The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/07/1992 BAKERSFIELD Conni Brunni, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia Smith Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITYEE Wednesday, October 7, 1992 12:00 Noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. West Rosedale Specific Plan Update (Jack Hardisty) 2. Texaco Annexation Update (Jack Hardisty) 3. Fair Housing (Jake Wager) 4. Booking Fees (John Stinson / Bob Patterson) 5. Set Next Meeting RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY JOEL HI:INRICHS DIRECTOR Plam~:j & Dev~mm~,., .~., Deuarm~,n, c _ _~t~ C~trol ~ J. RO~Y. -CITY OF BAKERS~ M~A~ ~ ~. ~S. D~OR P~NNING DEPARTMENT DE OPM SER CES ~p~ember 25, 1992 File: Wes[eru Ro~dale Specific P~u ADDRESSEES: Re: Progress Report on the We~stern Rosedale Specific Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: The Department of Planning and Development Services wishes .to thank you for your interest in the ongoing planning program fOr the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. This letter is intended to let you know what has taken place in the recent past as well as coming events for the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. The planning program for western Rosedale has suffered a recent setback. The planning consultant that was to have prepared the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was unable to complete the work with the funds that were available. Therefore, it was necessary for the Kern County Board of Supervisors to terminate the contract of the planning consultant on ~ptemuer 21, 1992. We expect to have a new consultant under contract and on. the job in eight weeks or less. The new consultant's principal duty under the new contract will be to prepare an EIR for the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. As was noted in our May 12, 1992, public workshop, Staff completed the text of the Specific Plan, including goals, policies, and methods of implementing the policies. The consultant that. is chosen to do the EIR will use Staff's Plan text and the Broad Urbanization Land Use Plan (shown at several.past workshops) as the basis for the analysis that they do for the EIR. It was also noted at the May 12, 1992, workshop that there will be one or more public workshops held during the environmental review process for the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. We do not yet know the actual start date of the EIR. Therefore, we have not yet scheduled Public workshops' involving the' EIR. However, you will be notified in advance of any public workshops. Something else, that may be of interest to you is that the Board of Supervisors approved the convening of a citizens' Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. The Board approved that action on June 15, 1992, in response to requests from Rosedale area residents. The Board appointed the present members of the San Emidio New Town Citizens' PAC to consider the Western Rosedale Specific Plan upon completion of their duties on the San Emidio project. We expect the committee's new duties to begin in the next few months. The PAC, after reviewing the Plan and the EIR during its preparation, will make 2700 "M" STRFFT, SUITE 100 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) '861-2615 a recommendation to the Board of'Supervisors as to how the Board should proceed. The format of the workshops and/or PAC hearings has .not been decided upon yet. Another action taken by the Board on .June 15, 1992, was to appoint a Trails Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to focus on multi-use tm/is in the Plan area.. The TAC is composed- of a nUmber of 'concerned citizens as well as representatives of the City of Bakersfield and the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. The TAC has several subcommittees that are investigating such things as identifying potential' routes, standards, and methods of financing the trails. The work of the TAC is ongoing, but will be completed prior to the completion of the Final EIR. We feel that the most exciting time in the planning program is yet to come and that staying involved will 'be in your interest. Feel free to contact Steve Strait at (805) 861-2615 if you have questions about the planning program for the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. Very truly yours, TED JAMES,' AICP, Director Planning and Development Services , By Steve Strait Associate Planner pap Western Rosedale Specific Plan September 25, 1992 Page 2 MEMORANDUM October 7, 1992' TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ FROM: JAKE WAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECT SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS REQUEST TO MODIFY FAIR HOUSING M.O.U. LANGUAGE On September 30, 1992, the Association of Real'tors forwarded a ~etter to the City Council asking for a slight modification to language contained in the Amendment to the Fair Housing M.O.U. I have had the opportunity to review the proposals with Bill Mungary, Kern County Director of Community Development and Monte Hopper, Kern County Director of Weights & Measures. In discussing the Association of Realtors proposal we see no difficulty in incorporating their suggested language. Stylistically we are recommending that we substitute the language "...as well as ..." with" ...; and those concerning ..." Thus, the paragraph would read as follows: "However, recognizing that staff time and resources are inevitably limited, priority shall be given to activities that are preventative in nature such as education and outreach efforts; and those concerning the taking, investigation and mediation of potential and actual discrimination complaints; and maintaining the necessary number of qualified testers to utilize the testing process as provided in the services below." This morning I also relayed this proposed modification to Bob Devereux, the Association's Government Relations Representative. cc: Bill Mungary, Director Kern County Community Development Monte Hopper, Kern County Director of Weights and Measures 6faichsg. mm/mb Period / Amount BUDGETED MONTH ACTUAL Agreement 88-267 dated 10/26/88 $ 4,791.67 July 1989 $ 8,257.00 12 months for maximum $115,000 · City 50% - $57,500 $ 4,79!.67 August 1989 $1,517.00 County 50% - $57,500 $ 4,791.67 September 1989 $ 4,043.00 $ 4,791.67 October 31, 1989 $ 5,238.00 TOTAL $57,500.00 $19,167.00 $19,048.00 Amendment #1 $ 5,156.70 November 1, 1989 $ 4,802.00 Agreement 88-267 dated 10/31/89 6 month extension for maximum ~ $61,880 City 50% - $30,940 $ 5,156.70 December 1989 $ 4,265.00 County 50% - $30,940 $ 5,156.70 January 1990 $ 4,461.00 $ 5,156.70 February 1990 $ 4,269.00 $ 5,156.70 March 1990 $ 5,119.00 $ 5,156.70 April 30, 1990 $ 4,811.00 TOTAL $30,940.00 $27,727.00 (90% of Budget) Amendment #2 $ 5;156.70 May 1, 1990 $ 4,308.00 Agreement 88-267 dated 4/18/90 6 month extension for maximum $61,880 City 50% - $30,940 $ 5,156.70 June 1990 $ 5,525.00 County 50% - 30,940 $ 5,156.70 July 1990 " $ 4,420.00 $ 5,156.70 August 1990 $ 4,611.00 $ 5,156.70 September 1990 $ 5,955.00 J ~ $ 5,156.70 October 31, 1990 $ 4,630.00 TOTAL $30,940.00 $29,449.00 (95% of Budget) 1 Amendment #3 $ 5,416.67 November 1, 1990 $ 5,532.00 Agreement 88-267 dated 10/30/90 6 month extension for maximum $65,000 City 50% - 32,500 $ 5,416.67 December 1990 $ 4,205.00 County 50% - $32,500 $ 5,416.67 January. 1991 $ 5,150.00 $ 5,416.67 February 1991 $ 4,630.00 $ 5,416.67 March 1991 $ 5,827.00 $ 5,416.67 April 30, 1991 $ 5,343.00 TOTAL $32,500.00 ~- $30,687.00 (94% of Budge0 Amendmem g4 $ 5,416.47 May 1, 1991 $ 5',847.00 Agreemem 88-267 dated 4/24/91 6 month extension for maximum $65,000 City 50% - $32,500 $ 5,416.67 June 1991 $ 5,306.00 County 50% - $32,500 $ 5,416.67 July 1991 $ 4,721.00 $ 5,416.67 August 1991 $ 5,030.00 $ 5,416.67 September 1991 $ 5,008.00 $ 5,416.67 October 31, 1991 $ 5,196.00 TOTAL $32,500.00 $31,108.00 (96% of Budget) Amendmem #5 $ 5,500.00 November 1, 1991 $ 4,886.00 Agreemem 88-267 dated 10/29/91 1~4 month extension for maximum $16,500 City 50% - $8,250. $ 2,750.00 December 15, 1991 $ 5,804.00 County 50% - $8,250 TOTAL $ 8,250.00 $ 7,788.00 (94% of Budget) Agreement 91-254 dated 12/4/91 $ 3,000.00 December 16, 1991 $ 2,902.00 9½.months for maximum $114,000 City 50% - $57,000 $ 6,000.00 January 1992 $ 5,308.00 County 50% - $57,000 $ 6,000.00 February 1992 $ 4,836.00 $ 6,000.00 March 1992 $ 5,434.00 $ 6,000.00 April' 1992 $ 5,845.00 $ 6,000.00 May 1992 $ 5,533.00 $ 6,000.00 June 1992 $ 2,417.00 $ 6,000.00 July 1992 $ 3,950.00 $ 6,000.00 August 1992 $ $ 6,000.00 September 30, 1'992 $ TOTAL $57,000.00 $ Proposed Amendment No. 1 to $ 5,937.54 October 1, 1992 Agreement 91-254 tentative for October 1992. * 12 months for maximum $142,501 $ 5,937.54 November 1992 City 50% - $71,250.50 $ 5,937,54 December 1992 County 50% - $71,250.50 $ 5,937.54 January 1993 $ 5,937.54 February 1993 $ 5,937.54 March 1993 · Pending Council approval. $ 5,937.54 April 1993 $ 5,937.54 May 1993 $ 5,937.54 June i993 $ 5,937.54 July 1993 $ 5,937.54 August 1993 $ 5,937.54 September 30, 1993 TOTAL $71,250.50 3