion of Flintridge Drive within the City limits. The Traffic Engineer is preparing informational brochures on speed bumps for distribution at the neighborhood meeting. The information will include the City policy on speed bumps and design parameters. A database of property addresses that may be affected by speed bumps is also being prepared for use in mailing notices of a meeting. Traffic Engineering staff will attend the meeting when scheduled. cc: Traffic Engineering File - WF0018342.SpeedBumpFlintridge.ref. wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\WF0018342.SpeedBumpFlintridge.ref. wpd Page I of I ~. ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018342 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~14~00 REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:00:41 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: $'1'~%/<'1': ±~12~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/00 GEN. LOC: WARD3 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: SPEED BUMPS ON FLINTRIDGE DRIVE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** MAGGARD REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, RAUL ROJAS COORDINATE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE REGARDING SPEED BUMPS ON FLINTRIDGE DR. Job Order Description: SPEED BUMPS ON FLINTRIDGE DRIVE atpgory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ,..~ DATE: JANUARY 20, 2000 SUBJECT: GRAFFITI AT HUGHES LANE AND MAURICE AVENUE City Council Referral #WF0018338 / 001 Councilmember Salvaggio referred the graffiti problem on the masonry wall at Hughes Lane and Maurice Avenue.. The graffiti on the masonry wall at Hughes Lane and Maurice Avenue has been removed as of January 18, 2000. City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE '1 REQ/JOB' WF0018338 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~14~00 REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 11:02:45 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: $'1'~/~'1': ±~12~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/00 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE': REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: GRAFFITI AT HUGHES LANE AND MAURICE REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** SALVAGGIO REFERRED THE GRAFFITI PROBLEM ON THE MASONRY WALL AT HUGHES LANE AND MAURICE. Job Order Description: GRAFFITI AT HUGHES LANE AND MAURICE atpgory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~ ~ DATE: January 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Phipps Property - East side of Wible between Planz and Wilson At the request of Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, staff has investigated and hereby provides the following information on the above subject matter. Attached is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Phipps in August of 1999 regarding a potential City project to construct storm drain and catch basins in the vicinity of Mr. Phipps property. As noted, the City project will not include curb and gutter. Mr. Phipps engineer, Mike Callagy, approached the City in May of 1999 with a drainage problem involving his property. After a great deal of discussion, the City agreed to help out Mr. Phipps by doing drainage improvements in the area. However, it was explained to both Mr. Callagy and Mr. Phipps that it would take some time for the City to do this work, since the project had to go through the budget approval process. This project is currently on the list of proposed projects for FY 00-01. Presuming that the project is approved with the FY 00-01 Capital Improvement Program, it is anticipated that the work would begin on the storm drain improvements no earlier than late fall of 2000 or early spring of 2001. Attachment xc: Reading File Project File Jacques R. La Rochelle Marian P. Shaw G:~sub~SHARED\MEMOS~2000\Phipps.wpd RMR:mps BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-3724 RAUL M. ROJAS, DIREC~OR · CITY ENGINEER August 6, 1999 Five Star Enterprises 3232 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attention: Benjamin D. Phipps Subject: Parcel at Wible and PIanz Roads Dear Sir; The City plans to design and construct a storm drain system in the vicinity of this above-referenced parcel. This project will construct approximately 1500 linear feet of storm drain and the associated catch basins, but will not construct curb and gutter. This project needs to be added to the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Design and construction will take several months. If you have any questions concerning this, please contact Marian P. Shaw at (661) 326-3579 or (66 i) 324 3724. Very truly yours, RAUL M. ROJAS Public Works Director Jacques R. LaRochelle ~'- Engineering Services Manager S:\LETTERS\ 1999\Phipps.wpd cc: Ted Wright, Design Engineer Mike Callagy, Cornerstone Engineering MEMORANDUM ,JAN 2.12000 January 20, 2000 L TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ~,¢/"STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL FROM COUNCILMEMBER COUCH NOS. WF0018309/002 AND WF0018302/001 ZONE CHANGE - KERN RIVER FREEWAY ON-RAMP AND POLICY REGARDING KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND APROVED MAPS. Both requests refer to the same item which is the Kern River Freeway and its relationship to zone changes and subdivisions. You may recall that this matter came about as the result of a request by Harold Robertson concerning Tentative Tract 5964 and the deletion of the off-ramp from the Kern River Freeway. This matter was resolved when the Council took action on December 15, 1999 and directed staff to process the case as a city project. A copy of the Administrative Report is attached. The desire to adopt a policy was discussed with Councilmember Couch in a meeting attended by Harold Robertson on November 16, 1999. It was shown to Councilman Couch that this was the only property along the Kern River Freeway with an on-ramp that is not zoned the same as the adjoining property. Councilmember Couch was satisfied that the recommendation in the attached Administrative Report would solve the immediate concern and that pursuit of a policy was not necessary. The Planning Commission approved the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on December 16, 1999. The case goes to the City Council on February 9, 2000. SG:pah cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst I MEETING DATE: December 15, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~PoPR~ED FROM: Development Services- Planning DEPARTMENT HEAI~ ~;~'/ . DATE: November 17, 1999 CITY ATTORNEY./t/ i~ CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 'Request by Harold Robertson, to process as a City project a proposed General Plan Amendment to change + four acres from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) and a corresponding zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-l(Single Family Dwelling) for land no longer needed for an on-ramp for the Kern River Freeway Alignment. (Ward 4) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct staff to process the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as a City project. BACKGROUND: The site is located north of the Kern River Freeway Alignment at Renfro Road and Johnson Road. It was part of a larger project in 1'991 which included a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Annexation. The Kern River Freeway Corridor Alignment was adopted May 22, 1991. The adoption did not include specific on and off-ramps. The property in question was part of General Plan Amendment application 4-90, Segment IV and Zoning Upon Annexation Case No. 5093. As part of the application, the land use request did not change the property within the freeway plan line as well as adjoining property that could be used for an on-ramp. The property was annexed to the City with the land use and zoning as depicted in the attached exhibits. Exhibit "A" shows the property zoning when annexed in 1991. A subsequent zone change shown in Exhibit "B" was approved in 1993 which changed the zoning on a parcel south of the freeway alignment from R-2 to R-1. Exhibit "C" shows the zoning as it relates to the on-ramp property. The applicant retained ownership of the property but left it as agricultural land in cooperation with the City. Harold Robertson of Porter-Robertson Engineering and Surveying, Incorporated is preparing a proposed subdivision of a portion of the land which includes the on-ramp but not the freeway plan line corridor. The subdivision map act has specific requirements for reservation of land within a specific plan line but no such requirement for land that may or may not be needed outside an adopted plan line corridor. December 8, 1999, 3:19PM ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2 Mr. Robertson's position as stated in his letter dated October 11, 1999, is as follows: "When the original owners (JTM Company) applied for annexation and zoning on this property, they did so in cooperation 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 all 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." Mr. Robertson was advised that staff doesn't have the authority to waive fees. Mr. Robertson then approached his Councilman. Mr. Robertson discussed the issue with Councilman Couch who referred the matter to staff for comment. Staff met with Mr. Robertson and Councilman Couch on Tuesday, November 16, 1999 and reviewed the history of the general plan amendment, zoning and annexation for the subject parcel. This situation is unique because with the exception of one other site along the adopted freeway corridor, the land use and zoning is the same as the adjacent property. If the property became available for development because of a change in the freeway alignment, the land use and zoning would not have to be changed. Because the property was made available for an on-ramp in cooperation with the City, it would be reasonable for the city to process the land use change and zoning since the property is no longer needed for the on-ramp. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment and zone change for the property since it is no longer needed as an on-ramp. (SG:pjt) (admin\dec\12-15-gpa) December 8, 1999, 3:19PM ~ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018302 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 11/03/99 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:31:59 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: $'r~u<'±': ±±~03~99 LOCATION ID: ZIP 'CODE: COMPLETION: 11/10/99 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: POLICY REGARDING KR FREEWAY AND APPROVED MAPS REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES*** COUCH SUGGESTED A POLICY BE DRAFTED REGARDING CHANGES TO THE KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND THE EFFECT ON APPROVED MAPS. COUCH WOULD LIKE TO AGENDIZE THIS ITEM. COPY OF RELATED CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: POLICY REGARDING KR FREEWAY AND APPROVED MAPS CatDgory: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS ~¥~'±'m~ wA~ ~SOLVED WHEN COUNCIL TOOK ACTION ONF 12 /15/99 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCESS THE CASE AS A CITY PROJECT. ADMIN REPORT ACCOMPLISHED START DATE /. / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ .~- ,~ ~; City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018309 / 002 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 11/17.99 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:32:15 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'±'A~'±': ±±~17~99 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 11/24/99 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: ZONE CHANGE - KR FREEWAY ONRAMP REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES*** COUCH REFERRED THE ISSUE OF A ZONE CHANGE WHERE CAL-TRANS HAS DELETED AN ON-RAMP ONTO THE PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY. STAFF TO BRING THIS ISSUE .BACK TO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 15, 1999 AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER COUCH. Job Order Description: ZONE CHANGE - KR FREEWAY ONRAMP CatDgory: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS MA'±"I'E~ WAS ~ESOLVED WHEN COUNCIL TOOK ACTION ON 12 /15/99 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCESS THE CASE AS A CITY PROJECT. ADMINI REPORT ACCOMPLISHED. START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy · City Manager January 20, 2000 Mr. Stephan J. DeBranch Vice president, Land Development Castle & Cooke, California, Inc. PO Box 11165 Bakersfield, CA 93389-1165 Dear Mr. DeBranch: This letter is to help clarify issues raised in correspondence from you to Councilmember David Couch, dated December 1, 1999, and correspondence received by the City from Coleman Homes dated December 2, 1999, regarding General Plan Amendment P99-0203 adopted by the City Council on November 3, 1999. There appears to be ~some confusion regarding how the conditions for the Coleman project relate to the conditions and agreement between the City and Castle & Cooke for the 30 acre park along Stockdale Highway. The first issue I will address are the payments for park improvements. You state in your letter that Castle & Cooke is required per the-agreement to pay to the City $700,000 no later than October 6, 2000. You correctly stated in your letter that Coleman is required to pay $100,000 towards park improvements pdor to issuance of a building permit. However, your assumption that the $100,000 payment is to be made in the same time frame as your agreement with the City is incorrect. This payment by Coleman is unique and separate from the park development payments required by Castle & Cooke in its agreement with the City for the exchange of land. Castle & Cooke's scheduled payments of the $700,000 were agreed to as part of the land exchange agreement (transfer of land and park development costs owed to the city), not as a condition of development. While Coleman may choose to pay the City the $100,000 in accordance with a time frame you desire, it is not bound to do so until a building permit is issued.. This is consistent with the original GPA and with City policy. Although Coleman is actively pursuing the PCD zone change, there is no guarantee that such zone change will occur prior to October 6, 2000. Accordingly, since the $100,000 contribution is a condition of development and the zone change, its payment requirement will not mature until such development agreement is achieved. Therefore, no amendment of the resolution regarding this condition is warranted. Regarding the formation of the maintenance district, Castle & Cooke agreed to the formation of the maintenance distdct upon the transfer of the .new park site to the City. As you correctly noted the GPA does not require the annexation of the Coleman property to the maintenance district until the issuance of a building permit. These.conditions are again intentionally different for Castle & Cooke and Coleman for the same reasons stated above for the payment of fees. Therefore, again no amendment of the resolution regarding this condition is warranted. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California ° 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050 Mr. Stephan J. DeBranch Page-2- Janua~ 20,2000 Subsequent to the approval of the pending PCD zone change, Coleman could at their discretion choose to pay the $100,000 towards Park Development and annex to the maintenance district. This could occur any time from approval of the PCD zone change up to the time a building permit is issued. They are not required, how. ever, based upon the conditions of the GPA, to do either of these things until the building permit is issued. To address the final 'issue, the December 2, 1999 letter from Coleman requested a clarification regarding the payment of maintenance district assessments. There does not seem to be any confusion as t© the requirement for Coleman or its successors in interest, to pay 25% of maintenance distdct assessments. However, it is asserted that Mr. Bruce Freeman indicated that the time structure for the agreement with the City was for ten years from the commencement of the maintenance of the park. City staff knows of no provision in the agreement with Castle & Cooke or the Coleman GPA conditions that limited the maintenance assessments in any way or to a ten year period. It would be highly unusual to impose a condition requiring a maintenance assessment for a park or other public facility and then allowing it to cease after ten years when the facility continues to require maintenance. This wOuld require shifting the maintenance burden to other parties or eliminating maintenance of the facility altogether. Therefore, it is staff's understanding that the park maintenance assessments would continue for the property owners subject to these conditions as long as the park continues to be maintained by the City. This also does not require any revision of the mitigation measures. Hopefully, this clears up any confusion regarding the relationship between the agreement with the City and Castle & Cooke for the park land exchange and the conditions imposed as part of the Coleman GPA. Councilmember Couch has indicated to me that he will be contacting both parties some time next week to further discuss this matter. Should you have any further questions please contact me at 326-3751. cc. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Bruce Freeman, Castle & Cooke Roger Mclntosh, Martin-Mclntosh Tony Hogg, Coleman Homes Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Start Ford, Recreation and Parks Director S:~JOHN\DeBranch Letter.wpd