Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 alifarnia OFFICE OF THE MAYOR THOMAS A. PAYNE November 13, 1987 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Central Valley Region San Joaquin Watershed Branch Office 3614 East Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD SEWER SERVICES The City Of Bakersfield strongly objects to the County's proposal to site a treatment plant and a disposal facility that serves any area within the City of Bakersfield's Sphere of Influence. The City's Sphere of Influence, which was established in 1977, includes the Rosedale area west to Allen Road and north to 7th Standard Road. State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive plan for development within this sphere. Pursuant to this requirement, the City has a sewer line in place and has sold bonds in excess of $5 million to oversize the sewer line to serve this area within its sphere. We are depending on payment of connection fees from the area. We also object because we do not see any need to construct a new treatment plant at this time. The City's Wastewater Treatment Plant No 3 is capable of providing sewer capacity for the urban area within the City's Sphere of Influence to the year 2000 and beyond. At that time, a new plant may be constructed at Highway I-5 for areas both north and south of the Kern River. 'The plant being proposed by the COunty could not serve the area south of the Kern River. It makes good governmental sense to limit the number of treatment plants in the urban area. For the area outside of the City's sphere, what is the status of ground water contamination in the Rosedale - Fruitvale area? Is there a 1990 deadline on individual septic tank use? Does the Board intend to enforce this deadline? 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (805) 326-3770 KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD SEWER SERVICES November 13, 1987. Page 2 Little information is available regarding the new alternative, yet, the Board has approved it. We request that a fiscal analysis, environmental impact report and a review period be completed prior to proceeding with the project. The City's Sphere of Influence which was established in 1977 includes the Rosedale area west to Allen Road and north to 7th Standard Road. State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive plan for development within this sphere. The City has a sewer trunk line in place and has sold bonds in excess of $5 million to oversize the sewer line to serve the area within its Sphere of Influence and is depending on payment of connection fees from the area. What you are proposing is a duplication of service within the City's Sphere of Influence at a cost much greater than that which can be provided by the City. The City is currently involved in a comprehensive General Plan update (Plan 2010). That plan addresses our concerns for air and water quality, urban sprawl, and policies that induce growth. This sewerage decision must take these factors into consideration. As stated in the Engineering Science Report, we believe the construction of a wastewater treatment plant west of Bakersfield would induce growth in that area. This would increase air quality problems by encouraging people to live further away from their places of work. Your staff recently mentioned at an Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting that land use decisions were a Critical element with regard to air quality. We believe that a decision which would induce growth west of the City's Sphere of Influence would exacerbate current air quality problems. There are other environmental concerns also, e.g., as preservation of agricultural lands, traffic congestion, and the impact on the City's Kern River 2800 Acre water spreading area, which need to be addressed. Eurthermore, this type of decision would create urban sprawl and makes it more difficult and costly to provide needed services, creating longer trips for police and sanitation, and requiring greater infrastructure in terms of miles of streets, services, water lines, etc. In addition, there are economic considerations that would further cripple efforts to strengthen our downtown core. At the Board's hearing, it was stated that the first phase (constructing the conveyance facilities) will cost $12 million and that $4 million was presently available. Where will the other $8 million come from and who will pay? Will it be .from the residents within CSA 71 who will not be allowed to connect to the line? Will the money come from people within ~he City's Sphere of Influence? Answers to these questions should be made public before a decision is finalized. KERN COt'NTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSSFIELD SEWER SERVICES November ]3, 1987 Page 3 The City of Bakersfield is very interested in working with ali citizens and agencies toward the betterment of the urban area. We will be discussing this issue at the City Council meeting scheduled for November ]8, 1987. We have a major stake and responsibility for planning, development, and servicing of the metropolitan area. We again respectfully request the following: 1. That the decision as to sewer service for the northwest area be made as part of the Public Facilities Element of the 2010 Plan, which is currently in draft form and is ready for public deliberation and hearings. 2'. That this decision be considered along with other important matters, such as urban sprawl, air quality, and the cost of providing other necessary infrastructure for this area. 3. That the Board of Supervisors request Engineering Science to provide cost figures for the Bakersfield Alternative. 4. That the Board of Supervisors provide the City of Bakersfield with a counter-proposal to our July 16, 1987 letter, which states the Ci:v would consider a departure from its current policy on annexation if the County would stop urban sprawl in the 2010 Plan area, limit the number of homes per acre, allow the City to handle development within the sphere of influence, and remove County Service Area 71 from the City's sphere of influence. Thank you for your consideration. Respe:tfully submitted, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD THOMAS A. PAYNE.; Mayer D23~aDH:mro) L-111387.2 L-1i1387.3 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR THOMAS A. PAYNE November 13, 1987 KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD SEWER SERVICES This letter is in response to the action taken by the Board of Supervisor's at the regular meeting on October 19, 1987 regarding Northwest Bakersfield Sewer Services. The City of Bakersfield is committed to serving all areas within its Sphere of Influence with wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Study prepared by Engineering Science, the NORSD could also easily convey all its flow to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3. Therefore, we do not see any need to construct a new treatment plant at this time. Wastewater Treatment Plant No 3 is capable of providing sewer capacity for the urban area within the City's Sphere of Influence to the year 2000 and beyond. At that time, a new plant may be constructed at Highway I-5 for areas both north and south of the Kern River. The plant being proposed by the County could not serve the area. south of the Kern River. It makes good governmental sense to limit the number of treatment plants in the urban area.. This is due to economic, environmental, and planning reasons. Limiting the number of plants is consistent with the Draft 2010 Plan and provides for systematic and orderly growth, as was requested by the City in a letter to the Board of Supervisors on July 16, 1987. The proposal by the County is not economically sound. In a letter to the Board of Supervisors on July 20, 1987, we provided preliminary estimates of costs to serve the area within the Sphere of Influence, and NORSD if they so desire, at a $25 million cost. This is one-half of the cost shown on Table 4-1 and 4-2 of the Engineering Science Report for all other alternatives. Why isn't this cost of the Bakersfield alternative shown along with the other alternatives, as was done on Table 4-3 Environmental Summary? 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 ° (805) 326-3770 KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD SEWER SERVICES November 13, 1987 }'age 2 Little inforln~ti, on is available regarding the new alternative, yet, the Board has approved it. We request that a fiscal analysis, environmental impact report and a review period be completed prior to proceeding with the project. ]'he City's Sphere of Influence which was established in 1977 includes the Rosedale area west to Allen Road and north to 7th Standard Road. State law ~equires the City to adopt a comprehensive plan for development within this sphere. The City has a sewer trunk line in place and has sold bonds in excess of $5 million to oversize the sewer line to serve the area within its Sphere of Influence a,d is depending on payment of connection fees from the area. What you are proposing is a duplication of service within the City's Sphere of Influence at a cost much greater than that which can be provided by the City. The City is currently involved in a comprehensive General Plan update (Plan 2010). That plan addresses our concerns for air and water quality, urban sprawl, and policies that induce growth. This sewerage decision must take these factors i,to consideration. As stated in the Engineering Science Report, we believe the construction of a wastewater treatment plant west of Bakersfield would induce growth in that area. This would increase air quality problems by encouraging people to live further away from their places of work. Your staff recently mentioned at an Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting that land use decisions were a Critical element with regard to air quality. We believe that a decision which would induce growth west of the City's Sphere of Influence would exacerbate current air quality problems. There are other environmental concerns also, e.g., as preservation of agricultural lands, traffic congestion, and the impact on the City's Kern River 2800 Acre water spreading area, which need to be addressed. Furthermore, this type of decision would create urban sprawl and makes ~t more difficult and costly to provide needed services, creating longer trips for police and sanitation, and requiring greater infrastructure in terms of miles of streets, services, water lines, etc. In addition, there are economic considerations that would further cripple efforts to strengthen our downtown core . At the Board's hearing, it was stated that the first phase (constructing the conveyance facilities) will cost $12 millJ, on and that $4 million was presently available. Where will the other $8 million come from and who will pay? Will it be from the residents within CSA 71 who will not be allowed to connect to the line? Will the money come from people within the City's Sphere of Influence? Answers to these questions should be made public before a decision is finalized. CALIFORNIA REG]ONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Central Valley Region San'Joaquin Watershed Branch Office RE: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD SEWER SERVICES November 13, 1967 Page 2 The City of Bakersfield reqoests an opportunity to appear before your Board to strongly object to the County's proposed siting of a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility. Thank you for your consideration and will appreciate your early response to our comments and questions. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD THOMAS A. PaY'NE, Mayor D23[JDH:mro) L-111387.4 L-111387.5 specific numb¢ '" NO ACTION REQUIRED Pessimism can' erod( The sewage hits the fan a, chances of peace D Secretary of State George Shultz espite all the ups and downs in other words, stop approving devel- recently spoke of"a debltitatin§ of the economy, the growth of opments that fall under the city's pessimism,, Which was eroding the the Bakersfield area seems legally-defined sphere of influence, chance for a negotiated settlement in assured. The only question is, will It was a bold but completely logi- troubled South Africa. He and the the growth be orderly and well- cai and legally-sound proposal. State l%agan ^dministration appear to have endless patience when dealing with the planned, or will it continue on ils law says the planning needs of urban brutally repressive Pretoria present schizophrenic course? areas are best served by one agency, government,reieeting even economic The latter answer is more likely, not two. You don't have to take sides sanctions as too harsh. thanks to the stubbornness of Kern in the matter to see that it's common Meanwhile, back in our own County supervisors, who refuse to sense, hemisphere, the Sandinista governmenl work with city officials in reaching a But common sense doesn't matter o~ tiny Nicaragua is bending over backwards to comply, in evez3' particul compromise that would serve both if you've got to protect your political way, with the Guatemalan ^eeord. In tl sides, turf. OBviously, supervisors see little past few weeks, they have opened the The city and county are locked in to gain in being charitable to the Nicaraguan/Honduras border, allowed an uncivil war that has been brewing city. And the city hasn't helped its the opposition newspaper La Prens~ an the Catholic radio station to resume for many months. In many respects cause from the way if mishandled operations, and allowed public it is the story of the year; the some pastannexation elections, demonstrations byanti-gove,rnment outcome will determine not only the So there we have it, opposite forces citizens' groups. , . shape of Bakersfield for years to who cannot find a compromise. Su- now have Shultz and Reagan come, but also the quality of life for pervisors are going their separate responded to Nicaragua's overtures toward peace? With a virtual barrage all residents -- and the efficiency, or way, approving a temporary plan to discouraging, disparaging remarks to inefficiency, of the tax-funded 'serv- keep the sewage flowing in Oildale press and an impudent request for an ices they must have. and a "concept" long-range plan thatincredible $270 million in aid for the The battleground, for now, is north- calls for the construction of a region- Contra rebels. They have dismissed west Bakersfield. For years the coun- al sewage treatment plant, every conciliatory gesture by Daniel Ortega as "merely cosmetic". ty has approved residential Such a plan will most certainly How's that for "debllttating developments that use septic tanksencourage'urban sprawl in the rural pessLmism"? I find it amazing that for sewage disposal in that area. For area and aggravate existing air pol-Shultz and Reagan can preach Amerlc~ more than 10 years, the state Region- lution problems by increasing com- restraint and non-interference toward t '.al Water Quality Control Board hasmuter traffic. It reflects bad corrupt, short-sightedpoUctes of P.W. warned the county that septic tank . planning, and it will prove to be cost Botha, while rejecting the very real '- disposal could contaminate, the inefficient as well. area's drinking water. So what? Forget the needs of the ~Mueh of that area could be served metropolitan area. Forget the need by the city sewer system, but in thefor coordination of services. Forget past city officials had insisted that state guidelines on these issues. '"' such areasannextothecityfirst.. '. Territory is at stake. Damnthe. Governo Then,' during the summer, the city. city; full speed ahead, r changed its tune. The city offered to.,' The developers will love you, su- p.rovide the sewer service withoutpervisors. And the population will ~ he panicky, irrational herd inst~ requiring annexation if the countyhave to live with the results, that gripped Wall Street last would agree to stop urban sprawl ' Thanks a lot..,~ is not unknown in political circ " .' :' .. ~ Some issue will capture the public',, :~ .. . and the media's -- attention and po · ~, ... : eians clamor to board the bandwagon A move toward clarity matter howmuch, or how litQe, sen..makes. · That's what occurred nine years :' ''" -'. after the voters of California enm T ' Proposition 13 to slash their prop~ here now may be no excuse forit-sounding legal-ad like notice, taxes. west side residents to not have which at least some people thought Then-Gov. Jerry Brown and legisla' a say in the siting o£ a hazard- was seeking membership on a gener- o~ both parties who had opposed Pro[ ous waste disposal plant proposed for al county planning committee, not a tion 13 embraced it ardently after ' ~ ~_,hr t~lalu, rtffix'~ (~llJ'J~/~llJl, Tues.. Nov. 10. 1987 Store (read private ~J- re ) clock is riglit on time. differed from the number on the bag _ ' ' INFORMATiON. ONLY; NO ACTION REQUIRED'' We have the tools for metro p anning I suggest that it was the obvious intent S upervisor Mary K. Shell said re- JACK D,j~I~N of the state Legislature to provide tile cently that delegating land use decisions to the city within the tools required by establishing "areas of - influence" -- that they recognized the city's "sphere of influence" was illegal. - That statement, standing alone, may well the governing body be a general law or need for a city to expand, to grow and . be true. charter form of government. Otherwise, ' prosper in an orderly, plamled manner. ttowever, if we wish to explore the why would the Legislature liave provid- That is necessary to provide for conti- ;mendous possibilities made available ed, and in fact mandated, "areas of nuity in growth patterns, concepts, serv- to us by state law, I believe that land-use influence." hdluence means tim capacity ices and various other improvements ill ' decisions within the "sphere of influ- of producing effect, the exercise of pow- accordance with a city's wishes, which' are relected in ils maudated and adopted ence", of each and every city -- in er. How in the world can any agency general plan .... accordance with their adopted and state "influence" an area if appropriate means ,, mandated "General Plan'"-- can be are denied it? " ' accomplished with better results. State law also has mandated that In light of this, I would propose that the , ! believe this can be done without proposed subdivisions of land in the city and tile county establish zoning and relinquishing the sovereignty of the unincorporated areas, within a stipulated planning districts within each city's area .. Board of Supervisors or the City Council. number of miles from a "city limit," be' of influence that would accommodate tim ,. Such a proposal demands a high degree submitted to the appropriate city for its intent and purpose of eacli city's adopted of cooperation, along with a dedicated review and recon'unendation, general plan. That can be done without desire to serve the public -- a position of Without some sort of multi-unit district delegating land-use decisions [rom the ": trust to which these leaders were elected, being established by mutual cooperation county to tile city, as so many appear to ' It is not my desire to become involved of the respective city and county affect- fear. The co~ty would simply enforce a '" or to judge the motives of the City. ed, the submission of such tentativ~ new set of land-use regulations in these Council or Board of Supervisors regard- tracts is an exercise of bureaucratic areas. ing land-use decisions within the "area of boondogging at its worst -- and frustrat- influence" of the city of Bakersfield; nor lng, leading to further conflict between Certainly, the planning tools have been. provided, in the form of state planning., is it my pm'pose to attempt to practice the city arid tile county. law. But I am, and always have been, I believe state law also provides for the law, for tile orderly growth of all corn- extremely interested in a tile long-range . establishment of different zones for dif- munities within the'state. .' proper planning of our county, ferent areas. I also believe the state law Why not use them? If there is a need to There definitely needs to be a whole- provides for "joint exercise of power modify or amend these laws, we certain- hearted decision and dedication on the agreements." That is, an agreement ly have competent sLate legislators repre- Part of aB concerned to make it work and between cities and counties to establish senting our county to accomplish that, . to achieve a truly better Bakersfield contractual arra'ngements for. the per- too. metropolitan area. formance of certain functions. State law, in my opinion, has provided Again, that requires a tremendous tied- Jack Daltou Is the former plauttlt~g . the means to make this possible, whether ication to make it work. director for Kern CoIlttty. Doonesbury By Garry Tr'udeau:' J II~TE.N,~/~qPF-N, YOIJHI]VE:'TO J PON7'a~I. IE.V'E.. · J I, J.',': Il ~'~o. J~.JJ You Your 7-OlU. S MOVE FA ~Tf../R !, T/IF ~,RF~T'~ 60- J /.~Jl ...'i J /~ATU~-~. Z~OY,/./,4 v'~.,V'T J /lV670~lf~lZ! ]'I/~I.~N~,P.A~.Z::' J lT../U/-/,~?.,~.//P-~ TH~ J J~JJ W£A~I.: I~I'£,R, PUP~./ J J 77-1,4T ~AI. OMOA! ~g~.OTtt~l~/~ J YOIJ P/EKIN~ t?.AOIO. J For YoUr:-- [] Signature [] Action [9'l~ormation [-'1 File ~ ' ":~"':":.'- ?' · '"' . · : -' ~>- -' "-. ':.' ~. ;.'-'~-~7"'-" ~.~ -" . ~ ~. ~- ~.. ?1~ . ,, ::.,.:(~ . '~ .New:~wer Yo~ Can TrU~'r' :':.':;~':~ ~ .... ' ' "~ ~ ~"~ ': ' ' .... ' ...... ~ . ~ ~ T' ~ ~ .~ ~ · ~ . .. - .:.~, . 0 ~..,. ..... ~ ........ ~ke.~fi~,,.,C.a 9_..0I. (8o~) 3.7-05.0 Volume 16, Nm. ber 30, Wednesday, November !8, ?. 987" .. ~ - .'~ ..... ... :~ ~T-.~ ~:~ ~;'.'::7~ . . .-:.:~:. - .......... ~,.~._~___ .. -' ~ ': '" '"': '"": · .: ~" ',..~. ~':-~"',' .. ..:.' .... . ....... .... . . . '.,:~..: .-. .... ".'.:-.' ~.":i. -' ..:. ":..-'.';.. "":~..'" -". .... ' '- " " : ' .~... -" · :....:.. ' ..... ., ~. -,. ~-~:?';-~-., .~: .... :-. .... ... ~.. .. · 4 ::'~:~: :.'"'~';::3::(::~ :: ::f..:~?~.~::~.:~?~:?.~;:...?:.~..;~??:q:V::?.g~..~..~T7~?f~`?:~Z:~...~;?`?~:~:`.~.~:f~`~:`;~::.???7?~:::::~:T~:~::?:.~:~?.7~.~?:V~~.~;t.~5~::~ ,I ;:,~:':.:::'. ~: M~].~R~.*~.~.~;5:.~.~:M~:.~..~.7f?:L.~:.~`~f.~:.~:::?~;.z~:..~:..:~.(7:~:`.~:~;.:~z~~n~ anti ~:W~[s:I~ ~th a.four-~y :~:.. re~ngl.~affic.:m:~e.C~ty...: .ffi, you .,a,,e od,e,?.: '4~':~77.'::..~...:::¥..-':"~2k:;,-,* ...',:: ,..:.'-.:: r."..:~.:-.'.-..?.,.:'.:-:.;.~-~x:;.~..'.; · .:.%.... ~.: ....r ..:~ ::...;:...:; '- '.:..:::?*r'r3?.*.;f[:?'-':-:.,'~.~;~ .. ;:'d..,:.: ¢.:.:....~(z:2F:;...:~:-. '..::: '" .::.::::::..:::: ~ ..: :~'::.~:"~.?:t~?;2~':~:./::::i'; f?k';~i'~;.~ .}-::::):-: .;.>:5'~.~;.~ :...': f':'.-.:'.:{ :" ..... ; ,..: .,. ...... -.:~..~: ?.;-. ...... ' ~.'.:.:4.~::.:~..~:> ~?,...: .......... .-,::'.:..~t..-~'~:f~!~'~::...;;?.~;:~:::.:..:....:::.: ..... ..:-.....;.:.~.:.-..~::::~:~.....,.:;;.:~,~.: :-: .z'.... -.~;~:'..:;,~ : · :~ '.'.~': .:'"'~..*'~:.'. ~-'~.:.:.::'~:~¢.:--':.'.?-'z:~':-;':~'::L":;~ ~': ........ "'. -.~,: ..... ".~ · · '.i ~'~.:.Coffee.. :"at~::::~nm hall ~;~oaa :;~a.~ .~'.~a I1o ~ay~::7at~:~:~u`~::~m~:~n~u~as~:~mc~~pmen`~`:~??::.:.~ ~... . ~' ,:,:....'. ..... , .; are.~:.~t~tng ~th~n' the ~und~ies of)CSA-7!.'-,~.mde~ of ptpehne at cost of.a miliion dollars a . . -' .'.~ "-'- ,~ ~ :. ~~~ The r~nt decision of me Kern County Bold'of mile and the consm~c~ion of a new p;ant which ~ "'::' ' '~ '- Su~r~isors as pertains'to CSA:71; ~e cit~6f- i : .:~::.:j',.~:::.~..~~~~ ~ ~. will cost upw~Os, ot'anouher'35 miiiion dollars. , · . ;'~:'i'..:: ~".: 2020Eye~eeh Ba.k~fid~- ~A, :~;~-. 3h~er and Noruh of the River 5animfi0h DiS~C~"~.~: We ~e told thaf'this is more cost effec~ve ~an } ...... ~ -..~....~::c;:~;..~.~ .~.......:.:; 'rh~,.az::.;.. ;-.~. ?..'(6'"°)32 t-81 ~..., . .. , .. . :. _ ~...,~, ~:i-..~ ~. _. :.,..*c_-::- .._.~, ..,~ ~ORSD)..greafly :concems us2~' Whatfiegan'~ 'h~ng up. to a. pipeline':which is already.in the . T~'Rose~le Raa~unner& Ba~r~eldN~2s .~: ~ ~"idail~' hnd~a stu~y~p~d fSi'by [h~pro~., g~und,and~ plafit ~'~'ic~~ is alrmdv built .~s . '" -:? :}.;~:', ~.}..::~ 7o~v ~eea P~licanot~ .:.~;¢',:~.~..;. ......... problems in ~e Greenacres, Ro~dale, Rio Bravo' :.property owners.' currently being serviced~y · ~-r<: :-:;;:..' .... ~-' .... ~ea has b~n .appropriated by th~:. County, ,. NOrD know what this is going to cost you and ~' " .... ' ........ T~' ~ ~ ............... '. ~ .r~,~x.~,:.:: >:.:. 4;"; - REED,, [~bmqh~ :?~i.'4c.<: .~:,':~.:r ....... ' .... ..... ??:'~;'.,'~;.~¢:--'P,O~'REED, CoP,~h~'&:~:~.' :~?".:5 ~ .:: Tenneco Co~oration and- NORSD. intQ ~."~.~. same goes for those of you within the ..., ,: ..> ~..: D-~ ,,-c.x~, ~m~,mM~g~ , '-:~..::4 . .,:: multi-million doll~ boondoggle at ~e expense of '~ .~un~ies of CSA.-7L ~ne first phase of this '.::,:,~ ~.:( ~;':~ ~,?:JO~ SMr~, Pm~ Fromm. : '_:': '-:" us all as u~x pavers. , ~. e" ..: :..,,.... ~ ~..~:,..: project will provide csA -71 no benefit at ~I. -. ::. .... - Tenneco gets .~ek !and improved~..NORSD .v :.: This whole pta jeer demands mere public "· m~sh ~..offmd ~ ~,~g~ :~fie~ cf ~ Com~ of..:. ' fur~ers ~ek empire, and the County gets: to: .; .examination.and a fa~ public, n~ring before any '"' ..continue thek.hodge ~dge me,od of. planning ?con,acm ~e sigeed and ~epairable damage is .g~t~dJcfion ~f ~ ~mw of K~ u~ ~e -..-: which is i~ding Kern .County down ~e. path of.:~ done.~,_ h;:.~:~:';::~:-...¢, .....:::.:.:.... :~...~ :-.~: .., :-:.... ~-.: · ~ ~; ~ j~g~~.J~?,:-lg~:in ~t~ s~m'Com~f Los Angeles Coun~ urb~ ~rawl." ..:,-.-~ '" ' We appreciate mis opportunity te voice our :. ' ' ' ? . ~ S~ Of C~mi~.k. and for ~e C~mry of ~ F~e ~ ' Ne. ~68')0 ': ..... · "'. '. ...... . :'. ..... ' .......... *~'No"'one"on"the'%oard ieems':'to"c~e'abdUt~::'opinionsr ....... 5~ ................ . .................... ".' ~: : . p~suing the most cost effective way to ~ming ':.':". M~clmeland Can~ace Miilett ~ .................. ~ n~ds'of CSA-71Y~at ?6lc ~emi'{6 ~e'left ....... ~ ....... ~ ..... 2720 Ca,age B~ersfield, OFFICE MEMORANDUM KERN COUNTY [3'~ ~ ~ ! ! l "~ CITY' L,:AN.;':G[~t~:G OFF;CE ~anua~ 9, 1987 TO: Members, Intergovernmental Relations Committee FROM: R.S. Holden~,~. ~ County Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Notes from December 5, 1986 Meeting of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGRC) The IGRC of the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern met on December 5, 1986 at the Red Lion Inn. The purpose of this memorandum is to make note of the topics that were discussed during this meeting. City and County representatives present were as follows: City Representatives: Councilman Chris Christensen, Councilmen Rollie Moore, Councilwoman Pat Smith, Mr. Dennis Franey, Mr. Richard Oberholzer, Mr. George Caravalho, Mr. Ken Pulskamp, Mr. Dale Hawley, and Ms. Mary Strenn. County Representatives: Supervisor Mary Shell, Supervisor Pauline Larwood, Mr. Dale Mills, Dr. Leon Hebertson, Mr. Tom Clow, Mr. Randy Abbott, Mr. Geary Taylor, and Mr. R.S. Holden. The topics discussed during the December 5, 1986 meeting are summarized as follows: Economic Development Economic development was proposed as a topic of discussion by the City. Mr. George Caravalho outlined a series of recent meetings which involved the private Economic Development Corporation (EDC), often represented by Mr. Jerry Stanners or by Mr. Bill Balch. Mr. Caravalho indicated that the private effort had gotten under way by a presentation to the IGRC and that with the passage of time and events, the effort had become involved in an impasse between the EDC and the Board of Trade. Mr. Caravalho explained that he had recently reinvited the County Administrative Officer to attend a session of the EDC's Steering committee and, as a result, that the effort had been made to brief the individual Board of Supervisors members as to the reasons for the impasse. Members, IGRC January 9, 1987 Page 2 Supervisor Larwood corrected Mr. Caravalho by indicating that the EDC's efforts were never formally brought before the IGRC. Instead, the proposal for this public/private partnership was brought to an ad hoc committee which included the IGRC members as well as representation from the private sector. Supervisor Larwood continued that a series of legal questions had surfaced when the proposal for combining the efforts of the private EDC with the Board of Trade climaxed in August of 1986. Meetings have now been held with County Counsel, Mr. Bernie Barmann, and there have been discussions with Messrs. Stanners and Balch and other members of the EDC in an effort to determine whether the impasse could be broken. A meeting was to be held the following Wednesday, December 10,'1986 between representatives the Board of Trade and the EDC to attempt to break the impasse. Supervisor Shell indicated that the ball was now in the EDC's court. If a proposal can be agreed upon it should be brought to the Board of Trade or to the Board of Supervisors. Rats The City offered the problem constituted by rats as a topic of discussion. Councilman Christensen indicated that he had received a number of complaints regarding rats. He had contacted Mr. Siddes, of the County Environmental Health Division, who indicated that the rats are not respectful of economic position. They infest many relatively wealthy areas. Both roof rats and sewer rats, for example, like to live in ivy as .well as in debris.' Dr. Hebertson indicated that the'roof rat constitUtes a nuisance instead of a Public Health problem. The roof rats do, however, carry a troublesome mite. The roof rats typically inhabit established neighborhoods where the landscaping has been in for ten or more years. About 1,000 complaints a year are received on a County-wide basis. Dr. Hebertson indicated that there is a reluctance to pursue legal abatement of rats. Abatement programs are expensive and people are not enthusiastic when such expense is involved. He indicated that the best plan was to respond to homeowner and individual concerns. This constitutes a public information program which dictates the elimination of vegetation and trash. Dr. Hebertson suggested that all calls concerning rats be referred to the County Health Department. Members, IGRC January 9, .1987 Page 3 County's Air Pollution Non-Attainment Plan The County's Air Pollution Non-Attainment Plan was a topic the County offered for discussion. The City of Bakersfield had expressed concerns through a Council Resolution and other communications relative to the status of the County's Air Pollution Program. This prompted reciprocal concern by the County and the topic was offered for discussion. Supervisor Shell began by indicating that Supervisor Larwood is the Chairman of the nine Counties addressing air pollution problems under the San Joaquin Valley Supervisors Association. Supervisor Shell continued that there are two air sheds. There is a valley portion West of I-5 and a central portion East of I-5. Supervisor Shell continued that up through the end of September there was only one exceedance in meeting ozone standards. This particular exceedance was .14 parts per million where the exceedance standards is .12 parts per million. There have been measurements and tests of hydrocarbon emissions on the valley side by Shell Oil at its Belridge facility. A 99% reduction in such is anticipated and CARB has decided its original position was unreasonable. There will be a public hearing on West Side Hydrocarbon emissions. There will be County hearings in March to consider nox control. Particulates are high in the valley because of agricultural production and are hard to control. Supervisor Shell held up a seven county chart which showed Kern County had the lowest air pollution in 1985 with the .12 parts per million. Supervisor Larwood then spoke of the nine County's efforts under the San Joaquin Valley Supervisors Association. She indicated that the Valley Counties are in the San Joaquin Valley Basin Wide Control Council. She compared the valley to a bathtub surrounded by mountains. The valley Counties need to be together on air pollution issues. Supervisor Larwood continued that Kern County has had a non-attainment plan for a number of years. She covered the status of attainment of various pollutants by source. She indicated that an air modeling study is needed if the Air Resources Board is to back off even slightly. Members, IGRC January 9,1987 Page 4 Supervisor Larwood indicated that the Counties will support a valley wide study. The study will require five years. The study is crucial to knowledge of which offsets maybe used. For example, steam for Kern County needs to be offset somewhere else and there is a need to demonstrate the offsets. The air modeling is needed to show what pollutants come down the Valley from north of Kern County. Mrs. Larwood concluded that a coalition of Valley Counties is needed and that this coalition must be kept together. Councilman M~ore asked which of the five pollutant sources cause 25% of crop damage and affect children. Dr. Hebertson indicated he does not agree with 25% crop damage statistic and indicated that the exceedances experienced in Kern County does not support 25% of the damage. Dr. Hebertson continued that .2 of ozone causes effects on health but that this is an overstated problem. The Doctor indicated his concern that the mindless approach to reducing air pollution will reduce industrial production. The upwind problem needs to be resolved. We need to know more about causes and this relates to the need for the Air ~odeling Study Supervisor Shell asked for City of Bakersfield help to get funds for the Air Modeling Study. She also suggested communication with other governmental agencies to gain funding for the Study. The significant needis to assure that an accurate diagnosis of the causes of air pollution is made. Mr. Caravalho asked, if Kern County is so good relative to air pollution in comparison with other Counties, why is the County in an argument with the State of California? Supervisor Larwood responded that Kern County went non-attainment in 1977 but filed an attainment plan which predicted attainment in the future. Dr. Hebertson indicated that this was a poor policy decision in the 1970's and that it set a course on which the County would have been better off not to try to achieve attainment. Mr. Caravalho indicated that Councilman Ratty is the City's spokesman with respect to air pollution control. The matter has been brought to the San Joaquin section of the League of California Cities, the cities within.Kern County as well as Members, IGRC January 9, 1987 Page 5 the Board of Supervisors. The circumstances are looking better but are very complex. Air modeling is a difficult political process which needs to be put together for implementation. City of Bakersfield General Plan The City General Plan was a topic of discussion proposed by the County. Mr. Abbott began by indicating that there were questions that surfaced as a result of Mary Strenn's recent presentation to the Board of Supervisors on the city's General Plan. The~County staff received questions as to how County constituents will be affected by the plan. There is some historical correspondence that relates to the City's General Plan effort and the basic concerns relate how to coordinate the effort between the interest of the City and the County and the constituents of both agencies. Supervisor Larwood indicated that she had received calls from County residents who were interested in knowing how to get on the City advisory committee. Most of these inquiries came from the Oildale and Olive Drive areas of the County. Mary Strenn indicated that there had been a series of community meetings that occured without regard to the jurisdiction in which the attendees lived. The effort was to look at the continuum of how plans were adopted whether year 2000 General Plan, the Kern River Plan, etc. Ms. Strenn indicated that the City is willing to sit down to discuss these matters. Supervisor Larwood indicated that~ only two County people are on the City Advisory Committee. Ms. Strenn indicated that she thought about 20% of the membership of thi~ committee were County residents. She indicated her intention to check out the membership and further indicated that the membership of the advisory committee can be opened. The City's desire is to adopt a plan that will cover the entire metropolitan area. Supervisor Larwood indicated that this goal can Only be achieved with more County input. Supervisor Shell suggested that the County Supervisors name some County representatives to the advisory, committee. Mr. Abbott indicated that the coordination and informational exchange is essential in deciding the issues on adopting a General Plan and then, subsequently, enforcing the plan. Is the plan going to consist of an overlay of jurisdictions or will it be a truly metropolitan plan? There is a great 'need to be able to answer constituents questions. Members, IGRC January 9, .1987 Page 6 Ms. Strenn indicated that there is a need to answer points of dissidence and to include County residents in the planning process. Councilman Christensen vouched for Supervisor Larwood's expression of concerns expressed.among Oildale residents concerning the City's General Plan. Supervisor Larwood indicated that there is a need for a joint City-County process to provide continuity and coordination relative to that which the people want and then to jointly proceed with the planning effort. Supervisor Larwood made the key point that there is a great need to be involved as well as informed. Mary Strenn responded that the constituents want the City and the County to do things together that make sense. Mr. Caravalho indicated the intention to spread information more liberally relative to the City General Plan process. Feritage Park-Juvenile Justice Facility The Heritage Park-Juvenile Justice Facility topic was offered for discussion by the County. This discussion began with the distribution by the County Administrative Officer of a chronology of events which began in July~of 1982 and concluded in July 1986 relative to the decision to place the new Juvenile Justice Facility in a portion of Heritage Park. It was further explained that City Manager Caravalho had written a letter recently which expressed concern relative to the loss of five acres in Heritage Park to the Juvenile~ Justice Facility. Counterpart concerns existed that delay in proceeding with the project, because of the Certificates of Participation~ financing of the project, could yield the loss of the total project. Therefore, the discussion relative to the facility's impact on Heritage Park was of great importance. Mr. Abbott explained that there would be a long public hearing on December 15, 1986 at which time the Board of Supervisors would consider the Probation Department's request for a General Plan ~mendment and Conditional Use Permit concerning the inclusion of the Juvenile Justice Facility in a portion of Heritage Park. Mr. Caravalho expressed appreciation for the chronology of events relative to the Juvenile Justice Facility project and indicated that the City had received a number of inquiries about the County plans for parks in the Northeast portion of the metropolitan area. Mr. Caravalho continued that both Members, IGRC January 9, 1987 Page 7 City and County parks officials are concerned and interested. He then inquired as to whether there was an opportunity for the City and County officials could meet prior to the scheduled December 15, 1986 public hearing. Mr. Caravalho also asked for information concerning the development of Panorama Park. The decision made was that Mr. Caravalho and the County Administrative Officer should coordinate a meeting relative to the Heritage Park matter. The basic concern would be to provide for mitigation alternatives concerning the taking of about five acres of Heritage Park. This covers the notes I made during the December 5, 1986 meeting of the Inter-Governmental Relations Committee. The next meeting of the IGRC was set for January 16, 1987. The City of Bakersfield will serve as host for .the January meeting. RSH/ka/karshigrc cc: Dale Mills, Public Works Dr. Hebertson, Public Health Department Mr. Clow, County Counsel Mr. Abbott, Planning Department Mr. Taylor, General Services Mr. Caravalho, City Manager Mary Weddell, Senior Deputy CAO Sharon Clark, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors