HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989
DRAFT '
September 26, 1989
Mr. Michael R. Haverty, President
Santa Fe Railway Company
80 E. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty:
The City of Bakersfield is extremely concerned regarding Santa
Fe's proposed closure of your inter-modal ramp in our city. We
know and sympathize with those individuals and companies which
Would be financially~'~istressed by this action, but our greater
concern is for the continued economic development of our
community.
Many individuals spend untold numbers of hours promoting our city
and its'image. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have recently
been spent on studies identifying industries whose needs match
Bakersfield's advantages. The overwhelming advantage of
Bakersfield is its location. It serves as a distribution center
for not only the entire California market, but also markets to
the east. This is possible due to Santa Fe's rail service. An
intensive marketing effort to attract major food processors to
our area is beginning, due to the abundance of produce in Kern
County and our unique distribution system. Food processors will
especially require the services of your company.
As the economic pressures continue to mount on businesses in
Southern California, they will naturally look inland to the
Central Valley for relocation. Please allow our local shippers
the opportunity to continue offering all the services needed to
successfully bring their products to market. Our community has a
bright future ahead of us. Your continued participation in its
development would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
John F. Wager, Jr.
Economic Development Director
JFW/ndw
X:L.CW15
WILLIAM M.'THOMAS ~ AO"'N,ST.AT,"E ASS,STANT
20TH DISTR~CT, CALIFORNIA ~,~ CATHERINE M. ABERNATHY
DISTRICT OFFICES:
COMMfVrEES: 4100 TRUXTUN AVE. ~220
RAKERSFIELD, CA 93309
WAYS AND MEANS {805) 327-3611
HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
858 W. JACKMAN STREET, ~115
BUDGET LANCASTER, CA 93534
( ongre of the i niteb tate
1390 PRICE STREET, ~203
2402 RA' U.."ODSEOFF,CEgU.LO,. 9ou e of pr entatitn P,S.OgEAC..CA93449
WASmNG'rON, DC 20515 (805) 773-2533
(2o2) 229-2915 i la ingt,n, 205t5
September 13, 1989
Mr. Michael R. Haverty, President 0CT 02 ~989
Santa Fe Railway .Company
80 E. Jackson Boulevard CITY MANAC-~E~S OFFICE
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty: ................
I have recently become aware of your company's plans to
close an intermodal ramp in Bakersfield, California on October 2,
1989. This closure will follow a similar action taken by Santa Fe
Railway in Blythe, California on August 15th.
As you are no doubt aware, the Bakersfield ramp closure will
occasion significant hardships for area growers who rely on Santa
Fe for an important percentage of their transportation needs.
Without this outlet for their shipped produce, growers will be
forced to shoulder the additional cost of drayage to the next
nearest terminal, which, for Bakersfield-area growers, is an
additional 125 miles to either Los Angeles or Fresno. In turn,
growers will pass the increased transportation costs on to
consumers, and higher food prices and lower consumer demand will
be the inevitable result.
I realize Santa Fe Railroad has an interest in pursuing the
most efficient operation possible. However, I also understand
that Bakersfield intermodal ramp was, and would have continued to
be, profitable. In recognition of this profitability, and in
light of the detrimental consequences to both growers and
consumers that will result should this ramp be closed
permanently, I respectfully request your reconsideration of this
action.
Best regards,
WILLIAM . THOMAS
Member of Congress
WMT/msk
Shippers rally to frog
halt in santa Fe servmce
By ROBERTA WESTERFIELD Mary K. Shell said. "Any way we
CaU~on~n ~ff wr~ter .......... y-Can increase shipment on rail, we
Ray Brown, a Bakersfield`man help our ar qua y.
who struggled to form a small In fact, an air quality speciaus~
trucking company, said the Santa from the Kern County Air Pollution
Fe railroad's announcement that it Control District told the crowd the
will end' piggyback service came=~.~?:economic ripple O!e ~S~oon~ Fe's pult-
"I haven't even received a letter. ,;.... The:air. district calculates .:that ·
,y~," he said at ~d~nee~g fTo~eeiS~[i .'th'e trucks U~ed to replace'the piggy-'
Ire been bull ' g P .-'g :;backs could contribute :i~P to'.
years and now Santa Fe ~ going .to .44.5 tons Of extra pollutants .ev~.tr~v
knock it under me... ,.;, It s g0mg m year. Reaching healthful air qua
standards.'required by the state
Brown tod. :g g'< ..... would be'~made that much more
Greater Bakedsfield Chamber of 'difficult,'z'and may necessitate new
Commerce's meeting, that.'.he hah- ' restrictiogd' on residents' automo-
died 99 percent .of'<'.the .dry .goods biles and industrial pollution, sourc-
that serves 60 customers throUgbout ...... "What concerns me about 'Santa
the United States and Canada. '~:' .?Fe is what kind of corporate neigh-
The Atchison, Topeka and santa · bor are they," said attorney George
Fe Railway Co. plans to,drop.itsT-..Martin, chamber president-elect.
~ piggyback sirvice Oct. !, and .the '-."'We're the third largest agricul-
~ Bakersfield agriculture and?busi--!, ture-producing county (in the ha-
ness conununity is..fighting back., ti0n)' and'?if we can!t have
Piggybacks allow loaded senu-tra -. 'piggyback set,rice, who can. ·
ers to travel on rail fiat cars;:/?;.~.'; .. Local business leaders fear that
The rail 'dOmpany is meeting.. :;-. .......
': next week With chamber ,epre.se.n- '~emlol°w~O~ng~r~anPt~Sleem/a~l? sn"°un°m'-
tatives and Republican. dssemmy-". . . - · --
man Phil W man's office Local' lar marling service ~or oou~le-con-
· Y;--~ _ ~ , · ;. ,_~rs~ tainer shipment -- the wave of the
concerns auout ~ .a~a, ~'e .s ~a~. .... ] rei~ht future -- will never
field departure also captured the.. .
ear of Gov. Deur, me_l] .a~: ~e~, .,r..~.,,..:'"Santa Fe is a public utm~y,
Thomas, officials at. the meeting ...~.a,.,., the"re makin- or losing
~ ~: · wnemer y
announced.
"As most of you know, we are money in Bakersfield ... it matters
non-attainment for ozone and partic- whether they're making or losing
ulates," Kern County Supervisor. money (throughout the) state."
,Santa Fe stands firm' 'on,,Piggyback shutdown
=.' * ~:~:'" ~':~' '"* income, 'down 26 percent ... when most
Civic group vows appeal to PUC
By ROBERTA WESTERFIELD ' · railroads had up income," he said.
Californian staff wrtter ' ".i.. : .............. ~ '.';' -'~' ' "The Santa Fe is one of the less.
/' A Santa Fe official said despite meet-' ~.,vantage., .... ~' " · '...' i~ :' .. the comPany to reconsider, profitable railroads," the analyst said. ,
ings in Bakersfield today,., chances are:,i~,'! The sant~'~e earlier this month' an. ,We're trying to see if there's a "Its low rated (small charge for)piggy-
slim that the railroad's piggyback service~ ~','n0~nced it will e~ase piggyback service at ~. business solution where it' can be a back service keeps Santa Fe from a
will continue beyond it,s.,scheduled ¢los~e ~.~ :its downtownBakersfield yard, a decision' '; win-win-win for the shippers and growers.
Oct. 1. "'~'~:'" :. ~" i~ ' ~.' i~ that concerns 'local farmers and other .~ . and the railroad, George Martin, .a l.oca, l higher profit margin." '
"The facts and figures we have cpm;' i.' businesses. that~ use the service, i~Piggy- lawyer and the chamber presi(~em-e~ec~, Approaching the Southern Pacific
piled show that economically we're taking p backing '.allows truck "'trailers "to be . said about today's meeting. '"Either you P, ailroad to operate a piggyback ramp is
, · .... ,~.,~ . ' '~ ' :' t or ou don't and we
a beatin -b - kee mg~ that. line open, ,.,.~ shi on .raflflat cars, giving growers have a marke y , a possibility that has yet to be explored.
g . y p ~ pped . . .. . , . . ,,.
-~ Michael Martin, public 'affairs manager,~ and~ others ,:. more flexibdity ~ ~n shipping., believe we have a market. . "That's definitely something we obvi-:
for The Atchison, Topeka and Santa. Fe,,.'~.e, ast and to.smaller markets~ ;'.?'"" ' ' ~: But Santa Fe's decision to halt p~ggy-
. P, ailway Co., said in an interview Mon-.~ ;~ On TUesday;ithe Kern County Board of back.i in Bakersfield comes as no surprise ously would be interested in," said Dick
Smith, the SP regional sales manager in
!day. "We're seein~ a $0 p~,rcent decre~.~!Sul~rvisors entered into the campaign to to a New York rail industry analyst. ' Bakersfield. "We're going to have to find
i from 1986.to 1989. i.. :.' ": .....~ '~'~" !'keep piggyback. service, sending a letter' ~ "industrywide, piggyback traffic is
; · But a consortium of business leaders,:'?.to the company president asking he recon- :': inherently the least profitable service that out first whether there's a market in
.Bakersfield, but if the profit were there,
'growers, shippers and:politicians, insist;i~ sider the decision to close the ramp. ' a railroad carries,"' Michael H. Lloyd, a .then it's something our company would
lng there is enough piggyback traffic; ,i .. i:. .,... '~In addition to the potential economic .:' rail analyst'with Salomon Bros., said.
cling to'the hope the railroad will extend.":'i~pact ~'.." the Closure of the piggyback ~ "Because of the truck competition, you investigate."
' Meanwhile, Martin said the chamber
the deadline. . .~ ~ramp will adversely impact the air quail- ~ rarely' make profits." .
. .' And, ii lt,won't,,,they',,ve..~ow~d~t,,o fi~?ity in Kern Countyf the letter States. The. !. He said it Would be difficult for the is preparing to file a complaint against
~. back. · ':: ~i.,.: '" ' '??' '. "~' '~"~; ~ ";""~ ""~"~';ii local.,air~'Im!lution control district esti-.: Company to operate the service at a loss the Santa Fe with the state Public Utili-
~'.' "They haven't made a commitment~to;'.i"mates.tha(~ more than 40 tons of pollutants i~' when:trucking alternatives are available, ties Commission to force the company to
' ~' ' ' "' ~' .... ~ r
stay this decision ver_b,a, lly orig.. ,w~?ing, ;i~imay. be :added: to' the environment by .-:. Moreover, Lloyd sa~d Santa Fe s ope - reveal its Bakersfield piggyback shipping
':.' and that's what we're hoping tor, .~sald ?closin~ the service and shifting the traffic" :~'. '.." ' .... .. ~ . . , ..... ,,._. data.
nt ~of the' Greater .~: ~ ..{ ' ~i . . aung proti~s nave dippea ~o m,o,,s ~-~ "We hope to force the Santa Fe to
. Ben Stinson, preside ~,~ to.trucks .... .; .. 'on "Kee in mind the
"~',~-~,~,~' - h- "lowest in the nati . . p . . reinstate service to Bakersfield," he said.
Bakersfield .Cha~...~r of ,Comme.r.c.e; ?f !:,; :; ~?, Assemblyman Phil Wyman_, R..Teh..ac., , , .q ta Fe railroad in the first half of this. "And if we can't do it in a businesslike
wedo not have ~ms service avauame to/:,:a i. and Rep. Bill Thomas, ti-t~al~ersnem,, _an ..... · --:':~n in o.,eratino fashion, we're going the judiciary route."
P ear earneu ~oo · ~,,,,.,~, ~, o .
~: i us,i we will be put in .an economic diSad- als~ have become involved, both, asking Y .'.' ~, ,~
..... GREATER BAKERSFIELD
~ ':;::' CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
September 14, 1989
Dear Chamber Member:
:-:? This Tuesday, September 19, at 5:30 p.m., at the
~':' Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce office, your Chamber
'~>i~:>:i will be presenting an informational meeting regarding Santa Fe
railroad's inadequate local transportation facilities and its
. !. ......... scheduled closing of the Bakersfield piggyback ramp.
As you know Kern County is the leading oil-producing
'-'. county in the nation and is the third largest agricultural-
..... . producing county in'America.' We are also on the edge of
tremendous economic~growth, but there is a major negative factor
~.' in our attempts to attract growth to the heartland of California
and that is our transportation facilities. As you well know
deregulation devastated our commercial airline service to the point
-. where it is almost nonexistent, and'Where it does exist it costs
more to fly to San Francisco than t~ New York'City.
.:i: Deregulation.is'about to strike Kern County again!
-~?~ ............ Sa~ta.-Ferailroad,_withoUt~.any..public.._announcement, has. scheduled ........
"'-".:' the closure'of its Bakersfield piggyback ramp which means that
~" business and agricultural~'concerna will have to truck their
!~'i',i..~.'~ products to Fresno for loading .at Santa Fe's already overtaxed
. piggyback ramp. This obviously puts Kern County at an economic
disadvantage in competing for new business in the Valley and costs
":'- our current agribusinesses more to operate. We feel that a
· .~2 ........................... railroad --(even--given deregulat~0n) is a m~_~0~0~_9~d._~es~s~
~. community adequate service.
we hope you or'your representative will attend ~his
special meeting and~help us send a message to Santa Fe regarding
its duties as a good corporate neighbor.
Very truly yours,
i.
Ben Stinson, Chairman
..... " Bakersfield'Chamber of Commerce
L,J ' 1033 TRUXTUN AVENUE, P.O. BOX 1947, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93303 (805) 327-4421
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS SUE LASlTER
Clerk of Board of Supervlsom
Administration and Courts Building
ROY ASHBURN District No. 1 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room 600
BEN AUSTIN District No. 2 Bakemfleld, Celiiornla 93301
P~,ULINE LARWOOD Dlatrlct No. 3 Telephone (805)861-2167
KARL F. HETTINGER District No. 4
MARY K. SHELL District No. $
September 26, 1989
Mr. Michael IL Haverty, President
Santa Fe Railway
80 East ~lackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty:
The Kern County Board of Supervisors respectfully requests you to reconsider your position on
the closure of the "piggyback" ramp service in Bakersfield, C~lifomia.
Kern County is one of the top three agricultural producing counties in the state and nation. Area
growers depend .on the piggyback raft service to transport their produce expeditiously. The
closure of the loading ramp service will increase costs and dine to ship produce.
Industrial development is rapidly growing as a major source of income in the County. There is
.................. hardly'a basic industry that is not represented in Kern County: ' rubber,' borax, food processing,
plastics, packaging, timber, stone, ghss, steel fabrication, petroleum refining, electronics, textiles,
aircraft and automotive parts. Many of these industries also rely on the piggyback raft service to
move their product to market.
In addition to the potential economic impact on agriculture and industry in the County, the
closure of the piggyback ramp will adversely impact the air quality in Kern County. Santa Fe
~-Railwh~-~E~0-rd~' indicate that-18 ;000 -~Si~gybfi~k~ Were loaded in 'Bakersfield 'in-- 1986:-- The-Kern .............
County Air Pollution Goncrol District has computed the impact of 18,000 additional heavy-duty
diesel trucks on the highways transporting produce/products out of Kern County. This additional
mack traffic would increase mobile source emissions in Kern County by 6.35 tons/year (0.185%)
for Particulate Matter, 35.04 tons/year (0]147%) for Nitrogen Oxides, and 3.15 tons/year
(0.027%) for Reactive Organic Gases.
In 1988, the California Clean Air Act was passed which mandates a 5% reduction in emissions
per year. Santa Fe's decision to close the piggyback ramp service in Bakersfield will result in
increased requirements for emission reductions from other local sources to compensate for the
increase in diesel mack traffic.
Michael 1L Have~
September 26, 1989
Page 2
The Board urges you, as a corporate member of this community, to reconsider your position on
the closure of the Bakersfield piggyback ramp service.
Sincerely,
Kern County Board of Supervisors
BA:ES:dr\santafe
cc: Senator Pete Wilson
Congressman William Thomas
Governor George Deukmejian
Senator Don Rogers
Assembly Member Trice Harvey
Assembly Member Phil Wyman
Public Utilities Commission
Interstate Commerce Commission
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce ·
Western Growers Association
ITEM #70 '~ ;'
GEARY TAYLOR scott Jo~£s
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER D~,'~,ctor of Budget & F,~nce
MARY WEDDELL OOEL HEINRICHS
Assistan! County Administrative Officer ' Director ot Policy Analysis
& [nter~c~.'ernmental ReLations
ROBERT SEVERS
Employee Relations Officer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
September 26, 1989
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Civic Center
1415 T;-uxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
. STATUS REPORT REGARDING SANTA FE PIGGYBACK RAMP CLOSURE
Santa Fe Railway has announced it will be closing its intermodal (piggyback) ramp service
effective October 1, 1989. Santa Fe provided the Western Growers Association with the following
util~?.ation statistics to support their decision to dose the ramp. In 1986, there were 18,000
piggyback loadings; in 1988, there were 11,700 loadings;, and in 1989, Santa Fe estimates there
will be only 9,200. However, information regarding the level of service needed for the intennodal
ramp service in Bakersfield to be profitable was not provided by Santa Fe. Further, Santa Fe did
not provide any information on the number of piggybacks available to Bakersfield area businesses
and whether the piggybacks available fully met local demand for the service.
The Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce held a public forum on September 19, 1989, to receive '
input from businesses impacted by the closure. Both agricultural and industry representatives
stated that the closure of the piggyback ramp would significantly impact their operations.
Agriculture representatives stated the alternatives suggested by Santa Fe, i.e. drayage to Santa Fe
ramps in either Fresno or Los Angeles, are not viable. Not only does drayage to Fresno or Los
..... A/i-g~l~s-~51a~~/n-~-ddifioiial Cost'burden o~-the ~cultUral'shiPp~-r~-but-in-~dditiOrf, ir, cr~iF.-s-Lh~- ............
transit time for the produce thereby cutting down the number of shipments that can be effidently
handled without more drivers and equipment.
Local industry representatives stated they would also experience increased drayage costs as well
as a decrease in transportation options.
The Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce is considering filing a request with the Public Utilities
Commission to require Santa Fe Railway to~ extend the closure date for the ramp service for one
year to allow additional time for a detailed evaluation of the situation. The Chamber has not
been able to adequately determine actual usage or demand for the piggyback sen4ce in
'Bakersfield 'due to the short notice of the closure by Santa Fe. Allowing additional time before
1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room #704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA '93301 (805) 861-2371
.... .:..':=~:.-'-..-.-.: ...::--' '-- ? ...... :,~. .......... :...-::.:':'...~-i,~ :-:i~ii .i ::',:, .-'-.-:-?:-~::-:::;:i-~": ~::~-.'.' '~.--i::..-::.'-_::. -?~.= ::: :?:%'-::,:-??-i:?.'- ...... :' :.:. ':':¥!~',: ...... ¥': ..-. '.: ,'. ~ ~ .... -.':: . -'; i
Board of Supervisors
September 26, 1989
Page 2
closure of the ramp would provide the existing shippers the same level of service while pursuing
alternative courses of action. For example, the Western Growers Assodation has contacted the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company and requested them to consider providing piggyback
service in Bakersfield.
In addition to the impact on local area growers and businesses, the piggyback ramp closure will'
adversely impact the air quality in Kem County. As mentioned above, Santa Fe Railway records
indicate that 18,000 piggybacks were loaded in Bakersfield in 1986. The Air Pollution Control
'Dis~-ict has estimated the impact of 18,000 ad~fional ~esel tracks on the Ydghways transporting
produce/products out of Kern County. This additional truck traffic would increase mobile source
emissions in Kern County by 6.35 tons/year (0.18S%) for Particulate Matter, 3S.04 tons/year
(0.147%) for Nitrogen Oxides, and 3.15 tons/year (0.027%) for Reactive Organic Gases.
As you know, Kern County is non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM-10) air quality
standards. At a time when the California Clean Air Act of 1988 will require a S% reduction in
emissions per year, Santa Fe's decision will result in increased requirements for emission
reductions for other local sources io compensate for the increased truck traffic.
Congressman William Thomas has requested Santa Fe Railway to reconsider the closure of the
ramps. Assemblyman Phil Wyman. has arranged a meeting with representatives of Santa Fe to
discuss the closure.
....... Santa Fe's-decision to close the-piggyback ramp in .Bakersfield could seriously_jeopardize_ _ar. ca
growers and businesses in Kern County. It is essential for Santa Fe to reconsider their position
and maintain the piggyback service in Bakersfield in order to provide adequate service to local
businesses and to avoid adverse air quality impacts.
IT IS RECOMMENDED the Board 1) authorize the Chairman to sign the attached letter to the
President of Santa Fe Railway requesting them to reconsider the closure of the intermodal
..................... ~igg~rb~Ai)~anip'-'and-2)-support-the'Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce's efforts to extend the
closure date of the ramp.
- SincerelY~
County Ad~[ims' tr~ve Offic
GT:ES:dr\santafe
attachment
cc: Bakersfield Chamber'of Commerce
Western Growers Association
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS SUE LASITER
Cle~ of Bo~rgJ of Sup,~l~or,
~ ~~~~ Admlnlst~ltion and Court~ Building
ROY ASHBURN District No. 1 141S Truxtun Avenue. Room 600
BEN AUSTIN District No. 2 ' Beket3fleld, C,Ilforrtla 93301
pAuLINE LARWOOD District No. 3 Telephone (805)861-2167
KARL F. HETTINGER District No. 4
MARY K. SHELL District No. 5
september 26, 1989
Mr. Michael R. Haveny, Pres/dent
Santa Fe Railway
80 East Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, llllrtois 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty:
The Kern County Board of.Supervisors respectfiflly requests you to reconsider your position on
the closure of the "piggyback" ramp service in Bakersfield, California.
Kern County is one of the top three agriculnlral producing counties in the state and nation. Area
growers depend .on the piggyback rail service to transport their produce expeditiously. The
closure of the loading ramp service will increase costs and time to ship produce.
Industrial development is rapidly growing as a major source of income in the County. There is
...................... hardly a-~basic industry-that'is-'not represented in Kern-County:- robber/borax, food processing,
plastics, packaging, timber, stone, glass, steel fabrication, petroleum refining, electronics, textiles,
aircraft and automotive parts. Many of these industries also rely on the piggyback rail sen, ice to
. . move their product to market.
In addition to the potential economic impact on agriculture and industry in. the County, the
closure of the piggyback ramp will adversely impact the air quality in Kern County. Santa Fe
.......................... Railway-'fect~ds indica~e- that 18,000 -piggybi~ks We-re-loaded'in Bakersfield 'in '1986.- ?ne-'K~m
County Air Pollution Control District has computed the impact of 18,000 additional heavy-duty
diesel trucks on the highways transporting produce/products out of Kern County. This additional
truck traffic would increase mobile source emissions in Kern County by 6.35 tons/year (0.185%)
for Particulate Matter, 35.04 tons/year (0.147%) for Nitrogen Oxides, and 3.15 tons/year.
(0.027%) for Reactive Organic Gases.
"In 1988, the California Clean Air Act was passed which mandates a 5% reduction in emissions
per year. Santa Fe's decision to close the piggyback ramp sertice in Bakersfield will result in
increased requirements for emission reductions from other local sources to compensate for the
increase in diesel truck traffic.
Michael R. Haverty
September 26, 1989
Page 9.
The Board urges you, as a corporate member of this community, to reconsider your position on
the closure of the Bakersfield piggyback ramp sewice.
Sincerely,
Ben Austin, Chairman
Kexn County Board of Supervisox$
BA:ES:dr\santafe
cc: Senator Pete Wilson
Congressman William Thomas
Governor George Deukmejian
Senator Don Rogers
Assembly Member Trice Harvey
Assembly Member Phil W~Tnan
Public Utilities Commission
Interstate Commerce Commission
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Western Growers Association
... WAY~ AND M~N5 B~s~[~o. C~ g3~Oe
HOU~; ADMINIET~ATION {e0~) 3~?-3al I
BUDG~ ~Se W, JACKM~N 8T;;~T, =1 16
(202) ]~t-1111 (tOE) 173-2i31
· ~a~intton, ~( 20515
Mr. Michael R. Haverty, President
Santa Fe Railway Company
80 E. JaCkson Boulevard .'
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty=
I have recently become aware of your company's plans to
close an intermodal ramp in Bakersfield, California on
October 2, 1989. This closure will follow a similar action taken
by Santa Fe Railway in Blythe, California on August 15th.
.As you are no doubt aware, -the Bakersfield ramp closure will
occasion significant hardships for area growers who rely on Santa
Fe for an important percentage of their transportation needs.
Without this outlet for their shipped produce, growers will be
forced to shoulder the additional cost of drayage to the next
nearest terminal, which, for Bakersfield~area_growers,__ls. an
additi~nal'125 miieS"~o'-'~ither--L0S-Angeles or Fresno. In turn,
growers will pass the increased transportation costs on to
consumers, and higher food prices and lower consumer demand will
be the inevitable result. .....
I realize Santa Fe Railroad has an interest in pursuing the
most efficient operation possible. However, I also_understand
................... that-the-BakerSff~ld'-i~erm6dA-~--~-~p-~-a-~--~a~ Would have
continued to be, profitable. In recognition of 'this -'
profitability, and in light of the detrimental_consequences to
both growers and consumers that will result should this ramp be
closed permanently, I respectfully request your reconsideration
of this action.
....... WILL
~T/msk Member of Congress
' * ::' RICH~D £. 9ROWN · '7.
BAKERSRE~, ~ 933~
· (805) 832-2318 .~
September 18, 1989
Greater.Bakersfield Chamber of Oo~u~erce
1033 TZ%t~t~ Avenue.
PO BO× 1947 Re: Santa Fe-Ry. ?igg~back Sez~rice
Bakersfield CA
Gentlemen: ...
· *' Z won't.be able to attend the meeting. Tuesday, September
· so want to offer written' co~ents on the above sub2ecto
First, it's ironic that the most recent issue of &merican
~erita~ mag~sine contains a feature article about the origin of
t~e tez~, "T~e publ/c be ~a~ued," in relation-to 19th centuz~ U
railroads. '
.......................... Santa-Fe~certainly~fits~hat.at~titude~as~&_ne~_t~e~d~f
.~ the 20th ~century, and I recommend We~act through bothour state-and
federal governments to force Santa Fe to serve the pUblic.
Not only is Santa Fe telling Kern County farmers to go ifly a.
~kite,~ it's also dragging its heels on a third San Joagui~ train for
Amtrak, originally scheduled to start September 17, but delayed again
by Santa Fe. (I just checked this morning with Amtrak; no date has
been given by santa Fe, although Amtrak and Caltrans have been ready
. t0.~tart_that~.Bakersfield train for sometime.)
The City of Riverside wants Amtr~k's Desert ~ind to make a
................ st°p-~there;-'Amtrak~is:willing~-'but~again~anta-F'e r~Tuses to serve
the public. '
In the 1890s, the San Francisco & San Joaquin "People's" Valley
Railroad, now part of Santa Fe, began operations to bring service which
a ~hen greedy Southern Pacific would not do. Now Santa Fe is doing the
same things which got SPa bad name at the time Hiram Johnson 'threw
them out of control of state government in 1910.
excusable for Santa~Fe to act this way ~about piggyback service to~
Kern County.
I recommend that both state and federal governments strengthen
their respective PUC and ICC to require service in the interest of
the public. Furthermore, both government levels shOuld use their
Power of taxation to help bring compliance. ~I.e., if~Santa-Fe refuses
~iggyback service as well as Amtrak service in Bakersfield, Riverside,
~tc., ~then let us~raise their taxes tenfold. Conversely, if'-they are
cooperative and save our highways, etc., then let's ~ive them a tax
break. The GBCC should contact our representatives in both the
~ California Legislature and U~S.Congress 'and ~urge appropriate ~legisl~tion.
Yours truly,
BORTON, PETRINI & CONRON
MEMORANDUM
TO: GEORGE DATE: 9-15-89
FROM: SUSAN FILE NO:
SUBJECT:: SANTA FE RAMP SITUATION
Ben Stinson called and gave me the 'f~ilowing
names of two people he thinks should be sent a letter
and asked to intervene in the Santa Fe situation.
They are:
Heather GradisOn, who is chairperson for the
Interstate .Commerce Commission,-and investigates grievances
that communities have such as this. Her address is
Twelfth and Constitution, Washington DC 20423.
Jack Rick, with the California Publi~ Utilities
Commission, Railroad and Safety, 505 Van Ness, San
Francisco, CA 94102
$a.' ' ' ':"-:'-'.'"i think We've made.our p- tio
ta
.. . .--,-]By ROBERTA WESTERF~: :~ p¢~ng out 'woCd d~aCBakers[ield' -~ 18,e~ Cpmen~ in 1986 ~ a
· . rojec¢ 9,~ ~ year. Piggyback
' ' . dcmonstra~ to me ba:,~ ,.'~
' - ' rn County has the .c,s~on to cont~n~_~e~qce maid Jan.
........................ : vice, wMc~. ~ company o~cial .ex ,-n acconm~odation to currem c~:...
· · - ..... -ten ed. =- ~: .......... m .order to [ . ,, , a tume to boast, ,.
..... +~at t reaBy haven't had nroblem and they. Undcr~tan~
- ' . · ~ too much mone}, r~cy-,,~ ' ' ~%tors ~terior pa~s, aha
-' . . .. - no.ced ~t ..o~¢ h . P ~8;_~:,.rs r~Ues heavily on San~ Fe ~ p g~ . ,,,v~ tM~ there ts a-~eD go
.' _ :~:-:c~ · . .; . ;Piggybacking auows truck u'an= . ~- brin ~ma~ria~ iromme ' .....
· fiat cars. backs to g -'~ket,
· " ... '.'" . ............... , to be sh~pped on raft ..... ~,,-i - ~.ast Coa~ ....
.:. .}:., .., ..'..~_ .... ". "~'ee ''''
-.::...... .. , ..'..":'.....:: . .'.-.: ...... .,..: ... .
-.- - ..- . ~ ....... ....- ....: '-:....:-..'.'. .- .. ..... ....
-Blythe chamber of Commerce
201 SOUTH BROADWAY
BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA 92225 800443-5513
Telephone (619) 922~166 (Out~ide California)
800~45-0541
(California)
September 13, 1989
Honor~-~-ie-~-i--Mi-i-chei-l--.Wilk-i~-President
Publi'c Utilities. Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
.Dear Mr. Wilk:
RE: Reduction of Santa Fe Rail Service in Blythe, CA
...... The Blythe Chamber of-Commerce requests, a P.U.C. hearing
because of the disruption of rail service in Blythe by
The Santa Fe in mid. August 'halted the produce shipping
service known as "piggyback," and on September 1' closed
the Blythe rail station and removed the freight agent.
The railroad now claims it will offer rail service twice a
week and. "on demand" will provide additional service. In
s.pi-te--of--t-he---P.-U-..-C .... Gene_r_al Order No. 36E which requires a
pay for calls to order rail service. ....
If any further formal notice is required, please advise
· this office.
cc: Representative A1 McCandless, ~ashington P'C.
Senator Robert Presley, Palm Desert
Assemblyman Steve Clute, Riverside
Blythe Chamber of Commerce
201 SOUTH BROADWAY
BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA 92225 800443-5513
Telephone (619) 92243166 (Outside California)
800~445-0541
(California)
September 6, 1989
TO: All Interested Parties ..
RE: Reduction of Santa Fe Raj] Service Jn B]ythe
A meeting was held this date at the B[ythe Chambez- office wi. th George Ireton,
assistant manager of Santa Fe transportatJan services, of Barstow, and Jack WJJes,
. assistant superintendent of Santa Fe operations, of Needles. In attendance were
~ Floie Barrows, chamber president; ~arren Hemph~]], chamber manager; Doris Horgan,
City of Blythe vice-mayor; and Start, Jessop, chamber past-president.
The Santa Fe people made it plain that the "piggyback" service in Blythe would not
terminal was better equipped for this type of service. Switching cars was stated
as a problem here.
~r. wiles said there is no intention ~0' terminate other rail 'serv-ices here. For'
the Present rail service two days a week will satisfy the demand, and this will be
increased as demand goes up. They apparently need an average of 20 cars daily to
................ cover-cost--of-crews--and.-equ~pment.
They were unable to comment on the report from Representative A1HcCand]ess'. office
that Santa Fe is offering local produce growers concessions on weight to reduce the
extra cost of sending "piggyback" units to Phoenix for loading there. They planned
to meet with a number of active local customers while here to explain the new
program.
They-~ere' also not prepared to discuss the possible sa'lc of the B]y~he to Rice
~..branch line to a local group 9f growers or investors. They indicated no~ knowledge
that the Blythe line might be on the market for sale.
It was pointed out by Hr. HemphJ. ll that from reliable information we have learned
that the tracks are Jn poorconditJon in the Blythe yard. The Santa Fe people did
not feel this was a major problem.
Nr. Barrows questioned the lack of notification of the "piggyback" ramp being
closed, and cited this as poor public relations. Ireton and Wiles said they
understood that letters of notification were sent to all local users and suppliers.
Chamber contacts show this may not have happened.
September 6, 1989
Reduction of Santa Fe Rail. SePvice in Blythe . . '..
Page 2
The meeting was very friendly and the Santa Fe people very cooperative. Mr. Wiles
can be reached at (619) 326-5462 in Needles. He agreed to give any help possible.
We informed them that State Senator Robert Pres]ey has been alerted to the raj]
service problem and that pressure may come from the State to'reverse the service
reduction.
Manager ' '
· P.O. BOX 942849 water. Parks & Wildlife
SAC,AMI::NTO. CA 94249-0001 '~"~ BtU ,~ 55 ~m,L,.~,. Governmental Orgamza
TELEPHONE: (916) 445-7558 Housing & Community
Develo0ment
Transoortation
11'11 FULTON MALL · SUITE 914 CHAIRMAN
FRESNO, CA 93721 AssemDly Rural Caucu..
TELEPHONE: (209) 264-3078 Environment and
Natural Resources
512 N. IRWIN, SUITE A Commiltee of tl~e
National Conference
-' HANFORD, CA 93230 ~ ,~_ ",',,', ~ ~JI M COSTA S,a,e Legisiatu,es
TELEPHONE: (209, 582-2869, L..,:~ ~ (~ i'~ L[ ~J" [~%S~M"~AN, THIRTIETH DISTRICT
MEMBER
MERCED IL"/_.// . California Debt Adviso~
TELEPHONE: (209, 384-1,94-- -- SEP L 1989---- Chairman. Commission
WATEn, PARKS W LDUFE COMU EE'
CI~ MANA~8 OFFICE'
SAN JOAOUIN V~T.T.R~f AIR OUALIT~ CONFERENCE
WHAT: An exciting on~-day'conference on air quality and growth
in the San Joaquin Valley.
Designed for local government officials, businessmen,
agricultural interests, and the general public.
WHEN: Thursday, October 19, 1989.
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (including a luncheon program)
WHERE: FreSno County Plaza Ballroom
2220 Tulare Street 8th Floor
Fresno, California
Assemblyman. Jim Costa is sponsoring a one-day conference
featuring panel discussions on valley air quality, what's being
done to improve air quality, and how various interest groups can
play a role improving air quality in the future.
The conference is cosponsored by the League of California
Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, California
Chamber of Commerce,. Fresno County and City Chamber of Commerce,
California Building Indust~--y Association and the California Farm
Bureau Federation.
~a~k you calendar and save the date for this important
mE .... ~-- October 19'
conference on ~,,~ .... i , ·
Registration inio_--mation will be sent to you in two weeks.
(Not printed or mailed at public expense)
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER ~" ~-~-
Mr. Michael R. Haverty, President
Santa Fe Railway Company
80 E. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Haverty:
The City of Bakersfield is extremely concerned regarding Santa Fe's
proposed closure of your intermodal ramp in our city. We know and
sympathize with those individuals and companies which would be financially
distressed by.this action, but our greater concern is for the continued
economic development of our community.
Many individuals spend untold numbers of hours promoting our city and its
image. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have recently been spent on
studies identifying industries whose needs match Bakersfield's advantages.
The overwhelming advantage of Bakersfield is its location. It serves as a
distribution center for not only the entire California market, but also
markets to the east. This is possible due to Santa Fe's rail service. An
intensive marketing effort to attract major food processors to our area is
beginning, due to the abundance of produce in Kern County and our unique
distribution system. Food processors will especially require the services
of your company.
As the economic pressures continue to mount on businesses in Southern
California, they will naturally look inland to the Central Valley for
relocation. Please allow our local shippers the opportunity to continue
offering all the services needed to successfully bring their products to
market. Our community has a bright future ahead of us. Your continued
participation in its development would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
City Manager
JDH:jp
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · (805) 326-3751
' ¢ ......... ----~:-~---~~---C--~-~- -: ...... ~/~-r~_:. ,
..... ......... ...... _-_.
,_ ................... ~_~ ........... ~~ ...... ~ ~. ~: ~.~..
, ............. .......................
~ ......... ~ ..... ~._~__( ~~.~. ~_~_~. ~ ..........
............ 44
~-~ ........................ .
July 14, 1989
Ben Austin, C.halr~,~an
Board of Su~ervisors
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Emergency ~edical Care A~visory ~oard
Dear ~r. &ustin:
Please be advised that, effective this ~a. te, Chief
Bob .~, ~akersrield Police Oe~a~t~n~, h.~
~bee~ ~poointed by the Ker~ Counts Police Chiefs'
Assoniation to replace Chief Terry 6~reeman as o~.~r
~'~ .... ~' .,,l~r~:.~e~cy ?[edical '.,are ~' ''~
Chief Preeman, d~te to prior commitmenss, is un~,~ble
to Culfill h~s obli~.~ions and ~'~ '=r Pa
consented to serve in his place.
Very truly yours,
OHARL:.,S !~. SCO~?, Presi~ent
Kern County Chiefs of Police
CRS: stol
July !4, !~,29
Board of Supervisors
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA :~
: ~ ~o y ~oar~
Re ~,mer%ency ded_ca~ C~re Adv~ '~ r"
'.Dear ~r. &ustin:
Ple~se be .%dvised that, ~'~' ' "~hieF
' ~3ar. er~rield Police
~ob P~, '~ ' has
~, .... ~, ~;~oint~d_ by the Kern County Police Chiefs'
Chief ¢~eeman, ........ . .
consented to serve in his
Very truly yours,
CHARLES !R. SCOTT, Presi,~ent
Kern County Chiefs of Police
CHS:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 4-89
August 9, 1989
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RECYCLING NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER RECYCLABLES
On July 12, 1989, the Council referred the issue of recycling newspapers
and other recyclables to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee for
review. ~
The Committee has reviewed this issue with representatives of
Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens (BARC) and staff. BARC
representatives explained that due to the depressed market for recycled
newsprint, they can no longer pay to have newspapers collected from
their bins. They did indicate that if the City could provide a truck at
a nominal cost so they could haul the newspapers, they would continue
their newspaper recycling program.
Staff indicated that the best way to provide a truck would be to lease a
surplus City refuse truck to BARC for $1 per year. BARC would be
required to provide insurance~for ~he truck. This wOuld be less.
expensive than the City having~to pick up the newspapers, and BARC would
continue to benefit from their recycling program.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 4-89
PAGE -2-
The Committee also discussed several recycling concerns including,
special recycling days, and meeting State mandated recycling goals.
Further, the Committee is supportive of increasing the City's active
participation in recycling by implementing the following recycling
program:
Establish a composting program for leaves, grass
cuttings and other plant material. This could be
located near Wastewater Treatment Plant #2 and would
be used by City Parks crews, landscape contractors,
and the general public.
Conduct a hazardous materials collection day at
several locations throughout the City.
Actively participate in the City-wide recycling day
scheduled for October, by providing special pick up
areas and providing citizens the locations of the
various recycling bins and collection centers within
the City. ~
Continue to encourage the County of Kern, through the
Solid Waste Management Committee to develop resource
separation stations at the new Bena Landfill site.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 4-89
PAGE -3-
Continue to evaluate other areas of recycling such as
aluminum and glass collection to determine the need
for participation by the City of Bakersfield in future
recycling efforts.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council authorize the
Mayor to enter into an appropriate lease agreement for the use of a
surplus refuse truck to BARC so they may continue their newspaper
recycling program, and that staff develop the cost estimates to start
the proposed recycling program and report back to Council.regarding its
implementation.
Respectfully submitted,
Councilmember Donald K. Ratty, Chair
Councilmember Oscar Anthony
Councilmember Kevin McDermott
BAKERSFIELD ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED ClTI71=NS
'.' ge.. c..
KAY MADOEN August 2, ' 1989
,s,~~ California Care Age
2211 Mount Vernon Avenue
· MVARLEY BaKersfield, California 93306
Gent 1 emen:
LARRY YOUNG
Thank yoUi'for your patience as BARC has attempted to resolve
C~NREGREGOR~~ the ever increasing transportation costs for cardboard you
donate each wee~. The co~odity price for recycled
~CH~Y Cardboard has continued to drop from what it was one year
We initially wrote to you on June 26, 1989 indicating that
we could' no longer provide cardboard'recycling bins at your
location. · However,~ we received tentative support from the
City of BaKersfield to alleviate some of the transportation
costs for the cardboard. We therefore canceled our
notification letter indicating that the bins would be pulled
from your'location on July 3, 1989. We appreciate your
donation .of cardboard and the work for clients that your
cardboard provides. We also appreciate your co~itment to
recycling and concern about the burden additional cardboard
places on the disposal sites in Kern County.
It is regretful that we have not been able to reach a
solutio~ .~o the cardboard iransporta!ion problem with the
City of Bakersfield and, as a result, we must notify you
that your.cardboard bin will be removed from your site
during the.week of August 7, 1989. We continue to accept
cardboard at our Recycling Center located at 2240 South
Union Avenue, and we currently pay $10.00 a ton for the
cardboard delivered to our site. If.you have any specific
concerns about this notification please contact me at 834-
2272.
Sincerely,
Ronald H.?Fick
Executive Director
2240 SOUTH UNK)N AVENUE' BAKERSRm n, CA[JFORNb% 93307 (805) 834-BARC
"
A UNI'rED.WAy IV~ER A~Y
· * · ~rN ROU~g ~OR
2... VALLEy AUtO AIR *'
3. BEARINGS INC.
" 2920 £ANDCO DR
4, GARDINERS SUPPLy· 2920 LANDCO DR,
5. J~'S PO~ C, ILDRE~'.:. 930
8. A, C. EL£C~RIC ""
9, ACE HYDRAULICS '
GIBSON
1o. ~ARKE~ g~2PREs$ ,:~..:':-.:. GIBSON. ~ ROSEDALE. I Ot ~-'
~2.
:' 6320 DIS~RIC~ '
PIERCE RD,
16. LANDA CO, '
.':.. 3130 S~ANDARD "1 OL
18. BURGER KING '"
PZERC£ RD. '':
20° ~URG£R SING .. "
C--OONPANY HAWK '
- ~ A~DDRR$S NO OF BINS CHECK OPP
24. BURGER KING : 3501 UNION AVE. :
25. EL POLLO LOCO .~i: 'i~ 3501 UNION AVE. 1
.~.i
26. BURGER KING
CALIFORNIA I 0
27. BURGER KING '
,.' OaK STREET ....
28. BURGER KING '. '
'.: , 2800 3TOCKDALE N. WY'. .. I OC~''
29. EL POLLO LOCO
2800 STOCKDALE
30. DER'WIENERSNITZEL' WING AVE. I Oc
31. NEUDECK POOLS "' *: ' 509 WING AVE. '~ *'
32. BURGER KING ~ WING AVE. *' 1
33. KERN GLASS · .: .:.. KENTUCKY
:. ..... ... '~ I 0 ~' ~"
34. CONTROL COWpANy!:.;'.... 320 KENTUCKy ."
. , .~ ."
36. RAIN FOR RENT 2021 VIRGNIA 1 ~c"c'
~__.. 37. B & E INSTALLATION" '
40.'SPEEDWAy NARKET .' ~
JANES RD. '" 1 0~
41 SKYWAY RESTURANT 'i i" ."
~ .. . AIRPORT DR. 2 CC~
42. BAKERSFIELD CONW~'.'HOSP. 901 AIRPORT DR. ' 2 O~ ~'
43. NOD SHOP .... '
45. CALIFORNIA CARE :AGE 2211 WT. VERNON
· , , ~D~R~SS
CHEC~
48. ACg ii~~ ~ ~D~. :' 10561 ~~ ~ ~: ','.
:.',,.:.,; , ,., ~ 0Cc
60. ZNNER SPACE DZVE,~I~'''r.
NEWSPAPER PICK-UP
NAME/ADDRESS NAME/ADDRESS
FRANK WEST SCHOOL
WILSON ROAD " SUNDIAL & 'PEBBLE BEACH '
K-.ART : ST. JOHNS" LUTHERAN CHURCH
WILSON ROAD .i' O gl3 STINE. ROAD
BUILDERS S0UARE . G ST. PHILLIPS CHURCH
4001 MING AVENUE 7100 STOCKDALE
ST' FRANCIS CHURCH . ' O CAE STATE:BAKERSFIELD
9TH ST. AND H STREET. 9001STOCKDALE
GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH· O ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH
26TH/2168 DRAKE STREET 3200 GOSFORD ROAD
GAROES HIGH SCHOOL · ~ KERN CHRIST]AN CENTER
2906 LOMALINDA 4201STINE ROAD
O.OOL
LO.A LINDA ALU. & DOVEWOOD
· NORTH MINSTER PRESCHOOL CIVIC cENTER
3700 UNION AVENUE ",~'i. 16TH AND H STREET
MILLERS OUTPOST .... BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN
(~ DOWNTOWN
BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE
HALEY & UNIVERSITY ~ LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CHURCH
2710 LONA LINDA
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 0 WASHINGTON~'..JR. HIGH SCHOOL
420 UNIVERSITY AVENUE·' 1101 NOBLE···
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURcH (~) UNIVERSITY..CHURCH
603 NILES
FLOYDS STORE ALBERTSONS/SKAGGS
SO. CHESTER AVENUE 2682 MT. .VERNON
ST. FRANCIS SCHOOL :i /~ LAUREL GLEN BIBLE CHURCH
2516 PALM ~ MING & ASHE ROAD
TARGET PRINT ,,
360? GIBSON (NEAR RED LION INN) O COUNTY5801 SUNDIAL SCHOOLS OFFICE
STOCKDALE LIQUORS .': Q NEW LIFE 'IN CHRIST CHURCH
3808 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY 7000 WIBLE ROAD
METHODIST CHURCH ..',ii {~ ST. PAUL'S.' CHURCH
4600 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY, VIRGINIA &! LAKEVIEN
~- COTTON TRAILER ROUTE ''
1. Dole
7212 FruiWale Ave.
2. Rain for Rent 4001 State Rd.
~. FISCO ' ~"' 62°1 ~udson '
4. Gttraarra
'.' 11~0 Edison Hwy.
$. House of Al~0~ds ~
. 5600 Norris Rd.
7. Paetf!,e Irrigation '
· 11845 School St. & Edison
8. /:ALCO~ "":~ '
10.Superior Fares .-..
:'. Ktmberlina Rd.
.:~. 2309 So. Union Ave.
12. Adventure R.V. '
Union-Ave.
13. Hood Industries ":'.::,. 4615 Shepard
14. San Joaquin Refiner7 Shell & Standard
15. Paper Plus :.': 4704 Ney Horizon Rd.
16. Skendta Industries'::":. 4~01 Dlsrtet Blvd.
17. CrTstal Ceyser ::.:, 1233. E. C.ltfornia Ave.
18. Coors Recycling ' :"
19. Sandstone "
:';~" 300:. E. ?ruxton Ave.
20. The Store House
· -. · .r 6201 ~hite Lno
21. Nike Yurosek & Sons.'.. ·
· :'.: 6900 Nm. Vier Rd.
BAKERSFIELD A~IATION FOR RETARDED cm?r:NS
July ~2, 1989
KAY~IX)~N
~SES~CH Mr, Dale Hawley, City Manager
,~v~,..ma~' City of Bakersfield
1415 Truxtun Avenue
&MVARLEY '-Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Dale:
LARRYYOUNG
Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens, (BARC) has
CLN~GR~GOR provided residents of Bakersfield the convenience of 45 drop
~~ off bins for newspaper for the past 12 years,
RONALD~ ROK The average monthly t'onnage of newspaper recycled is 41 tons
~~ per month - 41 tons of material not being picked up in City
Sanitation Trucks and-not currently being hauled to the
County Landfill. We are committed to recycling; however,
with a dramatic drop in the price of newspaper we cannot
continue to provide the bin service without assisiance from
the City of Bakersfield,
Working Wiih Mike Sides of your staff, we have developed
several alternative solutions permitting us to continue the
newspaper recycling service to ci!y residents.
We need your assistance in expediting a decision of support
from the City or a decision from the City not to support
recycling in Bakersfield.
Thank you, Dale, for your assistance in resolving this
issue. We look forward to a decision from the City Council
within the week.
Kay F, Madden
President
2240 SOUTH UNION AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93307 (805) 834-BARC
- A_,UI~ED WAY O k'~ER AGENCY
City of Bakersfield
TRANSMITTAL SLIP J(/L18 1989
FROM: NIKKI, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Attached are the original City Clerk referrals
from the Council Meeting of ~_~ ]~',/elf~
that require your follow-up action.
.//// CZTY COUNCZL REFERRAL NEETZNG OF: 07/12/89
REFERRED TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELAT]:ONS J STZNSON
ZTEM: RECORD~ 3740
Recycling papers and other recyclab]es. (DeMond)
ACTZON TAKEN BY COUNCZL:
MOTZON TO REFER TO ZNTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATZONS
COMMZTTEE. APPROVED.
BACKUP MATERZAL ATTACHED: NO
DATE FORWARDED BY CZTY CLERK: 07/13/89
STATUS:
PLEASE ENTER THE STATUS INTO THE PRTME COMPUTER
COUNCTL REFERRAL TRACK:lNG SYSTEM AS PROGRESS :IS MADE.
July 11, 1989
TO: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
FROM.'L~(~qIKE SIDES, SANITATION SUPERINTENDENT
SUBJECT: BAKERSFIELD ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS -
NEWSPAPERS AND CARDBOARD RECYCLING BINS
Background
The Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens (B.A.R.C.) has provided
recycling bins for use by the general public for many years in the
Bakersfield Metropolitan area. These newspapers and cardboard bins have
provided a convenience to environmentally-minded citizens, while diverting
large tonnages of material from conventional refuse containers.
Problem
8.A.R.C. is now being impacted by marked decreases in revenues paid for
recycled cardboard and newspapers. The market for such materials has
always been delicate in that heightened awareness produces increased
amounts of recyclables, which in turn devalues the material at market.
Recent market decreases have necessitated the removal of newspaper and
cardboard bins from the community; it is estimated that over 100 bins are
currently placed in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area.
Proposed Solutions
Pr'oposal #1 - Allow B.A.R.C. to continue the removal of newspaper and
cardboard bins from the community; complete removal will most likely result
in the following:
a. An increased amount of newspaper and cardboard disposed into
refuse containers.
b. Newspaper and cardboard will continue to be dumped at bin
locations, necessitating some form of cleanup.
c. A decrease in tonnage totals of recycled material; the County
Solid Waste Management Plan currently requires 20%.
Proposal #2 - The City of Bakersfield could coordinate a program with
B.A.R.C. to place and service newspaper and cardboard bins in the
incorporated area. City crews would service cardboard and newspaper bins
once weekly, and deliver the recyclables to a recycling center; all
proceeds to go to B.A.R.C. Negotiations could be conducted to establish a
revenue cap, allowing the City to receive a portion of revenues; said
JOHN W. STINSON
July 11, 1989
Page -2-
revenues could be designated for a special fund or purpose, i.e.,
construction fund for waste processing facility, City-wide cleanup fund,
etc.
Proposal #3 - Donate used City refuse vehicles to B.A.R.C. to service
existing bin accounts. At the present time, assuming the price for
newspapers and cardboard does not drop further, this option remains viable.
Proposal #4 - City could subsidize B.A.R.C. at the rate of $60.00 per bin
per month to continue servicing bins.
MS.alb
,~~ -
,, _~_~
- -~ - 5 I _ _
MEMORANDUM
April 4, 1989
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
The attached report is under review by the County Board of Supervisors.
The issue of coal-fueled cogeneration plants has been a concern for the
City Council, so I thought that you would want a copy of the report.
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee will be discussing this report,
and a response to the City's concerns about coal-fired cogeneration
facilities, at their meeting later this month.
MS:jp
Attachment
cc: J. Dale Hawley
Stan Grady
GEARY TAYLOR scott JONES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER D,reclor ol Bud~t & F,nance
MARY WEDDELL JOEL HEINRICttS
D~teclot ol Policy Anah,,s~s
Assistant County Adm,nistrative Officer & Intergovernmental Relations
ROBERT SEVERS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE MAt? J ~ 198g
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
April4, 1989
· Board of Supervisors
County of Kern
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
COGF__.NEP~TION FACILITIES
On January 10, 1989, the Board of Supervisors received and filed the attached report
from the Kern County Water Resources Committee. The Committee recommended that
the BOard:
1. Require, preparation of environmental impact reports for all coal-fueled
cogeneration plants; and
2. Oppose operation of any cogeneration plant which may consume large amounts of
groundwater.
A review of the issues listed in the report was referred to the Administrative Office.
Additionally, the cities of Arvin and 'Bakersfield adopted resolutions opposing the
construction of coal-fueled cogeneration plants in Kern County. The City of Bakersfield
also recommended a "clean fuel" policy and required use of "best. available control
teclmology" on all new or modified pollution sources.
The Administrative Office, following consultation with the Planning and Development
Services, Environmental Health Services, and Air Pollution Control Departments, has
prepared the attached report in response to the Board's referral.
1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room ,704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861.2371
Board of Supervisors
March 28, 1989
Page 2
Several recommendations are developed and presented in the report. Implementation of
these recommendations will result in a more comprehensive review of the potential
environmental impacts of coal-fueled cogeneration projects through a revised zoning
ordinance. Additionally, the air quality impacts of future cogeneration facilities will be
reduced through revised Air Pollution Control District rules. Therefore, IT IS
RECOMMENDED that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Receive and file report; and
2. Refer implementation to the Planning and Development Services Department and
Air Pollution Control District.
Sincerely,
Geary '~a~lor ~
County 7[dministrative Officer
GT/JH/cdm/jhcogen.ltr
cc: Wes Selvidge, Chairman, Kern County Water Resources Committee
John L. Jones, District Manager, Cawelo Water District
Bob Lewis, Chairman, Groundwater Quality Committee
Stu Dyle, Manager, Kern County Water Agency
Randy Abbott, Director, Planning and Development Services
Bill Roddy, Air Pollution Control Officer, Air Pollution
Control District
Vern Reichard, Director, Environmental Health Services
Department
Bernard C. Barmann, County Counsel
Mary Weddell, Assistant County Administrative Officer
J. Dale Hawley, Manager, City of Bakersfield
Wilma Bratton, Manager, City of Arvin
REVIEW OF COGENERATION FACILITIES
SITING CRITERIA AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
COGENERATION FACILITIES ·
Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of electriCity and useful heat through the
combustion of fuel. The use of cogeneration in thermally enhanced oil recovery (TEOR)
operations in Kern County has increased in recent years due to economic and regulatory
incentives. Other types of industrial and public facilities can also use cogeneration, such
as refineries, factories, government buildings, and college campuses.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, cogeneration was popular in many industries in
the U. S., but its use declined in the 1950s and 1960s with low energy costs. The
soaring costs of energy resulting from the energy crises of the 1970s led ~to renewed
interest in cogeneration. ~
The first cogeneration plant in Kern County began operation in the Kern River field in
1980 and produced 1.2 MW of electricity. The plant provided steam for Tenneco Oil
Company's heavy oil recovery and electricity to PG&E. American Cogeneration
Corporation, the owner of the facility, closed'it down in June 1985. Cogeneration in
Kern County is used primarily in TEOR, but it is also used in refineries and other
industrial plants. It has been proposed for use in public facilities such as prisons,
hospitals, and college campuses. The feasibility of a project is based on the. expected
economic payback. Cogeneration works best in applications that use large quantities of
both thermal and electrical energy.
As of January, 1989, 82 permit applications for proposed cogeneration or resource
recovery projects had been submitted to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
These projects were proposed to generate 2941.6 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Three
(3) projects projected to generate 59.6 MW were denied permits and seven (7) projects
projected to generate 774.5 MW had their permit applications with&awn. Seventy-two
(72) projects projected to generate 2107.5 MW of electricity have approved or pending
permits (projects generating 1000.6 MW are actually in operation).
Four coal-fueled projects have APGD authority to construct permits. Three of the~e
facilities have construction permits from the Planning and Development Services (PADS)
'Department. (No additional permits are pending.) The 'four projects are projected to
produce 144.9 MW of power, which is approximately 7% of the power generating
capacity of projects with approved or pending permits.
Four (4) cogeneration projects, and one (1) resource recovery project, use groundwater.
A total of five new water wells were drilled. One' facility is using an existing well. For
2
comparative purposes, it should be noted that approximately forty (40) new agricultural
water wells, as well as 400 domestic water wells, are drilled annually in Kern County.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACF/CONCERNS
Three prhnary concerns have been expressed regarding the environmental impact of
cogeneration facilities. First, in the case of coal-fueled projects, there is a concern that
air quality is being damaged. Second, concern has been expressed regarding the water
quality impact of coal-fueled cogeneration facilities. Third, concern has been expressed
regarding the water quantity impacts of all cogeneration facilities.
AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) must approve cogeneration facilities that can
satisfy local, state, and federal air pollution laws and regulations. The District conducts
an engineering evaluation of a proposed project and determines ff the facility can be
expected 'to operate in compliance with all applicable requirements.
This review is conducted in' accordance with the District's Rules and Regulations, the
California Health and Safety Code, the Federal Clean Air Act, and the Californ{a
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Various projects, depending on their projected air
3
quality impacts, may also be subject to review by the Environmental Protection AgenCy
(EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CAItB). The California Energy Commission
(CEC) has jurisdiction over the review of cogeneration projects rated at 50 MW or more.
Kern County, as well as all other counties in the San Joaquin Valley being monitored, has
experienced one or more violations of the State particulate and ozone standards in 1985,
1986, and 1987. As a result, it is expected the California Air Resources Board will, under
the authority of the California Clean Air Act, classify all areas of the San ~Joaquin Valley
as "Serious Nonattainment Areas". To achieve air quality standards, these areas will have
to significantly reduce emissions from existing sources as well as control new emissions
from stationary, areawide, indirect and transportation related sources.
LAND USE REGULATIONS
The County has land use authority for all cogeneration facilities under 50 megawatts.
Facilities having a capacity of more than 50 megawatts fall under the sole jurisdiction of
California Energy Commission (Public Resources Code Sections 25500, 25120 and Title
20 of the Administrative Code). For facilities of less than 50 MW over which the County
does have land use authority, some are permitted by fight in certain zone districts, while
others are subject to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) procedure. The A, A-I, and NR
zone districts are the primary zone districts that provide for oil and gas development.
4
Cogeneration facilities that are primarily intended for steam generation, as a secondary
and incidental use are allowed by fight. Steam generators not providing cogeneration
and steam generators providing cogeneration as a secondary use are treated the same by
the zoning ordinance.
The determination of whether the cogeneration facility is intended primarily for oil arid
gas production is made after a review of a comprehensive project operational statement.
Each operational statement must contain language and maps from the proposed developer
that clearly indicate that the proposed cogeneration facility would be constructed for the
primary purpose of providing steam for secondary recovery of oil within the oil field in
which it would be located. Most cogeneration facilities permitted by Kern County to date
in these zone districts have been permitted on this basis. Several cogeneration facilities
have requested variances to the minimum lot size requirements of the zo.ning ordinance
and therefore became discretionary projects. These projects were subject to CEQA and
were approved after a public heating.
The M-2 and M-3 zone districts also allow cogeneration facilities by fight. In these cases,
?
the facility need not be related to 0il and gas production in any fashion. Two examples
of this are the cogenerafion facilities at the IJ. S. Borax and the Frito-Lay plants. These
industrial cogeneration units commonly provide both steam and electricity for use in the
plant facility as well as for sale of excess power.
If a cogeneration facility is not intended primarily for steam generation for the recovery
of oil and gas, or ff a facility is proposed in a zone district other than those listed above,
a Conditional Use Permit is required and the project is subject to CEQA.
CALIFOILNIA ENVIRONMENTAL (~UAI.FFY ACT (CEOA}
The framework for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed land use
changes is CEQA. A variety of County departments have, depending upon the activities
which come within the scope of a department's responsibility, the duty of making, a
Preliminary Evaluation for the purpose of deciding whether CEQA applies to a particul .ar
activity or project. As part of the CEQA process, these departments also conduct an
Initial Study for the purpose of determining whether an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) or Negative Declaration must be prepared. County departments or agencies with
these duties are called the "Lead Agency." The Lead Agency will normally be that County
department or agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving
a project.
In the case of a private activity, the Lead Agency requires the applicant to Submit all data
and information as deemed necessary to enable a determination of a project's CEQA
status. The Lead Agency determines the adequacy of such data and information prior
to acceptance of the application.
6
If the Lead Agency determines that an activity is exempt from CEQA, the activity is not
subject to further environmental review. Projects which are determined to be exempt
must be:
1) ministerial, 2) categorically exempt, 3) statutorily exempt, or 4). exempt by general
rule. If it can be seen with certainty that the activity will not have a significant affect
on the environment, the "general rule" applies. A significant affect on the environment
means a substantial, adverse change in any physical condition within the area affected
by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and
objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
If the Lead. Agency determines that an activity is not ministerial or subject to an
exemption, an "initial Study", which involves consultation with many other Federal, State
and local agencies, is conducted to determine whether a project may have a significant
affect on the environment. A project may be revised in response to the Initial Study ~o
that potential adverse affects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental
affects would occur. If substantial evidence identifying significant environmental impacts
is not provided, a proposed Negative Declaration must be prepared by the Lead Agency.
The standard for determining a significant affect on the environment is whether the Initial
Study indicates that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in physical
conditions will occur in the area affected by the project. This determination calls for
careful judgement by the Lead Agency, taking into account available scientific and factual
data, the setting of the project, and both primary and secondary consequences. CEQA
requires the existence of substantial .evidence in the record in order to require preparation
of an E.I.R. If the Lead Agency f'mds on the basis of an Initiai Study that any of the
affects of a project may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, then an
EIR must be prepared. In addition, whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of
substantial evidence that a project may have a significant affect on the environment or
when there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental affect of a project,
an EIR is prepared.
CONCLUSION
Kern County has a thorough environmental review process which is consistent with State
law. Based on this preliminary review, it does not appear that cogeneration projects
impact groundwater quantity significantly more than other industrial and agricultural
uses. However, current air quality and land use regulations may not adequately address
the potential air quality and water quality impacts of coal-fueled cogeneration projects.
Therefore, the following actions are recommended:
?
8
· Air Quality Regulations
The San Joaquin Basin Control Council is in the process of reviewing current regulations
in response to applicatiom, for coal-fueled cogeneration facility permits in many Valley
counties. The Council's Technical Advisory Committee has identified the following options
for the mitigation, reduction, or elimination of emissions from future coal-fueled
cogeneration facility proposals.
° Adoption of either a regulation or policy requiring that any neW fuel burning
source be required to use the cleanest burning fuel available.
° Adoption of regulations requiring no net increase in emissions from any new
facility.
Revision of regulations governing emission offset thresholds to reduce these
thresholds. (APGD's Rule 210.1 [New Source Review] requires the use of best
available control technology [BAGT] ff a stationary source's accumulated emissions
increase equals or exceeds 150 pounds per day and lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) and offsets ff the increase equals or exceeds 200 pounds per day. Most
of Kern County's cogeneration projects have BACT or LAER and have been "offset",
9
but the cumulative impact of those projects not offset is significant. The Council
is considering a suggested rule with a zero trigger level for BACT and a 150
lbs/day trigger for emissions offsets [80 lbs/day for particulates]).
· Revision of regulations governing emission limitations for all sources to reduce
amount of allowable emissions.
?
APCD, in conjunction with the other air pollution control districts in the Valley, should
Complete the current review of its rules as expeditiously as possible and present revised
rules to the Board of Supervisors for adoption before December 31, 1989. Any proposed
revisions should go through the usual workshop and hearing process.
Land Use Regulations -
Coal-fueled cogeneration facilities may potentially impact the environment differently than
gas or oil-fueled facilities. Air emissions, waste streams, water quality impacts, fuel
transport to the site, storage of large quantities of coal, and other indirect impacts may
be different. As a result the Department of Planning and Development Services
recommends coal-fueled cogeneration projects and coal-fueled steam generators should
be subject to the CUP procedure. The establishment of a C.U.P. procedure for coal-fueled
cogenerators and coal-fueled steam generators would be consistent with existing
10
provisions of the zoning ordinance that requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
coal-fueled electrical power generating plants in the M-3 (heavy industrial) zone district.
Planning and Development Services should prepare a revised zoning ordinance accordingly
for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The potential environmental impacts
outlined above will be considered by the Board (through the hearing process) in making
a f'mal determination as to the desirability of any ordinance changes.
Attachments -
Kern County Water Resources Gommittee Report
Kern County Gogeneration/Resource Recovery Projects List
Cawelo Water District Letter (FebrUary 8, 1989)
City of Bakersfield Resolution (August !0, 1988)
City of Arvin Resolution (January 23, 1989)
JH/cdm/cogenrev.
11
Depertment of
L. DALE MILLS PUBLIC WORKS.
Dhcctor ol Public Work. // 2700 'M' St..et. Suite
County Surveyor - Biker,field, CA 93301
County Rood Commissioner (805) 861-24gl
KERN COUNTY
WATER RESOURCES CONHITTEE
December 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Civic Center
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
In the regular meet/nE of the Kern County Water Resources Committee held
November 14, 1988, the issue of' cogeneratlon plants and their potential threats
to groundwater was discussed. The Board of Directors for the Cawelo Water
District passed and adopted a resolution on September 15, 1988 expressing the
district's concerns tn this matter (see attached resolution). The district is
concerned about the potential depletion of groundwater supplies associated with
tile operation of any cogeneration plants which may consume large amounts
water and the possible contamination of groundwater caused from the by-produ~ts
of coal-fired cogeneratton plants. The Water Resources Committee members
voiced unanimous support of the resolution.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board require the preparation of environmental
impact reports which address the potential for groundwater contamination for
all coal-fired cogeneratlon plants constructed and operated tn the County.
IT IS ALSO RECOMNENDED that your Board oppose the oPeration of any cogeneration
plants which may consume large amounts of water pumped from groundwater
supplies.
Wes Selvtdg~.-"Chai rman
WS:MD:ab
Attachment
cc: All Supervisors
Grand Jury, Library, County Counsel, Administrative Office
DRAIN.6 Wes Selvidge, Rt. 1, Bx. 167, Buttonwillow 93206
CJ%NBLO M~TElt DIStrICT
IUL6OLUTION MO. 350
A ~OL~ION O~ ~ ~ OF DI~RS OF ~ WAT~ DIS~I~
OP~SX~ ~TX~ IN ~ ~ OF A~ C~TXON
P~ ~l~ ~U~ El~ B~ CO~ OR ~T~ ~D
~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~D~T~ ~XN
~, this Dtstr~ct exists pursuant to DZvtson X3 of
the California Water Code primarily for the purpose of providing
water for agriculturaX use to Xandowners within the District*s
boundaries in order to d~min~sh groundwater overdraft and stabi-
lize the groundWater basin which In part underlies the lands
within the Distr~ct~ and
~. the landowners within this District are very
concerned about good a~r quality, being informed that there
approximately a 15-20% crop reduction attributable to poor
quality, and having enc~ered their ~ands with bonds now outstand-
ing in an amount in excess of $21.000.000 to construct a project
which is now importing water for ~rrigat~ng such crops~ and
~. Cawe~o Water D~str~ct is a me.er of the San
Joaqu~n Water Authority. which has adopted a resolution opposing
cogenerat~on p~ants In K~ngs and Tulare Counties and we have
Joined w~th these agencies ~nterested in opposing these plants~
and
~~. it has come to the attention of th~s Board
that there are n~erous cogeneration plants being planned or
under construction for operation In Kern County. some of which
plants will be "coal-burning' and some of which may cons~e large
quantities of groundwa~er~ and
~. ~welo Water D~strict ~s unable to construct
a p~pellne withou~ ~=oper Env~ro~ental Impact Reports and we are
concerned about a~r quality which wou~d reduce crop.production
and the possible use of water that shoUld be conserved for domes-
tic or agriculturak purposes~ and
~~. Cawe~o Water D~str~ct is concerned about the
effects of the coal after'it has been burned, feeling that th~s
mater~a~ would be toxic to b~ans and p~ant l~fe~ and
--~--
WHBRBAS, this Board £~nds and determines thatit Is not
In the best interests of e~ther Kern County or Cawelo Water
District or the inhabitants of each~ or ~he owners of the lands
within Cawelo Water Dlstrict~ for there.to be operated in Kern
County either any coal-fired cogeneration plants or any cogenera-
t£on plants which may consume large amounts of water pumped ~rom
the 9roundwater basin which this District is attempting to stabi-
lize through its importation of water~
NO~, TltI~d~FORBw BE "IT RESOLVBD that ~he Board of
D~rec~ors of Cawelo ~a~er Dls~r~c~ hereby s~ron9ly opposes ~he
cons~ruc~ton and operation of any coal-fired cogenera~on plan~s
within ~he County of Kern un~il ~he County. of Kern has forced
~hese organizations ~o do ~he proper Environmen~al Impac~ Repor~s~
and also s~rongly opposes ~he operation of any cogenera~on plan~s
Which may consume large amounts of wa~er p~ped from ~he 9round-
wa~er basin which ~h~s Dts~rlc~ ~s a~emp~ng ~o's~ab~ltze ~hrough
~s impor~a~on of wa~er.
P~S~ ~ ~~ by ~he Board of Directors of Cawelo
~a~er D~s~r~c~ ~h~s 15~h day o~ Sep~e~er~ 1988~ by ~he following
roll call vo~e:
A~ D. H. Camp~ H. E. Hall~ J. Norman Dawe and
R. J. V~gno~o
NO~: None
~ard of Direc~ors of ~
{S~} ~welo ~a~er D~s~r~c~
Secretary of
Cawelo Water
January 16, 1989 Page
KERN COUNTY COGENERATION/RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
Note: Unless otherwise.specified, project will be utility-grade natural
gas fired, and emissions trade-offs if required were provided by
the applicant.
Resource Recovery Projects:. a
Applicant: Farmers Cooperative APCD Permit #: 3036014
Project Location: Sec. 19~ T29S, R24E Project Size (6ross): 1.65 MW
Project Codes: A, RR, B,
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. 6. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 9/20/80
Deemed Complete: 2/19/81 A. to C. Issued:6/08/81
Startup Date: 12/6/82 P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: DEl CO-AGRI INC. APCD Permit #: 3104001
Project Location: Sec. 20, T27S, ~26E Project Size (Gross): 5.00 MW
Project Codes: A, PR, B
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/04/B1
Deemed Complete: 3/04/B1 A. to C. Issued: 6/03/B1
Startup Date: 10/23/B5 P. to O. Issued: 11/31/85
Applicant: Valley Power Associates APCD Permit #: 3085001 - 00~
Project Location: Sec. 25, T25S, R 2BE Project Size (Gross): 60.9 MW
Project Codes: W, RR, RDO(?), B
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
Application Dates: Received: 6/07/84
Deemed Complete: 9/07/84 A. to C. Issued: 11/19/84
Replaced by Wheelabrator Delano Energy Co. project
Applicant: PLM Power Company APCD Permit #: 0121001 - 003
Project Location: Sec. 36, T25S, R 2BE Project Size (Gro~s): 7.50 MW
Project Codes: W~ PR, B
Power Purchase A~reement With: S. C. E.
Application Date~: Received: 9/28/87
Cancelled by Applicant 11/24/87
Applicon'tm Dllafll::Eflmll~,.CO~ APCD Permit #: 5111001 - 008
Project Location: Sec. 25, T25S, R 2BE Project Size (Gross): ~1.0 MW
Project Codes: AT PR, B
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
.... Application Oates: Received: I1/02/B7
Deemed Complete: 2/04/88 A. to C. Issued: 9/27/88
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16,. 19B? Page 2
Coal Fired Projects!
AppIicant: Ultralltlt~ APED Permit #: 41410(11 - 004
Project Location: Sec. 28, T27G, R27E Project Size (Gross): 37.5 MW
Project Codes: At Ct CFB Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/03/84
Deemed;Complete: ?/2B/85 A. to C. Issued: 2/28/85
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Rio Bravo Refining APED Permit #: 4141005 -
Project Location: Sec. 35, T2BS, E25E Project Size (Gross): 34.(~ MW
Project Codes: W. Ct EFB, RR(?)t ADO(?) Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: B/24/84
Withdrawn by applicant 2/01/85
Applicant: Ultrabrav~ APED Permit #: 414i009 - 012
Project Location: Sec. 35, T2BS, R27E Project Size (Gross): 37.5
Project Codes: At Ct CFB~ RDO(?) Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates': Received: B/24/B4
Deemed Complete: 11/29/84 A. to C. Issued: 3/04/85
Startup Date: o' P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: B. M. C.P. APED Permit #: 4160~(~1 - ~(~4
Project Location: Sec. 32,.T2BS, R~gE Project Size (Gross): 20.0
Project Codes: A, C, CFB, RDO(?).
Power Purchas~ Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 11/15/85
Deemed Complete: 12/15/85 A. to C. Issued:
Startup Oats: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Pyropo.er APCD Permit #: 414~0(~1 -
Project Location: Mt. Poso Oil Field Project Size (Gross):
Project Codes: W, ~, CFB
Power Purchase Agrm. ement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates~ Received: 4/15/85
Withdrawn by applicant S/2~/85
Applicant: Mt. Poso Cogeneration Co~ APED Permit #: 41770~1A (,04A
Project Location: Sec. lB, T27S, ~28E Project Size (Gross): 49.9 MW
Project Codes: A, CT CFB Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
A~plication Dates: Received: ~/14/86
Deemed Complete: 5/21/8B A. to C. Issued: 12/I/86
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1989 Page
Coqeneration Pr.Jeers:
Applicant: U. 5. Borax APCD Permit #: 1004077
Project Location: Sec.23, TIIN, RBW Project Size (Gross): 45.0 MW
Project Codes: A, BT Equipment Codes: 7A
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/07/81
Deemed Complete: 10/50/81 A. to C. Issued: 4/21/82
Startup Date: 5/50/85 P. to 0. Issued: 12/25/85
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 40(18810 - 815
Project Location: Sec. 26, T525, R23E Project Size (Gross): 11.2 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 1SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & El
Application Dates: Received: ?/O~/BI
Deemed Complete: 10/30/81 A. to C. Issued: 4/0~/82
Startup Date: 5/17/83 P. to O. Issued: 10/21/83
?
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008814 - 817
Project Location: Sec. 36, T2~S, R21E Project Size (Gross): 11.2 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 1SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. A E.
Application Dates: Received: ~/O~/BI
Deemed Complete: 10/50/81 A. to C. Issued: 4/09/82
Startup Date: 5/23/85 P. to O. Issued: 10/21/85
Applicant: KRCC Omar Hill APCD Permit #: 41280(11 - 008
Project Location: Sec. 32, 'T2BS, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 300.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: IA
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
Application Dates:
AFC Received: 4/1b/82 DOC Issued: b/14/82
Startup Date: 7/1/85 P. to 0. Issued: ~8/51/85
Applicant: Cornell HOPCO APCD Permit #: 40~002
Project Locations Sec. 34, T2BS, R28E Project Size (Gross): ~.2
Project Codes: At SB, EUDC (partial), RDO
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/03/83
Deemed Complete: 11/18/83 A. to C. Issued: 12/04/84
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Cornell HOPCD APCD Permit #: 408901(I -
Project Location: Sec. 28, T28S, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 4.~ MW
Project Codes: A, SG, EUDC (partial), RDO
.. Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/03/83
Deemed Complete: 11/18/83 A. to C. Issued: 12/04/84
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1989 Page 4
Coqeneration ProJect, Cont.:
Applicant: American Cogeneration APCD Permit fi: 4147001 - 003
Project Location: Sec. 30, T2BS, R2BE Project Size
Project Codes: A, EUDC, GT Equipment Codes: IOA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received:
Deemed:Complete: 6/07/83 A. to C. Issued: B/22/8~
Startup Date: 10/2'5/84 P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: American Cogeneration APCD Permit #: 4147004 - 007
Project Location: Sec. 1~, T2BS, R27E Project Size (Gross): 3.~0 MW
Project Codes: A, EUDC, GT Equipment Codes: IOA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/07/83
Deemed Complete: b/07/83 A. to C. Issued: 8/22/B~
Startup Date: 10/25/84 P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Texaco Producing Inc. APCD Permit #: 4003564 - 566
Project Location: Sec. lB, T~OS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 10.5 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 20A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/28/83
Deemed Complete: 7/11/83 A, to C. Issued: 11/17/83'
8tartup Date: 8/I/84 P. to O. Issued: 10/20/86
Applicant: Witco Chemical APCD Permit #: 2026051
Project Location: Sec. 7, T298, 28E Project Size (Gross): 32.6 MW
Project Codes: A, EUDC, GT Equipment Codes: 3A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 3/15/83
Deemed Complete: 4/12/83 A, to C. Issued: 8/i7/83
Startup Date: 9/3/85 P. to D, Issued: 8/31/86
Applicant: Tennec~Otl Co. APCD Permit #: 4004054
Project Location! Sit. 24, TIIN~ R23W Project Size (Gross): 0.50 MW
Project Codes: A, IC Equipment Codes: 24A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 5/IB/83
Deemed Complete: 6/29/83 A. to C. Issued: 9/30/83
Startup Date: P. to 0 Issued:
Applicant: University Energy APCD Permit #: 41330(11
Project Location: Sec. 30, T2BS, R21E Project Size (Gross)': 8.6 MW
Project Codes: A, EUDC, GT Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/17/83
Deemed Complete: 11/01/83 A. to C. Issued: 3/21/84
Startup Date: 11/3/86 P. to O. Issued: 12/3/86
January 16~ I?B? Page 5
Coqeneration Projects Cont.: ',
Applicant: Texaco Producing APCD Permit #: 4003571 - 575
Project Location: Sec. 15~ T265~ R20E Project Size (Gross): 10.5 HW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 20A
Po,er Purchase Agreement With: P. 6. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 11/22/85
Deemed Complete: 12/05/85 A, to C, Issued: 5/09/84
Sta~tup Date: 9/16/85 P, to 0, Issued: 10/20/86
Applicant: Texaco Producing APCD Permit #: 4003574 - 576
Project Location: Sec. 54~ T30S~ R22E Project Size (Gross): 10.5 MW
Project Codes: A~ 'GT Equipment~ Codes: 20A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/01/84
Deemed Complete: 5/05/84 A. to C. Issued: 11/02/84
Startup Date: 6/27/86 P. to O. Issued: 2/28/87
Applicant: Tenneco Oil Co. APCD Permit fl: 40(14056, 057
Project Location:'Sec. 27, TSIS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 5.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: ISA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 5/06/84
Deemed Complete: 4/50/84 A, to C, Issued: 7/11/84
Startup Dat~: 5/27/85 P, to 0, Issued: 8/19/87
Applicant: Frito-Lay Inc. APCO Permit #: 50S2014
Project Location: Sec. 20,'T29S, R25E Project Size (Gross): 6.0
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: ISA
.Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 5/0~/B4
Deemed Complete: 6/17/84 A, to C, Issued: 11/09/84
Startup Date: 7/1/86 P, to 0, Issued: 10/01/87
Applicant: Chevron USA' APCD Permit #: 4008819,.620
Project Locatlont Sec. 31, T2~S, R22E Projec.t Size (Gross): 5.6 MW
Project Codes: A~ BT Equipment Codes: 15A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/14/84
Deemed Complete: 10/1.9./84 A, to C, Issued: 7/22/85
Startup Date: 6/22188 P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008821, ~22
Project Location: Sec. 6, TSOS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 5.6 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 15A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/14/84
Deemed Complete: 10i19i84 A. to C. Issued: 7/22/85 ..
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, l~B~ Page
Coqeneration ProjeG~s Cont.:
Applicant: Shell CA Prod. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4012172, 173
Project Location: Se. 32, T2BS..R21E Project Size (Gross): 40.0 MN
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 4A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 9/07/B4
Deemed Complete: 9/13/B4 A. to C. Issued: I/ZB/85
Startup Date: ~/2~/B& P. to O. Issued: 5/31/87
Applicant: Texaco Producing APCD Permit #: 400357B - 583
Project Location: Sec. 12, T2BS, R21E Project Size (Gross): 21.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 20A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E. r
Application Dates: Received: ~/20/B4
Deemed Complete: lO/lO/B4 A. to C. Issued: 3/2~/B5
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: American Cogeneration APCD Permit #: 4147008 - {112
Project Location: Sec. 20, T~OS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 6.50 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: IIA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 10/24/B4
Deemed Complete: 12/04/B4 A. to C. Issued: 12/2B/B4
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Sycamore Cogeneration APCD Permit #: 4170001 -
Project Location: Sec. 30, T2BS, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 300.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: IA
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
Application Dates: AFC Received: 11/16/84
AFC Accepted: 1/09/B6 DOC Issued: ~/05/B5
Startup Date: 11/30/87 P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008823 - ~2~
F'roject Location! Sec. 26~ T~2S, R23E Project Size (Gross): lB.9 MW
Project Codes: A, BT Equipment Codes: 13A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: II/OB/B4
Deemed Complete: 2/11/B5 A. to C. issued: 7/22/85
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Energy Reserve APCD Permit #: 41~I002
Project Location: Sec. c95, T2BS, R20E Project Size (Gross): Z0.5 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 25A
Power Purchase Agreement Nith: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 3/25/B5
Deemed Complete: 7/02/85 A. to C. Issued: 10/04/85 '
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1987 Page 7
Coqeneration ProjeCts Cont.:_
Applicant: University Cogeneration APCD Permit fl: 4135002
Project Location: Sec. 28, TI2N, R24W Project Size (Gross): 38.7 MN
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 2A
rower Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application 'Dates: Received: 4/08/85
Deemed Complete: 6/02/85 A. to C. Issued: 12/06/85
Startup.Date: 1/27/87 P. to O. Issued: 2/04/88
Applicant: Shell CA Prod. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4012175
Project Location: Sec. 32, T285, R21E Project Size (Gross): 20.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 4A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G.
Application Dates: Received: 6/14/85
Deemed. Complete: 7/08/85 A. to C. Issued: 10/04/85
Startup Date: 12/12/86 P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Tenneco Oil Co. APCO Permit #: 4004059, 060
Project Location: Sec. 25~ T285, R27E Project Size (Gross): 7.45 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: ISA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & ED
Application Dates: Received: 6/27/85
Deemed Complete: 6/28/85 A. to C. Issued: 10/14/85
Startup Date: 3/05/87 P. to O. Issued: 02/15/87
Applicant: American Cogeneration APCD Permit #: 4147013 015
Project Location: Sec. 1~, T28S, R 27E Project Size (Gross): 3.9 MW
Project Codes: W, BT Equipment Codes: IOA, IIA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 7/29/85
Withdrawn by applicant 10/24/85
Applicant: Northern Cogen. Two Co. APCD Permit #: ~096001, 002
Project Location: Sec. 30, T285, R21E Project Size (Gross): 500.0 ~W
Project Codes: #~ GT Equipment Codes: SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: AFC Received: 7/51/85
AFC accepted: DOC Issued:·
Processing Closed by CEC: 2/04/BB
Applicant: Tenneco Oil Co. APCD Permit #: 4004061, 062
Project Location: Sec. 30, T2BS, R28E Project Size (Gross): 7.45 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/01/85
Deemed Complete: 8i22i85 A. to C. IsSued: 12i12/S5
Startup Date: 5/14/87 P. to O. Issued: 06/09/88
January 16, 1989 Page 8
C..oqeneration Projects Cont.:
Applicant: Tenneco Oil Co. APCD Permit #: 400406J, £)64
ProJect Location: Sec. 56, T52S, R25E ProJect Size (Gross): 7.45 MW
ProJect Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/15/85
Deemed: Complete: 8/22/85 A. to. C. Issued: 12/15/85
Startup Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Harp Energy APCD Permit #: 4154001
Project Location: Sec. 28, T12N, R24W Project Size (Gross): 5.5 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 18A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 8/19/85
Deemed Complete: 10/14/85 A. to C. Issued: 1/15/86
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Southeast Energy APCD Permit #: 30~4001A
Project Location: Sec. 16, T30S, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 42.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 2lA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates:. Received: 11/13/86
Deemed Complete: 02/12/87 A. to C. Issued: 5/26/87
Startup Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Sun Cogeneration APCD Permit #:
Project Location: Sec. 17, T31S, R22E Project Size (Gross): 225.0 I~W
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: IA
Power Purchase Agreement With: S. C. E.
Application Dates: AFC Received: 9/11/85 "
AFC Accepted: 2/26/86 DOC Issued: 1/1~/87
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Aoplicant: Moran Power AF'CD Permit #:
Project Location: Sec. 16, T~OS, R28E Project Size (Gro~s): 42.0
Project Codes: A, BT ' Equipment Codes: 2lA'
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 9/13/B5
'Deemed Complete: 10/25/85 A. to C. Issued: 4/18/8~
Startup Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Kern Energy Corp. APCD Permit #: 30~3~1)1
Project Location: Sec. 16, T~OS, R28E Pro ect Size (Gro~s): 42.0 HW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 21A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E. I
Application Dates: Received: 9/20/85
Deemed Complete: 10/~5/85 A. to C. Issued: 4/18/86
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1787 Page
Coqeneration Projects Cont.:
Applicant: M. H. #hi:tier APCD Permit #: 4015026
Project Location: Sec. 15, T$1S, R22E Project Size (Gross): 0.5 MW
Project Codes: A, IC Equipment Codes: 25A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 9/26/B5
Deemed Complete: 9/27/B5 A. to C. Issued: 12/04/85
Sta~tup Date: II/26/Bb P. to O. Issued: 6/10/B7
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008270, 271
Project Location: Sec. 31, T2BS, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 44.6 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 4A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 9/27/B5
Deemed Complete: 10/07/B5 A. to C. Issued: 6/19/86
Star:up Date: OB/IO/BB P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Tenneco Oil Co. APCD Permit #: 4004065
Project Location: Sec. 6, T29S, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 3.725 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application D~tes: Received: 10/01/85
Deemed Complete: 10/16/85 A. to C. Issued: 12/24/85
StartuP Date: P. to 0. Issued:
· Applicant: Monarch Cogeneration APCD Permit #: 4164(104, 005
Project Location: Sec. 33~ TI2N, R24W Project Size <Gross): 16.8 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 17A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 10/29/85
Deemed Complete: 11/26/85 A. to C. Issued: 4i18/86
Star:up Date: 1/05/@7 P. to O. Issued: 5/27/87
Applicant: Shell CA Prod. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4015601, 602
Project Location: Sec. 10, T29S, R28E Project Size (Gross): 40.0 MW
Project Codes: A~ 6T Equipment Codes: 4A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 11/01/85
Deemed Complete: 11/16/85 A. to C. Issued: 7/22/86
Star:up Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Kern Bluff Ltd. APCD Permit #: 4161001
Project Locmtion: Sec. lB, T29S, R29E Project Size (Gross): 47.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 6A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: l~B5
Deemed Complete: 11/18/85 A. to C. Issued: 6/17/S6
Star:up Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1989 Page 10'
Coqeneration Projects Cont.:
Applicant: Mobil Oil Cogen. APCD Permit M: 4011800 - 803
Project Location: Sec. 11, T29S, R21E Project Size (Gross)': 240.0 MW
Project Codes: W, GT E~uipment Codes: tB
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Oates: AFC Received: 12/17/85
AFC Aciepted: 4/16/86 DOC Issued:
Processing'suspended by CEC 9/24/86
Withdrawn by. applicant B/29/BB
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008278, 279
Project Location: Sec. 5, T29S, R28E Project Size (Gross): 5.6 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 15A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 12/20/85
Deemed Complete: 12/30/85 A. to C. Issued: 6/19/86
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Chevron USA APCD Permit #: 4008280, 281
Project Location: Sec. 52, T2BS, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 5,6 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 1SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 12/20/85
Deemed Complete: 12/50/85 A. to C. Issued: 6/19/86
Startup Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Sierra Limited APCD Permit #: 4162001, 002
Project Location: Sec. 11, T2BS, R2BE Project Size (Gross): 49.9 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 5A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/24/86
Deemed Complete: 2/10/86 A. to C. issued: 8/07/86
Startup Date: 1/15/89 P. to O. Issued:
ProjectLocationlSec. II, T28S~ . , R2SE Project Size (Gross): 49.9 ltW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/24/86
Deemed Complete: 5/0~/86 A. to C. Issued: 11/10/86
?
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Kern Front Limited APCD Permit #: 4166001, 002
Project Location: Sec. 2, T2BS, R27E Project Size (Gross): 49.9 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 5A
Fower Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E. ,
Application Dates: Received: 2/05/86
Deemed Complete: 5/09/86 A. to C. Issued: 11/10/86
5tartup Date: I- 31- 69 P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 19B9 Page 11
CoqeneratJon ProJlcts Cant.:_
Applicant: Union Oil Co. APCD Permit #: 4051401
ProJect Location: Sec. 16, T31S, R22E ProJect Size (Gross): ~.0~2 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 16A
Power. Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/24/B6
Deem.ed Complete: 4/22/86 A, to C, Issued: 9/15/B6
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Shell CA Prod. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4013603
Project Location: Sec. 22, T31S, R22E Project Size {Gross): 4.0 MW
Project Codes: W, GT Equipment Codes: IBA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 21261B6
Withdrawn by applicant 6/25/B6 ~
Applicant: Midsun Partners, L. P, , APCD Permit #: 4184001
Project Location: Sec. 9, T31S, R22E Project Size (Gross): 27.48 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 22A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 3/21/86
Deemed Complete: 9/05/B6 A. to C. Issued: 313/87
Startup Date: P.' to O. Issued:
Applicant: Therma Trends Cogen. APCD Permit #: 4168001
Project Location: 830 E. Sycamore Rd. Arvin Project Size (Gross): 2.5 MW
Project Codes: D, GT Equipment Codes: 14A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 4/07/86
Application denied 8/18/86
Applicant: Mojave Cogeneration Co,, L.P. APCD Permit #: 0164001
Project Location: Sec. 23, TI1N, RBW Project Si=e {8ro~s): 41.0 MW
Project Codes: A, BT Equipment Codes: 9A
F'ower Purchasm-Agreement With: P, G, & E,
Application Dates: Received: 4/15/86
Deemed Complete: 10/30/B6 A, to C, Issued: 7/1/87
Startup Date: P, to O, Issued:
Applicant: Santa Fe Energy APCD Permit #: '400617B - IBI
Project. Location: Sec. 27, T31S, R22E Project Size (Gross): 14.5 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 20B
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 4/30/86
Deemed Complete: 5/13/86 A. to C. Issued: 11/20/B6
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1989 Page 12
Coqeneration ProJmctm Cont.:
Applicant: Shell CA Prod. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4013605A
Project Location: Sec. 22, T3IS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 4.0 MW
ProJect Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 1SA
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 6/25/86
Deemed'Complete: 7/25/86 A. to C. Issued: t2/24/86
Star:up Date: 6/28/BB P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Texaco Producing Inc. APCD Permit #: 4003597
Project Location: Sec. 36, T3IS, R22E Project Size (Gross): 3~.9 MW
Project Codes: D, GT Equipment Codes: 28
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 7/23/86
Deemed Complete: 10/03/86 A. to C. Denied: 3/9/87
Applicant: Caterpillar Capitol Cogen. APCD Permit #: 4171001 - 004
Project Location: Sec. 14, T278, R27E Project Size (Gross): 15.2 MW
Project Codes: W, GT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 12/23/86
Deemed Complete: 3/1~/87
Cancelled by Applicant 11/17/87
~gp~'~[~.'f~k-2.e~'.l-a~ APCD Permit #: 417.3001
Project Location: Sec. 6, T2?S, R28E Project Size (Gross): 27.0 MW
Project Codes: A, GT. Equipment Codes: 58
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application D~tes: Received: 12/31/86
D.emed Complete: ~'~/ .
- .~u.87 A to C. Issued:
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: American Cogenics APCD Permit #: 4172001
Project Location: Sec. 29, T305, R26E Project Size (Gross): 0.50 MW
Project Codes: A, IC Equipment Codes: 238
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/22/87
Deemed Complete: 2/20/87 A. to C. Issued: 6/10/87
Star:up Date: F'. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Union Oil Co. APCD Permit #: 40514(,2
Project Lo~ation_ . Sec. ~,~? T31S, R~E Project Size (Gross): 3...~'~ .MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 16A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 1/26/87
Deemed Complete: 2/13/87 A. to C. Issued: 5/5/87
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 19B? Page 13
Coqeneration ?rejects Con:,:.
Applicant: Chalk Cliff Ltd. APCD Permit #: 4175001
Project Location: Sec..3I, T32S, R24E Project Size (Gross): 4B.O MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 6A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. ~ E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/11/87
Deemed Complete: 4/7/B7 A. to C. Issued: ~/29/B7
Star:up Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Texaco Producing Inc. APCD Permit #: 4003597A
Project Location: Sec. 36, T318, R22E Project Size (Gross): 3q.9 MW
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 2B
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 3lIB/B7
Deemed Complete: 3/18/87 A. to C. Issued: 11/05/B7
Star:up Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: University Energy APCO Permit #: 4133003
Project Location: Sec. 19, T2BS, R21E Project Size (Gross): 49.47 MW
Project Codes: W, GT Equipment Codes: 26A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
... Application Dates: Received: 4/27/87 ,
Deemed Complete: 4130/87
Cancelled by applicant 11/5/B7
Applicant: Cogenic Energy Systems, Inc. APCD Permit #: 0120001
Project Location: Sec. 19,'T2BS, R21E Project Size (Gross): 0.1
Project Codes: A, IC Equipment Codes: 23C
Power Purchase Agreement With: Internal use only
Application Dates: Received: 9/17/87
Deemed Complete: 10/26/87 A. i'D C. Issued: 2/01/88
Star:up Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Catmrpillar Capitol Cogen. AF'CD Permit #: 417100B - 010
Project Location: Sec. 14, T27S, R27E Project Size (Gross): 11.4 MW
Project Codesl At BT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 11/18/87
Deemed Complete: 1,'15/88 A. to C. Issued: ,5/04/~8
Star:up Date: P. to 0. Issued:
Applicant: Union Oil Co. APCD Fermi: #: 4051408
Project Location: Sec. 36, T30S, R22E Project Size (Gross):
Project Codes: A, GT Equipment Codes: 12A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 11/30/87
Deemed Complete: 1/~u/88 A. to C. Issued:
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
January 16, 1989 Page 14
Coqeneration Pro~;ts Cont.:
Applicant: Mobil Exp. & Prod. U.S. Inc. APCD Permit #: 4011400 - 402
Project Location: Sec. 11, T29S, R21E Project Size (Bross): 9.6 MW
Project Codes: W, BT Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 2/16/DB
Deemed, Complete: 5/15/88 A. to C. Issued:
Cancelled by Applicant 11/16/88
Applicant: Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. APCD Permit #: 2007239, 240
Project Location: Sec. 27, T295, R27E Project Size' (Gross): 17.2 MW
Project Codes: D, GT Equipment Codes: 17C
Power Purchase Agreement With: None - internal use only
Application Dates: Received: 07/I3/BB
Denied 11/3/88
Applicant: Cai State Bakersfield APCD Permit #: 0158001
Project Location: Sec. 05, T30S, R27E Project Size (Gross): 0.85 MW '
Project Codes: A, IC Equipment Codes:
Power Purchase Agreement With: None - internal use only
Application Dates: Received: 07/27/88
Deemed Complete: 9/20/8B A. to C. Issued: 12/27/8B
Startup Date: P. to O. Issued:
Applicant: Mobil Exp. & Prod. U.S. Inc. Ar'co Permit ~: 4011400A - 402A
Project Location: Sec. 11~ T29S~ R21E Project Size (Gross): 9.6 MW
Project Codes: P, GT Equipment Codes: 16A
Power Purchase Agreement With: Internal with surplus to P. G. & E.
Appl cation Dates: Received: 12/01/8B
Deemed Complete: 12/27/BB A. to C. issu~d:
Startup Date: P. to D. Issued:
Applicant: Badger Creek Limited APCD Permit #: 0158001
Project Location: Sec. 23, T2BS, R27E Project Size (Gross): 48.5 MW
Project Codes: P, 8T Equipment Codes: 6A
Power Purchase Agreement With: P. G. & E.
Application Dates: Received: 01/13/89
Deemed Complete: A. to C. Issued:
Startup Date: P. to O. issued:
January 16, I?B? Page 15
S~ummary of Action Taken By H#: ,
Total MW Approved = 204~.417 Total MW Denied
Total MW Pending = 5B. IO0 Total MW Withdrawn = 774.47
Operating = 1000.550 (i.e. with Permits to Operate or P/O pending)
PROJECT CODES:
A - approved D - Denied
P - pending W - Withdrawn by applicant
EUDC - utilized electric utility displacement credit
RR - resource recovery plant
GT - gas turbine engine
IC - internal combustion engine
RDO - requested District offsets
C - coal or coke fuel
8 - biomass fuel
CFB - circulating fluidized bed combustor
SG - 62.5 MM BTU/hr.steam generator
r. AWELO WATER DISTRICT
17207 INDUSTRIAL FARM ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93'~oeogeo!
(805) 393-6072
WATER ORDERS 393-6070
JOHN
DISTRICT
February 8, 1989
The Honorable Ben Austin
10311 Stobaugh Street
Lamont, Ca 93241
Dear Supervisor Austin:
I am writing you this letter to inform you that the Department of Water Resources
of the State of California is also very much concerned about the quality of water
and air in the San Joaquin Valley, which will ultimately affect the quality of
life.
Again, the Cawelo Water District is asking for the Board of Supervisors and the
leaders of Kern County to stop and think about the very real potential danger of
the coal-fired plants and how it will affect the water and air quality here in
our valley.
We are very much concerned when the leaders in Kern County do not take steps to
even ask for Environmental Impact Reports on a matter so important as air and
water quality.
I am sure you are aware by now that all the members of the Kern County Water
Resources con~ittee voted to ask the Board of Supervisors to demand an EIR on
all coal-fired plants that will affect our air and water quality, or any other
kind that will affect our air and water and, ultimately, the quality of life~
The Kern County Water Resources committee was set up to advise the Kern County
Board of Supervisors and we feel that we have done this.
The Cawelo Water District is asking the following questions of each of the Board
of Supervisors and each member of the City Council. Would you please write us a
letter and tell us the position you have concerning:
l) What .is the proper EIR procedure for anything that affects
the water and air quality in the San Joaquin Valley?
2) Why is it that other counties and cities are far more.aggres-
sive than Kern County in these areas?
3) It is our understanding that the legal departments of Kings and
'Fresno counties have directed their legal staff to look into the
legal ramifications of not having the proper EIR and the potential
for liability against the county in these are~ ,~p.' ,,~hq~l~ ~a~l' ~:~sTl=:~ple-
mented a very good case against coal-fired~pl.~§
"i~ '~@i ~ c6q~,~___~
ties. Would you please look into this? '.~
g
~d ~UPERVISORIAL
Page 2
February 8, 1989
Cawelo Water District has other questions, as well, such aS what is going.to
happen to the residue after it is burned in the co-generation plants? It is
our understanding that this material, when mixed with water has a very high
arsenic content.
These are questions that ~should have been asked months ago. It seems as ~
though if we continue on withthis position, that a constituency of Kern County
voters may force the County to pay, with taxpayers money, for a proper Environ-.
mental Impact Report and this is absolutely wrong.
We are looking forward to receiving your letters.
Sincerely~
JLJ/ju
Enc.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY -- ~.,~'~k~__ --~. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
.....
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES _ . .
3374 East Shields Avenue
C..726
/
January 13, 1989
Mr. A. Vernon Conrad, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Fresno
2281 Tulare Street, Room 300 -
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Mr. Conrad:
I am writing to express the California Department of Water Resources'
concerns about GWF Power Systems' proposal to construct two coal-fired
cogeneration plants in Fresno County.
In brief, the Kings ground water basin underlies the proposed plants.
This basin was~determined to have critical conditions of overdraft in
o~r Bulletin 118-80, "Ground Water Basins in California." Additional
ground water use incurred by the operation of the proposed plants
would add to these existing, basin-wide overdraft conditions and lead
to increased 'lowering of ground water levels. Currently, the
Department of Water Resources is working with local agencies, such as
the Mid-Valley Water Authority, to develop additional water supplies
to reduce overdraft. Increased water use resulting from cogeneration
plant operation would negate this effort to rectify the basin's long-
term overdraft.
Two environmental impact reports on the feasibility of constructing
the proposed cogeneration facilities conclude that, on the .basis of
recent hydrologic studies, ground water levels are now stable, not
overdrafted, in the portions of' the basin where the plants would be
situated. The Department disputes this conclusion because it is site-
specific and conveniently narrow in scope. Overdraft estimates of
selected portions of a basin are traditionally poor .indicators of ·
basin-wide hydrologic conditions, and overdraft projections based on
short-term water level fluctuations often differ sharply from more
dependable long-term projections. In the last ten years, abundant
precipitation has provided the Kings ground water basin with above-
average water supplies and recharge opportunities -- temporarily
reversing ground water level declines " some parts of the basin
in .
Though welcome, this reversal is unlikely to continue, since the
basin's long-term 'hydrologic history shows that abnormally wet periods
have always been offset by unusually dry periodS. Therefore,
temporary increases in local water supplies during wet years only mask
the basin's continuing long-term overdraft.
Mr. A. Vernon Conrad
Page 2
January 13, 1989
We believe that the use of ground water by the proposed coal-fired
cogeneration plants could have a significant adverse impact on other
ground water users in the basin. If you have any questions in this
regard, please telephone me at 445-5222.
Sincerely,
Louis A. Beck, Chief
San Joaquin District
bcc: Ms. Cheryl Lehn, Manager ~
Kings County Water District
200 North Campus Drive
Hanford, CA 93230
CAWELO
WATER
ATT~.
Youth Sport Camp
February 6, 1989
Mr. Roy Ashburn
Supervisor, First District
1415 Truxton Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Roy:
· . Thank you for following t~p with our concerns regarding the prolif-
eration of co-generation facilit, ies in Kern County.
After reviewing the County Counsel memorandum, dated Jan. 18, 1989,
we would like to encourage your board to revise the ordinance code to
require a Conditional Use Permit for all co-generation plants. We are
not in favor of arbitrarily imposing restrictions on the oil industry;
however, we feel that the potential cumulative effects of these opera-
tions makes this issue serious enough to justify the protective~ measures
afforded by the CUP process.
We sincerely hope the Board concurs with our point of viewland that
you will support this action without delay. Considering the current
environmental trends in Kern County, can we afford to gamble otherwise?
Respectfully yours
~/" /
gober~ L. Thompson'and'~
./Neighbors Along the Kern River
CC: Kern Co. Planning Director
Kern Co. Administrative Officer
Bakersfield Californian
Kern Co. Farm Bureau
Cawelo Water District
Mayor, C. ity of Bakersfield
Air Pollution Control
Kern Co. Water Resources Committee
California Air Resources Board
Rt. 1 Box 167D
Bakersfield, California 93308 Telephone (805) 393-~5253
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD OPPOSING COAL BURNING
COGENERATION PLANTS IN KERN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, there are growing public and government concerns
regarding the effects of pollution, particularly air pollution, in
Kern County; and
WHEREAS, the combustion or burning of coal produces
pollutants such as pa~ticulates, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, oxides
of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide which contribute to
deteriorating air quality in Kern County; and .i
WHEREAS, secc;ndar~ impacts from coal burning include
waste generation, mining and transportation impacts, and poten-
tial air quality impacts from plant equipment failure or operator
error which are substantial relative to other fuels; and
WHEREAS, other fuels are locally available which result
in lower overall environmental impacts and lower ·impacts on ai~
quality specifically; and
WHEREAS, the environmental costs of burning coal for
cogeneration do not justify the benefits when environmentally
sound alternatives ex.lat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the'Council of the City
o.f Bakersfield as follows:
1.. The City Councib opposes the construction and opera-
tion of coal burning or coal-fueled cogeneration plants within
the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern.
· 2~_,.The.~i.ty Council recommends that the Kern County Air
Pollu~l.~~.~...~.~p~sltrict adopt a ·"clean fuel" policy requiring
the us'.~{~{he.!,clean,ist, locally available fuels.
3. The City Council reco~u~ends that the Kern County Air
Pollutio~'Con~rof,.Distr~ct adopt a policy' requiring the use of
the best'a~aiiable c(i;ntr01 technology on all new and modified
sources of air Pollution.
o0o
RESOLUTION NO. 89-1
ARVIN UROINO THE HOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COO~y~ ~ 'A 8 '
OF FRESNO AND THE COUNTY OF KERN TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTi~
oF A .OR~TOalU. OS COAL-SURSINO ^CTIVITIES IS FRESNO AND KERN COUNTIES
#HHREA~, the City Council of the City of Arvin would like to ~xp'F~'u
our concern regarding the siting, development and operation of coal-burning
activities in Fresno County , Kern County, and the San Joaquin Valleyl
#HEREAS, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors will be considering
such land use applications in the immediate future;
#HERBAl, the City Council feels that decisions concerning these
activities mu~t be made only after complete and thorough study of ali
environmental ]Lmpacts{
NO#, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Arvin does hereby urge the Hoard of Supervisors of the County of Fresno and the
County of Kern in conaidering such land use applications to first consider the
benefits of adopting a moratoritm of sufficient duration to allow a complete
study of environmental impacts and the allow appropriate land use regulations
dealing with such activity to be imPlemented.
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this twenty-third day of
January, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: ~ (Sams, Giese, Oamron, Luevanos)
NOES: I (Burkett)
ABSTAI g: 0
ABSENT: 0
ATTBST:
Code No.
BY OROER OF ~HE BO/SUPV.
referred Io ,,
Each Suue~vim6[ and ~AO
SUE IAS{[E~,C{~
~ the ~ard ol Supe~
By:~
City of Arvin P.o.,ox;,,
(10S) IS~I.~ IJ4
2H CAMP~JS DRIVE
A RYIH, CAI. IFORHIA fJl0~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )"
COUNTY OF KERN
CITY OF ARVIN )
I, Judy Penny, City Clerk of the City of Arvin, do hereby
~ertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted by the City Council.of the City of Arvin at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of January ., 1989
by the following vote:
AYES: 4 (Sams, Giese, Damron, Luevanos)
NOES: 1 (Burkett)
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
Mr. R. I. Vaughan, Regional Director
Federal Communications Commission
211 Main Street, Room 537
San Francisco, CA g4105
· Re: Kern County Educational Satellite Station
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
On behalf of the Bakersfield City Council, we want to demonstrate our
support for the establishment of a satellite educational station serving
the Bakersfield Metropolitan area and Kern County. A National
Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) grant award for the
station licensed by the F.C.C. will facilitate expansion of educational
television to a large segment of our population. In addition, a grant that
facilitates a satellite educational station can aid our citizens who are
economically disadvantaged and whose English language limitations prevent
them from fully participating in the community.
Kern County and the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is a diverse,
multicultural area that is rapidly growing. It can benefit from a quality
satellite educational station.
The Bakersfield City Council looks forward to an educational satellite
station in the area.
Sincerely,
City Manager
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Donald G. Youpa
Colin Dougherty
1501 TRUXrUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301' (805) 326-3751
MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL, 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
Mr, Donald G, Youpa
Ezecutive Vice President
Public Televi.sion for Southern and Central California
4401 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90027
':!~' Colin Dougherty
: ?~ General Manager
. ~, ,., .
, ',!~'i.' PUBLIC TELEVISION FOR THE SAN JOAOUIN VALLEY
.,~ . 733 L Street - Fresno. California 93721 - 12091 266-1800 ' '"", '
. .';:~'~-., ~' ·. ,~:/~ .~.~ .'.'.::
. ,.:..
,-:~,, ~..,:.~. · :: : :.~?'
· . ,, . ". :-':~. '.t . :":.~.
::~: .., '~ ' ..~
. ".~' - .. ·. -.~:~: ,.,.~ '..'~
: ;~. . :~..'
. $.': . ~.,
::~,: -: ~ ·
~.. . ..:.~: .~
~,~,~' ......
..~,; v .. ·
,;~,,,.,:, ., .?- . .:, .'?
-, ~:~ '.. :~ '~-. ."..~
'..:~:'..,~ ..~.~ .~" ~
. .~..- , :~ ·
': .~; :~'. -
...~.~, .:: . . . ' ..'L.': ·
. ..'~ ~ ~.~ .'~'~..~ ~-.
.'" i'-,' '.'~'~:;~ '?
· :. ,~,: ;~. · ;-}
. ~;~L' : ' 7:~ ~.
C I T Y O F
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
Hatch 2, ~989
Mr. Thomas Hardy
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration
Public Telecommunications Facility Program
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4625
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Mr. Hardy:
On behalf of the Bakersfield City Council, we want to demonstrate our
support for the establishment of a satellite educational station serving
the Bakersfield Metropolitan area and Kern County. A National
Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) grant 'award for the
station licensed, by the F.C.C. will facilitate expansion of educational
television to a large segment of our population. In addition, a grant that
facilitates a satellite educational station can aid our citizens who are
economically disadvantaged and whose English language limitations prevent
them from fully participating in the community.
.Kern County and the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is a diverse,
multicultural area that is rapidly growing.. It can benefit from a quality
satellite educational station.
The Bakersfield City Council would like to encourage you to invest a
....... NTIA grant award in this area.
Sincerely,
Dale Hawley dj/'
City Manager
cc:.HQnorable Mayor and City Council
Donald G. Youpa
Colin Dougherty
1501 TRUXI'UN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · (805) 326-3751
M MO ANDUM
February 8, 1989
TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Patricia Smith, Chair; Patricia DeMond; Donald K. Ratty
FROM: MARY STRENN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER~
SUBJECT: NEXT MEETING OF THE CITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
This is a reminder that there will be a meeting of the City Councilmembers
of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee on:
Tuesday, February 14, 1989
12:00 Noon
City Manager's Conference Room
The purpose will be to discuss the agenda for the February 23 meeting with
the County:
1. Homeless Task Force
(including a resignation letter from the Salvation Army)
2. Castro Lane Sewer Project
(County Community Development is requesting that this item
be discussed)
3. Calendar
The City Council Committee should also talk about the City's support for
another public television station on Tuesday. Dr. Kelly Blanton, Kern
County Superintendent of Schools will be present at 12:30 p.m. for a brief
discussion about the school districts' interests in a new station.
MS:jp
cc: Dale Hawley
Art Saalfield
Ed Schulz.
George Gonzales
I'-:.AWELE] WATER DI TRIr-:T
17207 INDUSTRIAL FARM ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308-980!
" (805) 39~-607Z
WATER ORDERS 393-6070
JOHN L. JONES
DISTRICT MANAGER
February 8, 1989
The Honorable. Patricia Smith .
3908 Panorama Drive
Bakersfeild, Ca 93306
Dear Councilman Smith;
I am writin§ you this letter to inform you that the Department of;.Water Resources
of the State of California is also very much concerned about the quality of water
and air in the San Joaquin Valley, which will ultimately affect the quality of
life.
Again, the Cawelo Water District is asking for the Board of Supervisors and the
leaders of Kern County to stop and think about the very real potential danger of
the coal-fired plants and how it will affect the water and air quality here in
our valley.
We are very much concerned when the leaders in Kern County do not take steps to
even ask for Environmental Impact Reports on a matter so important as air and
water quality.
I am sure you are aware by now that all the members of the Kern County Water
Resources committee voted to ask the Board of Supervisors to demand an EIR on
all coal-fired plants that will affect our air and water quality, or any other
kind that will affect our air and water and, ultimately, the quality of life.
The Kern County Water Resources committee was set up to advise the Kern County
Board of Supervisors and we feel that we have done this.
The Cawelo Water District is asking the following questions of each of the Board
of Supervisors and each'member~'of the City Council'. Would'you please write us"a
letter and tell us the position you have concerning:
l) What is the proper EIR procedure for anything that affects
the water and air quality in the San Joaquin Valley?
2) Why is it that other counties and cities are far more aggres-
sive than Kern County in these areas?
3) It is our understanding that the legal departments of Kings and
Fresno counties have directed their legal staff to look into the
legal ramifications of not having the proper EIR and the potential
for liability against the county in these areas. They have also imple-
mented a very good case against coal-fired plants in their communi-
ties. Would you please look into this?
Page 2
February 8, 1989
Cawelo Water District has other questions, as well, such as what is going to
happen to the residue after it is burned in the co-generation Plants? It is
our understanding that this material, when mixed with water has a very high
arsenic content.
These are questions that should have been asked months ago. It seems as
· though if we continue on with this position, that a constituency of Kern County
voters may force the County to pay, with taxpayers money, for a proper Environ-
mental Impact Report and this is absolutely wrong.
We are looking forward to receiving your letters.
Sincerely,
do[~h L. diYnes
~%tr'ict'~lana~er
JLJ/ju
Enc.
CAWELO
I
Ad,iS, Co,~ ~.
BoID ~'/ J
Y th Sp C mp
ou orr a
February 6, 1989.
Mr. Roy Ashburn
Supervisor, First District
1415 Truxton Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Roy:
· .~ Thank you for following up with our ~oncerns regarding the prolif-
eration of co-generation facilities in Kern County.
After reviewing the County Counsel memorandum, dated Jan. 18, 1989,
we would like to encourage your board to revise the ordinance code to
require a Conditional Use Permit for all co-generation plants. We are
not in favor of arbitrarily imposing restrictions on the oil industry;
however, we feel that the potential cumulative effects of the~e opera-
tions makes this issue serious enough to justify the protective~ measures
afforded by the CUP process.
We sincerely hope the Board concurs with our point of vieI and that
you will support this action without delay. Considering the current
environmental trends in Kern County, can we afford to gamble otherwise?
Respectfully yours,
./Neighbors Along the Kern River
CC: Kern Co. Planning Director
Kern Co. Administrative Officer
Bakersfield Californian
Kern Co. Farm Bureau
Cawelo Water District
Mayor, City of Bakersfiet~d -
· Air Pollution Control
Kern Co. Water Resources Committee
California Air Resources Board
Rt. I Box 167D
Bakersfield, California 93308 Telephone (805) 393-5253
~ i ~;~ ~.-~ ¥ ~L~ WILLARDS. EYANS
·
EVA BURROWS ~ ou.oC~
CAPTAIN D~Lt ~OND H LEWIS
BAK[~RELD, CAUrORNIA
93305
Janua~ 17, 1989
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City Council &
HOI{ELESS TASK FORCE Chairman
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
Ladies and Gentleman:
The Salvation Army Bakersfield Advisory Board at their regularly
scheduled meeting January 10, 1989 unanimously voted to resign
membership on the Bakersfield Homeless Task Force.
The Army stands ready to support, the new shelter and our letter
of intent date November 11, 1988 remains the position of the
Advisory Board. The Army looks forward to participation in the
feeding program of the shelter and Working with the lead agency
to assist in that regard.
It is the feeling of the Board that the City of Bakersfield should
reassess the commission of the Homeless Task Force. The original
intent of the task force, and by definition, was t~--~porary to '
accomplish a definite objective. The commission has been accom-
plished and the body now taking on permanency. The lead agency
has been selected and working with City staff. The City of
Bakersfield might want to consider appointment of an advisory agency
to monitor the new shelter program and/or appoint a new group to
study some other aspect of the needs of the homeless. It would be
· the recommendation of our body that in either case, specific tasking,
~th a defined time frame, and predetermined membership be spelled
out in the new commission.
We thank you for the opportunity to have served and provided input
to the Homeless Task Force. A tremendous lead agency has been se-
lected. Our community will be better served for all the efforts
and work Of the Task Force.
January 17, 1989
Page 2.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City Council &
HOMZLESS TASK FORCE Chairman
Again, the Army looks forward to participating in the feeding program
of the new shelter and stands ready to serve.
S inc.er..e_l_.y,
/
Advisory Board /
RM/gu / /_ , -
cc: Kern County Board Of supervisors
Bethany Center Board of Directors
STATE OF CAI,,IFORN A-RESOURCES AGENCY
_- ~ GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES w~,~-
3374 East Shields Avenue ~;//~6
...-' co-.'---:/ /. ,,',?
H=. A.'Ve~non Con~ad, Chairman
~oa~d off 'Supervisors
County of Fresno ' '
228[ ~[a~e Street, Room 300~~LJ ~/ '~'/
Dea~ H~. Con~ad:
~ am.~t~ng ¢o express the Ca[~fio~n~a .Depa~tment o~ Nate~ Resources'
concerns about GN~ ~oue~ Systems' p~oposa~ ~o construct tuo coa[-fi~ed
cogene~a~on p[an~s in F~esno County.
~n b~e~, the E~ngs g~ound uate~ basin unde=[~es the p~oposed ~[ants.
· h~s basin uas determined to have c~t~ca[ conditions off ove=d:a~t ~n
ou~ B~[[et~n [~8-80, "G~ound Na[e~ Bas~ns ~n.Ca[~Jo~n~a." Additional
g~ound uate= use ~ncu~=ed by the operation off the p~oposed plants
uou~d add to these ex~st~ng, bas~n-u~de overdraft conditions and lead
~o ~nc=eased [oue=~ng at g~ound uate~ levels. Cu~ent[y, the
Department off Nate~ Resources ~S uo~k~ng u~h local agencies, such as
the H~d-Va[[ey Nate~ Authority, to dev~[op additional uate~ suppZ~es
to =educe overdraft. ~nc~eased ua~e= use =esu[t~ng ~om cogene~at~on
~[an¢ op,=at,on uou~ negate ~h~s. e~.o=t to =ec[~y the basin's [ong-
te~m overdraft.
· uo env~onmenta[ ~mpact =epochs on the fieas~b~[~ty o~ constructing
the p~oposed cogene~a[~on ~ac~[~es 'conclude that, on the bas~s
.~ecent hydrologic s~ud~es, g~ound uate= levels a~e now s~ab~e, not
ove~a~ted, ~n the po~t~ons oE the basin ~he~e the plants wou~d be
s~tuated. ~he Department d~spctes th~s conc[us~on because ~t ~s s~te-
specific and conveniently na=~ou ~n scope. Ove~d~afit estimates
selected ~o~t~ons o~ a basin a=e t~ad~t~ona[[y poo~ ~nd~cato~s
bas~n-~de hydrologic conditions, and ove~d~afit p~o~ec~ons based on
sho~t-te~m uate~ level ~[Qctuat~ons o~ten d~e[ sharply ~om mo~e
dependable [ong-te~m p~o~ec[~ons, tn the [as~ ten yea~s, 'abundant
p~ec~p~at~on has p~ov~ded the ~ngs g=ound ua~e~ basin ~th above-
ave=age uate~ supplies and =echa=ge opportunities -- temporality
~eve=s~n~ G~ound ~ate~ level declines ~n some ~a~ts o~ the basin.
· hough 'ue[come, th~s ~eve=sa[ ~s un[~e~y to continue, s~nce t~e.
basin's [ong-te~m 'hydrologic h~sto~y shous that abnormally uet pe~ods
have a[uays been o~se~ by u~sua[[y d~y pe~ods. ~he~e~o~e,
tempo~a=y ~nc~eases ~n local uate~ supp[~es du=~ng ~et yea=s only mask
the basin's continuing [ong-te~m overdraft.
Mr. A. Vernon Conrad
Page 2~ ..
January 13, 1989
We believe that the use of ground water by the proposed coal-fired
cogeneration plants could have a significant adverse impact on other
ground water users in the basin. If you have any questions in this
regard, please telephone me at 445-5222.
Sincerely,
~.~,.~,~..~.. ~ ~.~.~.r..~
Louis A. Beck, Chief
San Joaquin District
bcc: Ms. Cheryl Lehn, Manager
Kings County Water District
200 North Campus Drive
Hanford, CA 93230
MEMORANDUM "
January 6, 1989
TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: MARY STRENN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ~/~-
SUBJECT: NORTHWEST SEWER ISSUE
Attached is the County's Administrative Report on the Northwest Sewer
issue, which will be on the Board of Supervisors Agenda for Tuesday,
January 10, 1989.
The report is currently being reviewed by City staff; I thought you
would want to review it also.
We will be putting together an Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Report for the City Council meeting of January 18.
MLS.alb
Attachment
cc: J. Dale Hawley
Art Saalfield
Ed Schulz
ITEM #42
GEARY TAYLOR SCOTT JON£S
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Director of Budge~ & Finance
MARY WEDDELL JOEL HEINRICHS
Director of Policy Analysis
Assistant County Administrative Officer & Intergovernmental Relations
ROBERT SEVERS
Employee Relations Officer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
January 19, 1989
Board of Supervisors
County of Kern
Kern County Civic Center
Bakersfield, California
CSA 71 SEWER SERVICE
Representatives of the City of Bakersfield, City of Shafter, North of the River
Sanitation District (NORSD) and Kern County appear to have reached conceptual
agreement on a cost-effective, timely plan for the provision of sewer service
to CSA 71 in the Northwest portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The attached
report prepared for the City-County Intergovernmental Relations Committee
outlines the details of the agreement, which basically provides for the City of
Bakersfield and NORSD to provide services to those portions of CSA 71 which are
most quickly and inexpensively served by each entity. Additionally, this
approach will also allow the eventual construction of a NORSD waste water
treatment plant Southwest of Shafter capable of providing regional sewer service
to NORSD, the balance of CSA 71, and the City of Shafter.
Endorsement of this conceptual agreement by the Board of Supervisors will require
three changes to current policy.
1. Revision of the sewer service plan for CSA 71.
2. Endorsement of the land use recommendations in the report.
3. Reallocation of Special District Augmentation Fund monies as
recommended in the report.
Sewer Service Plan
In October, 1987, the Board of Supervisors approved a two phase process to
provide sewers to CSA 71. The first step is construction of an outfall line by
NORSD to dispose of treated effluent at the 4B site (near Kratzmeyer and Nord
Roads). The second step is construction of a treatment plant Southwest of
Shafter to serve NORSD, CSA 71 and the City of Shafter.
It is recommended that the first phase be altered so that NORSD now places the
trunk line at a more northerly location (north of Hageman Road) and the Clty of
1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room' #704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-2371
Board of Supervisors
January 17, 1989
Page 2
Bakersfield provide public sewer service to the areas within CSA 71 which are
currently experiencing rapid urban type development patterns as indicated in
Figure 2. This revision will allow much quicker service to those residents
within the area to be served by the City sewer facilities than would have
occurred under the originally adopted sewer plan.
The second phase will proceed as planned, except it will only serve the portion
of CSA 71 which is not within the proposed City of Bakersfield's service area.
Land Use Recommendations
As a condition of providing sewer service to portions of CSA 71, the City
originally insisted on a requirement that these areas annex to the City. The
County has consistently taken a position of neutrality toward annexation
proceedings and refused to require County residents to annex as a condition of
receiving sewer services.
The City representatives have dropped their annexation condition, but still want
the County to assure the City that it will commit to a process whereby the
City's Sphere of Influence and the County's Rosedale Designated Urban Area will
be consistent with the proposed joint sewerage project service areas.
Additionally, an endorsement of the maintenance of a rural atmosphere west of
the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary is desired.
These requests, as responded to in the Report, are consistent with good planning
practices and the ongoing 2010 planning process. They are endorsed by Planning
& Development Services and the Administrative Office.
Special District Augmentation Funds
Four million dollars in Special District Augmentation Funds were set as]de by
the Board of Supervisors for the CSA ?1 sewer project. Consistent with the
original sewer plan, these funds were to be used in providing sewer service to
the entire CSA ?1 area. If this revised approach is adopted, then funds should
be shared between the two areas of CSA ?] as indicated in the report.
In summary, the proposed agreement has a number of advantages:
1.Sewer service can immediately be offered to the majority of
CSA 71 residents.
2. The City will be able to fully utilize the facilities which
they have already constructed in the Rosedale area, which will
eliminate the need for the City's existing customers to pay
for the oversized Laborde trunk line.
Board of Supervisors
January 17, 1989
Page 3
3. The CSA 71 residents will not need to lease capacity in a
system now and then buy into another system later.
4. Only those areas within CSA 71 which are not anticipated to
be subject to intense development in the near future will be
required to wait for construction of the Shafter vicinity
treatment plant by NORSD in order to obtain public sewer
service.
5. Land use concerns of both the City and County will be
addressed consistent with both the joint sewerage project and
the 2010 Plan.
To implement the proposed agreement, a number of specific actions need to be
taken by the Public Works Oepartment. Therefore, the following actions are
recommended:
1. Conceptually approve, pending appropriate hearings and
implementation actions as required, the following
recommendations contained in the attached report.
-- Proceed with a joint project using service areas
outlined in Figure 2.
-- Continue County policy of neutrality regarding
annexations.
-- Do not oppose an appropriate City request for amendment
to the Sphere of Influence consistent with a joint
sewerage project.
-- Assist and support NORSD's efforts to select the most
viable location for a sewer trunk line.
-- Direct the Planning & Development Services Department
to initiate proceedings to amend the Roseda]e Designated
Urban Area consistent with a revised Sphere of Influence
and continue to require Urban Development Standards for
all urban density development within the designated
urban area.
-- Conceptually endorse the maintenance of a rural
atmosphere consistent with the adopted County General
Plan outside the Sphere of Influence and refer to the
Planning & Development Services Department development
of specific recommendations for implementation in
conjunction with development of the 2010 Plan.
Board of Supervisors
January 17, 1989
Page 4
2. Advise the City of .Bakersfield of the Board's action and
request their concurrence.
3. Refer to the Public Works Department, Planning & Development
Services Department and County Counsel for implemenLation
following City of Bakersfield concurrence.
Sincerely,
' e Officer
GT/JH/ce/jhbs.csa
cc: ;Dale Ha~ley, City of Bakersfield. Don Glover, NORSD
Wade McKinney, City of Shafter
L. Oale Mills, Public Works Department
Randall Abbott, Planning & Development Department
Bernie Barmann, County Counsel
REPORT TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
COMMITTEE
CSA 7~ SEWER SERVICE
PREPARED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTY COUNSEL
December, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
December, 1988
Page
General Introduction
Overview of the Proposed Service Areas 2
Review of the City Comments and Conditions Regarding 3 a Joint Sewerage Pro3ect
Implementation of the Sewerage Service Area Concept 8
Figure 1 Originally Proposed Service Areas 12
Figure 2 Recommended Changes to the Service Areas 13
REPORT TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
CSA 71 SEWER SERVICE
In October 1987 the Board of Supervisors decided to proceed with
a joint sewerage project with North of the River Sanitation
District (NORSD) which would ultimately provide a new treatment
plant south of Shafter to service NORSD, CSA ?! and replace
Shafter's existing plant and NORSD's existing plant. Since the
time of that decision, the County and the City of Bakersfield
InterGovernmental Relations Committee members have extensively
discussed other sewer options available for CSA 71.
The City of Bakersfield presented a letter to the Committee on
October 21, 1988, in which the conditions under which the City
would provide sewer service to agreed upon service areas within
CSA 71 were outlined. The City identified six (6) items which
needed to be addressed prior to the provision of sewer service for
portions of CSA ?! by the City. The items were as follows:
1. The City recommends the option of cooperative
agreements and establishing sewer service areas
within CSA ?1.
2. The City will not require annexation as a condition
for sewer service to those properties in the County
which will receive sewer service, and also requests
that the County not oppose any pending annexations.
3. The City requests the County not to oppose an
amendment to the City Sphere of Influence which
would make it consistent with the agreed upon sewer
service areas.
4.The City requests that CSA ?I/NORSD place its major
sewer trunk line north of Hageman Road.
5. The City requests that the area within the
boundaries of the present and proposed City Sphere
of Influence (sewer service area) be designated and
developed to Urban Development Standards.
6. The City requests that the City and the County
support the residents north of Stockdale Highway
and west of Renfro Road in preserving the area's
rural atmosphere and maintain minimum lot sizes at
one acre.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE AREAS
The City of Bakersfield proposed to provide sewer service to a
major portion of CSA ?1 as illustrated in Figure 1. The County
would be responsible to provide sewer service through a joint
project with North of the River Sanitation District (NORSD) for the
balance of CSA ?1, when it developed to a density requiring sewers.
The division of CSA 71 into these service areas would leave two
areas to which it would be difficult to provide sewer service. The'
first area is north of Seventh Standard Road and east of Allen Road
(see Figure 1). In order for CSA 7! to provide service to this
2
relatively small area it would require construction of 1 1/2 miles
of trunk lines through the City's service area in order to reach
the proposed major NORSD trunk line. The second area is within the
proposed City's service area. This area is south of Hageman Road
and west of Heath Road (see Figure 1). In order for the City to
provide sewer service to this area it would require a pump station
to lift the sewage approximately 35 feet to the proposed trunk line
in Allen Road. If service in this area was provided by the GSA
?l/NORSD/Shafter project this area could be served by gravity
sewers.
It is recommended that these two areas be exchanged from the
originally proposed service areas as illustrated in Figure 2.
REVIEW OF CITY COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING A JOINT SEWERAGE
PROJECT
The following recommendations provide an adequate foundation for
the City and County to proceed with a joint project.
1. A cooperative agreement to provide sewer service
would be the most economical solution for both the
City of Bakersfield and CSA 71.
Discussion:
An agreement with the City of Bakersfield would
provide for the availability of sewer service
much sooner for the majority of CSA 71 as
opposed to waiting until construction of a
treatment plant south of Shafter is completed.
3
An agreement .would eliminate the waste of
existing facilities which the City of
Bakersfield has constructed, anticipating that
additional areas would annex into the City of
Bakersfield. It would also eliminate possible
confusion by developers and property owners as
to who will serve their developments and will
avoid many of the problems associated with
providing sewer service to isolated County/City
islands. The disadvantage of the proposed
agreement is that it makes it more difficult
for CSA ?1 to provide sewer service to the
balance of CSA 71, since what remains is an
area which has not developed sufficiently to
support a sewer system. However, it will
develop and joint sewer facilities will need
to be planned and constructed at the time NORSD
places their trunk line.
Recommendation:
Proceed with a joint project. Revise service
areas as outlined in Figure 2.
2. The City of Bakersfield has agreed to remove all of
their requirements relative to annexations in
exchange for sewer service. The City of Bakersfield
also requested that the County not oppose any
pending annexation.
4
Discussion:
The requirement of annexation was a major
stumbling block for the County to agree to as
a condition of sewer service by City
facilities. The Board of Supervisor's policy
on annexation has been one of neutrality. The
Board has maintained that it is proper for the
property owners to determine for themselves
whether to annex into the city or remain
within the County.
Recommendation:
The County should continue with its policy of
neutrality regarding annexations.
3. The City requests an amendment to their Sphere of
Influence to make it consistent with the proposed
sewer service area.
Discussion:
Providing that the service area concept is
agreed to by all parties, this request makes
sense. If the sewer service area and Sphere
of Influence are not consistent it will
continue to create confusion in those areas.
Recommendation:
The County should not oppose a City request for
an amendment to the Sphere of Influence
consistent with a joint sewerage project.
5
4. The City requests the planned location of the GSA
?I/NORSD trunk line be shifted to a location north
of Hageman Road.
Response:
The County Public Works Department staff have
met with NORSD's staff and their Engineer and
are preliminarily reviewing location of the
sewer main along a Norris Road-Kratzmeyer Road
alignment.
Recommendation:
The City and County should assist and support
NORSD's efforts to select the most viable
location as discussed above.
§. The City requests that the area within the City's
proposed Sphere of Influence be designated and
developed to Urban Development Standards.
Discussion:
The County Planning and Development Services
Department has indicated that the proper forum
for land use decisions is the 2010 planning
process. Ultimately, the 2010 Plan will be
adopted by both the City Council and Board of
Supervisors. Therefore, it is not appropriate
for the Council and Board to take final action
on this request prior to completion of 2010
hearing process. It is appropriate for the
Council and Board to endorse appropriately
applied Urban Development Standards within the
Sphere of Influence.
Recommendation:
The County direct staff to initiate proceedings
to amend the Rosedale Designated Urban Area
consistent with a revised Sphere of Influence
and continue to require Urban Development
Standards for all urban density development
within the designated urban area.
6. The City requests that the area west of Renfro be'
preserved as rural development and that one acre
minimum lot sizes be maintained.
Discussion:
Currently this area has a mixture of zonings.
The majority (approximately 60~) of the area
is zoned intensive agriculture at 20 acre
minimum size parcels, approximately 10~ of the
area is zoned for 1 unit per net acre and
approximately 19~ of the area is zoned for 4
units per net acre. The balance of the area
is primarily zoned for 2.5 and § acre lots.
As indicated above, the appropriate forum for
final resolution of the City's concerns is the
2010 planning process, but the concept of
preservation of the rural atmosphere may be
7
endorsed and referred at this time.
Recommendation:
The City and County endorse in concept the
maintenance of a rural atmosphere consistent
with the adopted County General Plan outside
the Sphere of Influence and refer to the
respective planning staffs development of
specific recommendations for this area in
conjunction with development of the 2010 Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEWAGE SERVICE AREA CONCEPT
In order to finalize.the recommended sewerage service areas
and begin construction of the related facilities, the following
items need to be accomplished once the City Council and Board of
Supervisors approve the proposed joint sewerage project.
1. Finalize the Service Areas
A. The County and City Public Works Departments will
recommend revised service areas to the Board of
Supervisors and City Council.
2. Finalize Agreements between NORSD, CSA ?1 and City of
Bakersfield
A. City of Bakersfield/CSA ?!
This agreement should be a modification of the
agreement which exists for Tract 4908. It will need
to be modified to address the formation of
assessment districts to pay for the trunk lines and
the sewer facilities. The agreement should be
8
prepared and presented by the respective Public
Works Departments within 90 days of approval of the
joint sewerage project.
B. CSA 71/NORSD
An agreement was drafted based on the originally
approved sewerage concept. This agreement should
also be modified within 90 days and presented for
approval to the Board of Supervisors by the Public
Works Department.
3. Allocation of the Special District Augmentation Funds
earmarked by the Board of Supervisors for GSA ?1 sewer
service. This was reviewed in detail by the County Public
Works Department. The split of these funds was evaluated
based on current population, size of the area to be served and
funds needed to make the NORSD project feasible. It is
recommended that the funds be allocated based on size of area
to be served.
The division of the funds using the size of the service area
as a basis will provide a $2.5 million (County)/$1.5 million
(City) split of the funds (using the recommended service
areas). This option makes the joint NORSD/CSA 71 project
feasible, whereas use of current population would not. The
County areas which will be served by the NORSD/CSA ?1 project
will possibly not develop within the next 5 to 10 years,
therefore there is no way to adequately assess these
properties for a sewer system at this time.
The City's $1.5 million share of the "funds should be used to
assist County residents who will be served by the City's
facilities. The best use of the funds would appear to be for
the installation of trunk lines. If this is the agreed use
of these funds, assessment districts for the County areas
within CSA 71 that will be served by the City should be formed
and an appropriate portion of funds transferred to the
assessment districts.
The area which will remain to be served by the joint GSA
?I/NORSD project will use most of its $2.5 million share
of the funds during the initial project to reach site 4B
with the effluent trunk line. Any funds which remain
should be used when the trunk line is extended to the
Shafter site. This approach will require that any
development which occurs outside the City's service area
continue to install dry sewers and septic tanks until a
treatment plant is constructed at the Shafter Site.
4. Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the Shafter
Site
A. NeGotiations should begin with the property owners
in the area after execution of the agreements
outlined above. The Environmental Impact Report and
10
General Plan Amendment could be completed in October
1989. Close contact should be maintained with the
City of Shafter and they should offer support for
the recommended site prior to beginning the public
meetings.
5. Assessment Districts will need to be formed within the
City's proposed service area
A. After execution of the agreement with the City, the
boundaries will have to be determined for assessment
districts. The property owners will have to be
contacted to determine which areas desire sewer
service. The assessment districts should be formed
by the City to allow the best coordination with
their existing facility. Zones of Benefit will have
to be formed by the County to collect the sewer
service charges.
11
CSA - ?1 BOUNDARY
LINE TO SHAFTER SITE C~TY SFHER~ OF INFLUENCE
SEVENTH ROAD CITY LIMITS
'7-/"72'-/'/'-/7~ .£RN WATER SANK
........... TRUNK LINES
.[ ! FLOW ZONES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC R & R IOSEDAL~E 4WY.
2.6 mgd
CITY OI~
oz LABORIDE --,,.: BAKERSFIELD'
TRUNK
LINE
rOCK DALE HWY.
11 o v,s,o, oF
0.0 mgd 12.0 mgd CSA-71 BETWEEN
BAKERSFIELD & NOR1
PROPOSED
KERN WATER BANK
FRASER
LIFT STATION
1.7
..... imamma EXISTING (~8A-71
PANAMA
W/CITY TO TENNECO
PROPOSED mmmm CAPACITY PLANT.,9
KERN ~'R SANK
I CaA-Tt W/NORSD
TO 8HAFTER
TAFt HWY. ORIGINALLY PROPOSED
DISPOSAL
TRUNK
· i.E -*' SEWER SERVICE AREAS
FIGURE I
CSA - ?1 BOUNDARY
tRUNK LINE TO SHAFTER SITE C,TY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
sEVEN,. ~'' "T --I . C,T,~,.,TS
6 , N.c,.s.c.., /?
"W.W.T.F ~ ."
2.6 mgd }
CITY OF
LA~CE~ BAKERSFIELD
TRUNK
LINE
o.o mod 1 1 O,V,S,O. Or
8m 12.0 mgd
/ CSA-71 BETWEEN
; BAKERSFIELD & NORSD
PROPOSED
KERN WATER SANK
FRASER
LIFT STATION
1.7 mi;d
~ ~ EXISTING C8A-71
W/CiTY TO TENNECO
PROPOSED ~ GAPAGITY PLANT ,3
KERN W~,TER BANK
~ GSA-Z1 WINORSD
/~ TO 8HAFTER
TAF~ .w,. RECOMMENDED
DISPOSAL J j~
· ,.E ' - SEWER SERVICE AREAS
[NNECO SITE'
FIGURE 2
MEMORANDUM
January 4, 1989
TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Patricia Smith, Chair; Patricia DeMond; Donald K. Ratty
FROM: MARY STRENN, ASSISTANT 'CITY MANAGER//~
SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
At the December Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting hosted by the
County, it was decided that the January.meeting would be canceled if new
agenda items did not arise.
I have talked with the City'Committee members and with the County. The
consensus is to cancel the January 12, 1989 meeting.
The attached calendar is a proposal for 1989 meeting dates. Please review
and comment about any conflicts. The proposed calendar will then be sent
to the County for review.
MS:jp
Attachment
cc: J. Dale Hawley
POSSIBLE DATES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS
CiTY/COUNTY
Every third Thursday at noon
Alternative - third Friday at noon
FEBRUARY 1989 MARCN 1989 APRIL ],989
S M T W T F S ~ M T W T F ~- S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 15 14 City Mgr League 12 13 14 15 i~ 18 9 10 11 12 15 14 15
19 20 21 22 2~ 25 19 20 21 22 2> 24 25 16 17 i8 19 ~0 22
26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 >1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
3O
MAY 1989 JUNE 1989 JULY 1989
~' w T F----~-- ~--~ T W T E S 8 M T W T F S
1 2 ~ 4 5 6 1 2 3
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 ~ 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 ~8 20 i1 12 1~ 14 i5 17 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15
21 22 2> 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 i6 17 i8 19 ~1 22
28 29 30 >1 25 26 27 28 29 30 2~ 24 25 League C81/CLy
30
AIJOOS[ i989 SEPTEMBER 1989 OCTOBER 1989
--S----7f-~ T W T---F--~ ---~ M T W T F---~' ~'~ T W T
i 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 ~ 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 19 i0 11 12 15 14 15 16 15 16 1'7 18 0 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 i8 19 20 2t 23 League Cal/Cty 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
NOVEMBER 1,989 DECEMBER 1989 JANUARY 1990
---7~ ---'PI- T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
i 2 ]5 4, i 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 lO 1i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 ~0 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
31
SEQUENTIAL LIST
KMTF - Channel 18 KCET - Channel 28
Time Date~ Program Time Date Program
8:00 a.m. 1-15 Sesame Street 7:00 a.m. 1-15 to Captain KangaroO
1-21
9:00 a.m~ 1-15 Mister Rogers' 7:30 a.m. 1-15 to Mister Rogers
Neighborhood 1-21
9:30 a.m. 1-15 3-2-1 Contact 8:00 a.m. 1-15 to Sesame Street
1-21
10:00 a.m. 1-15 Wonderworks
9:00 a.m. 1-15 to Sesame Street
1-21
11:00 a.m. 1-15 Ramona
10:00 a.m. 1-15 to Sesame Street
1-21
11:S0 a.m. 1-15 Science Journal
11:30 a.m. 1-15 to Today's Special
1-21
12:00 p.m. 1-15 American Interests
12:00 p.m. 1-15 to Nature of Things
1-21
12:30 p.m. 1-15 Telecommunications
& Information Re- 1:00 p.m. 1-15 to Martin Luther King:
volution 1-21 The Dream on'Hold
(Mort)
1:00 p.m. 1-15 Wall Street Week
2:30 p.m. 1-15 to Fresh Fields
1-21
1:30 p.m. 1-15 Currents
3:00 p.m. 1-15 to MacNeil/Lehrer
1-21 Newshour
2:00 p.m. 1-15 Computer Chronicles
4:00 p.m. 1-15 to Nature (Mon)
1-21
2:30 p.m. 1-15 Rod & Reel
4:30 p.m. 1-15 to Silver Spoons (Mon)
1-21
3:00 p.m. 1-15 First Frontier
5:00 p.m. 1-15 to Make Yourself at
1-21 Home (Mon-Wed)
4:00 p.m. 1-15 Modern Maturity
5:30 p.m. 1-15 to New Southern Cooking
1-21 with Nathalie Dupre~
4:30 p.m. 1-15 Life Matters (Mon-Thu)
5:00 p.m. 1-15 Fight Back!
tvlistl
SEQUENTIAL LIST
KMTF - Channel 18 KCET - Channel 28
Time Date Program Time Date Program
5:30 p.m. 1-15 Adam Smith's Money 8:00 a.m. 1-15 Wonderworks
World
6:00 p.m. 1-15 McLaughlin Group 9:00 a.m. 1-15 Real Thing
6:30 p.m. 1-15 Firing Line 9:30a.m. 1-15 Science Journal
7:00 p.m. 1-15 Lawrence Welk 10:00 a.m. 1-15 American Interests
8:00 p.m. 1-15 ,Nature 10:30 a.m. 1-15 Tony Brown's Journal
9:00 p.m. 1-15 Masterpiece Theatre 11:00 a.m. 1-15 Masterpiece Theatre
10:00 p.m. 1-15 Martin Luther King 12:30 p.m. 1-15 Mystery!
Jr.
1:30 p.m. 1-15 Live from Lincoln
11:00 p.m. 1-15' King Week Celebration Center
6:30 a.m. 1-15 to Hi-Tone Aerobics 5:00 p.m. 1-15 Innovation
1-21
6:00 p.m. 1-15 Great Railway Jour-
7:00 a.m. 1-15 to To Life! neys of the World
1-21
8:00 p.m. 1-15 Nature
7:30 a.m. 1-15 to Nightly Business
1-21 9:00 p.m. 1-15 Masterpiece Theatre
8:00 a.m. 1-15 to Sesame Street 10:00 p.m. 1-15 Martin Luther King:
1-21 The Dream on Hold
9:00 a.m. 1-15 to Mister Rogers' 11:30 p.m. 1-15 American Experience
1-21 Neighborhood
6:00 p.m. 1-16 Nightly Business
9:30 a.m. 1-15 to Captain Kangaroo
1-21 6:30 p.m. 1-16 MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour
10:00 a.m. 1-15 to Instructional TV
1-21 7:30 p.m. 1-16 California Stories
3:00 p.m. 1-15 to Sesame Street 8:00 p.m. 1-16 Big Bird in Japan
1-21
9:00 p.m. 1-16 Masterpiece Theatre
4:00 p.m.~ 1-15 to Mister Rogers'
1-21 Neighborhood 11:00 p.m. 1-16 Martin Luther King
Jr.: A Tribute by
4:30 p.m. 1-15 to Square One TV William Warfield
1-21
12:00 a.m. 1-17 Are You Being Served~
6:00 p.m. 1-16 MacNeil/Lehrer
!
Newshour
tvlist2
, SEQUENTIAL LIST
KMTF - channel 18 KCET - Channel 28
Time Date Program Time Date Program
7:00 p.m. 1-16 Big Bird in Japan 6:00 p.m. 1-17 Nightly Business
8:00 p.m. 1-16 Masterpiece Theatre 6:30 p.m. 1-17 MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour
10:00 p.m. 1-16 Tinker, Tailor, Sol- 7:30 p.m. 1-17 7:30
dier, Spy
8:00 p.m. 1-17 Nova
11:00 p.m. 1-16 Masterpiece Theatre
9:00 p.m. 1-17 American Experience
6:00 p.m. 1-17 MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour !0:00 p.m. 1-17 Money in America:
7:00 p.m. 1-17 Nova The Business of
Banking
8:00 p.m. 1-17 The American Experi- 12:00 a.m. 1-18 Are You Being Served
ence
12:30 a.m. 1-18 Innovation
9:00 p.m. 1-17 Money in America
6:00 p.m. 1-18 Nightly Business
10:00 p.m. 1-17 The Worlds Greatest
Escapes 6:30 p.m. 1-18 MacNeil/Lehrer
I' Newshour
11:00 p.m. 1-17 Anna Wyman Dance
Theatre 7:30 p.m. 1-18 7:30
6:00 p.m. 1-18 MacNeil/Lehrer 8:00 p.m. 1-18 National Geographic
Newshour
9:00 p.m. 1-18 Frontline
7:00 p.m. 1-18 National Geographic
10:30 p.'m. 1-18 Dateline Freedom:'
Civil Rights and
8:00 p.m. 1-18 Frontline the Press
11:00 p.m. 1-18 What if it is
9:30 p.m. 1-18 The Sexual Brain Raining
6:00 p.m. 1-19 Nightly Business
10:00 p.m. 1-18 South American Jour- Report
ney
6:30 p.m. 1-19 MacNeil/Lehrer
11:00 p.m. 1-18 Nova Newshour
7:35 p.m. 1-19 Wild, Wild World of
6:00 p.m. 1-19 MacNeil/Lehrer Animals
Newshour
9:00 p.m. 1-19 Mystery!
7:00 p.m. 1-19 Timeline
10:00 p.m. 1-19 One More Season
, I
tvlist3
SEQUENTIAL LIST
KMTF - Channel 18 KCET - Channel 28
Time Date Program Time Date Program
8:00 p.m. 1-19 CE News Magazine 11:00 p.m. 1-19 What if it is
Raining
8:30 p.m. 1-19 This Old House
12:00 a.m. 1-20 Are You Being Served?
9:00 p.m. 1-19 Mystery!
12:30 a.m. 1-20 Innovation
10:00 p.m. 1-19 John McLaughlin's
One on One 6:00 p.m. 1-20 Nightly Business
Report
10:30 p.m. 1-19 America's Defense
Monitor 6:30 p.m. 1-20 MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour
11:00 p.m. 1-19 Exit 13
7:30 p.m. 1-20 7:30
11:30 p.m. 1-19 Bix Lives 7:35 p.m. 1-20 Wild, Wild World of
Animals
6:00 p.m. 1-20 MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour 8:00 p.m. 1-20 Washington Week in
Review
7:00 p.m. 1-20 Washington Week in
Review 8:30 p.m. 1-20 Wall Street Week
7:30 p.m. 1-20 Wall Street Week 9:00 p.m. 1-20 Great Performances
10:30 p.m. 1-20 Movie** Husbands
8:00 p.m. 1-20 Great Performances
7:00 a.m. 1-21 Sesame Street
9:30 p.m. 1-20 The Human Face of thc 8:00 a.m. 1-21 Sesame Street
Pacific
9:00 a.m. 1-21 Soapbox with Tom
10:00 p.m. 1-20 Upstairs Downstairs Cottle
9:30 a.m. 1-21 Doctor Who
11:00 p.m. 1-20 Movie** The Red Shoes
10:30 a.m~ 1-21 Coming of the Spirit~
8:00 a.m. 1-21 French in Action 11:00 a.m. 1-21 Woodwright's Shop
12:00 p.m. 1-21 Growing a Business
8:30 a.m. 1-21 Sit and Be Fit
12:30 p.m. 1-21 Motorweek
9:00 a.m. 1-21 For Veterans Only 1:00 p.m. 1-21 New,Southern Cooking
1:30 p.m. 1-21 Madeleine Cooks
9:30 a.m. 1-21 Navy News This Week
2:00 p.m. 1-21 You Can Cook
tvlist4
SEQUENTIAL LIST
KMTF - Channel 18 KCET - Channel 28
Time Date Program Time Date Program
10:00 a.m. 1-21 American Teletime 2:30 p.m. 1-21 Julia Child and Co-
pany
11:00 a.m. 1-21 Frugal Gourmet
3:00 p.m. 1-21 Adam Smith's Money
11:30 a.m. 1-21 Joy of Painting World
12:00 p.m. 1-21 Art of Ashley Jacksor
3:30 p.m. 1-21 Firing Line
12:30 p.m. 1-21 Motorweek
4:00 p.m. 1-21 John McLaughlin's
One on One
1:00 p.m. 1-21 Great American Wood-
lots 4:30 p.m. 1-21 Inside Washington
1:30 p.m. 1-21 International Cooking 5:30 p.m. 1-21 New Yankee Workshop
2:30 p.m. 1-21 Victory Garden
6:00 p.m. 1-21 Bodywatch
3:00 p.m. 1-21 Great Railway Journe9
7:00 p.m. 1-21 Wonderworks
4:00 p.m. 1-21 Tony Brown's Journal 8:00 p.m. 1-21 Horses
8:50 p.m. 1-21 Videolog
4:30 p.m. 1-21 The Power of Choice
9:00 p.m. 1-21 National Geographic
5:00 p.m. 1-21 Degrassi Junior High 10:00 p.m. 1-21 Movie** Turning
Point
5:30 p.m. 1-21 Portrait of a Family 1:'00 a.m. 1-22 Lonesome Pine Special
6:00 p.m. 1-21 Market to Market
6:30 p.m. 1-21 Sneak Previews
7:00 p~.m. 1-21 Austin City Limits
8:00 p.m. 1-21 Doctor Who
9:30 p.m. 1-21 Movie** Lillian
Russell
tvlist5